Hydraulic Clutch Conversion, Bellhousing Strength

Hello all, while I have my 73 CJ5 torn down, I am also doing some upgrades. One is the clutch system. I have the V8 (360 actually) so I ordered the slave cylinder for a 81-83 CJ5 where they changed over to the hydraulic system. Is any one aware of any issues with breakage or cracks where that slave cylinder bolts on? The aluminum looks fairly thick but if they (AMC) later found issues with that area, I would devise some sort of reinforcement for that while I have it out on the bench and it's easy to get to. I ordered the Dorman CS11956 and it was a direct bolt-on to the bottom two holes on the bellhousing, drivers side. Hopefully you can see the photos. Thanks.

 

Never had a problem in 10 year of abuse

 

At least you have a place to bolt it to, I had to buy the AA bracket and a early LC slave to convert mine over to hyd clutch. Not installed yet.

 

JMO - with the use your Jeep will get (based on your comment in another thread), I would put a hydraulic clutch low on the priority list. The bell crank works well except when you have one front wheel stuffed and the other hanging. My feeling is that the hydraulic system is a liability in terms of durability and reliability, compared to the factory bell crank. A hydraulic clutch conversion should not make any difference in performance for the use you propose. Use the factory 10.5" clutch that they supplied with the 258 and 304, and your clutch effort will be really easy. This clutch set will bolt up to your 360 flywheel.

 

Yea I wouldn't have given it a second thought but a previous owner tried to make it work easier and it was made up from a bunch of homemade parts. He said he had a lot of trouble with it. Most of the bellcrank assembly would have to be replaced anyway, it was really worn. If the hydro clutch is a dud, I can always go back to the bellcrank setup. Thanks for the advice.

Do you know offhand if the clutch covers are the same between the 10.5 and 11 inch are the same? I assume so from your above comment regarding the clutch size. I currently have an 11 inch clutch. I measured the holes across the clutch cover and they are exactly 12 inches, to the outside of the holes. There aren't any other holes on my flywheel except for ones father apart than 12 inches. They must have been for a torque converter to bolt to. This engine came out of Wagoneer. I would prefer to get a 10.5 inch clutch, it seems that the selection is better.

 

They are different. However, the flywheels should accommodate either. Dunno, maybe I'm wrong, and only the 304 flywheels fit both diameters. I know you can upgrade a 304 to the 11" clutch from the 360, but maybe not vice-versa. Or perhaps the aftermarket flywheels don't fit 10.5". What's the PN on your flywheel?

The 11" clutch for the 360/401 is typically a Borg&Beck type, and requires a heavier foot than the 10.5" clutch used in the CJ. The Wagoner and J-truck clutch linkage is proportionally heavier, with 7/16" rods instead of 3/8".

 

My hydraulic clutch bracket bolts thru the bell housing AND the rear of the engine. That makes it all much stronger than just bolting thru an eat/tab on the bell.

 

You wouldn't happen to have a cover from a 10.5 inch clutch laying around to measure the distance across the holes?
If you don't, I will post the question out on the tech section. Surely someone has an old laying around to measure. Would like to confirm before I buy a new clutch. I had hoped to get a diaphragm style instead of B&B to make it easier to push, I'm getting old, ha ha.

 

Not me - looks like you're going to get a response in your other post.

No problem with that - IMO there's no need for the heavier clutch in a light vehicle like a CJ, unless you want to do burnouts all the time. Apparently that was Jeep's thinking too.