Z-bar vs. Internal Hyd. Clutch

[1970gm4x4]

I have a 1970 I'm putting a 96' nv4500 the tranny has the internal release design my truck has the mechanical design. Onw has to be converted an 86' master cylinder is $40. An adapter bellhousing to mechanical linkage is $375. What are the pros and cons of each? Thanks
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device

[longbed67]

Mechanical is easier to setup, but if the tranny/bellhousing is already setup for hydraulic it takes up less overall space in an already tight area.wilwood also makes a hydraulic setup that would mount inside the cab

[1970gm4x4]

Originally Posted by longbed67

Mechanical is easier to setup, but if the tranny/bellhousing is already setup for hydraulic it takes up less overall space in an already tight area.wilwood also makes a hydraulic setup that would mount inside the cab

What about reliablility?

[longbed67]

six of one, a half a dozen of another.... grease the z-bar or top off the fluid

[PanelDeland]

Better idea.Convert the Z-bar to actuate the clutch master cylinder.You would probably have to build custom brackets to make it work/fit.I saw one done by a member here,but I don't remember who.It worked well.IIRC he built bracket to hold the CMC and the movement was equal to the stroke needed.The Hyd. lines had to be shortened.

[1970gm4x4]

Well i can drill a couple holes through the firewall and put a master cylinder from an 87 chevy. Should be easier then hooking one up under the truck attached to the z-bar.

[SS Tim]

I think there is some misunderstanding here. If you are bolting up a Chevy spec. NV4500 trans. with the hydraulic throwout and bell housing then a lot of things change under your truck if is an original manual trans. vehicle. As the stock manual trans. installation uses a cross member and mounts to support the trans. bell housing this will need to be removed or modified for clearance and a rear auto. trans. style cross member/mount adapted. At this point the stock linkage become decoration. The expensive mechanical clutch adapter uses the stock existing 67-72 bell housing, linkage and forward trans. mounts. It also uses a longer stick-out Dodge spec. trans. to allow for the adapter thicknes. In that installation a rear mount is not used nor the NV4500 hydraulic bell housing. Now I am pretty sure I am very close on this as I first started looking into this when AA started doing the NV4500 adapters about '97 for my then '72 C30/427/NV4500 project. Corrections are welcomed.

[SS Tim]

OK.. there is apparently also a replacement mechanical clutch bellhousing kit offered by AA. It appears to mount like the later or automatic trans. do with a rear mount. So I'd say the existing manual cross member would have to come out. In the great hydraluic vs mechanical debate the mechanical is less likely to leave you stranded by such fun things a leaking line or cylinder. Internal cylinder leaks do happen just like a master cylinder. You know, gee it was working last night. A mechanical can often be rigged if needed to get you home or to work.

[1970gm4x4]

Yeah i saw a swap thread where the guy converted to the nv4500 with the hydaulic internal slave, and used the original sm465/205 crossmember, he also used an AA adapter from the nv4500 to the 205, which has a mount built into it, and made a little plate so he didn't even move the crossmember from its stock location. My plan is to use the nv4500 with the either ctock sm465 mechanical setup along with the AA adapterbellhousing, or convert to the hydraulic master cylinder to use the stuff already part of the transmission. I already have the 205 part figured out, i'm going with the round style 205 and switching it to a short 32-splind input, so it will bolt right tup, then i can figure out how to mount it.

Just want to know whether people recommend the mechanical vs the internal hydraulic, thanks for the comments so far.