Bad Knee + T18= ouch. Hydraulic any help?

I have a 1973 cj5 with the stock clutch linkage working a swapped T18 with a 3 finger pressure plate.

I have a bad left knee. I've considered swapping a automatic into it but at the stock wb that's pretty tight fit plus tons of cash.

Will a hydraulic conversion help me out at all? I drive a 6 speed manual daily in a little focus I have and I can live with it. It has a hydraulic clutch and doesn't bother me.

My jeeps leaves me limping.

Help a guy out here.

 

i did the hydro set-up swap 4 year ago, i wont ever come back to mechanichal linkage.

I use slave and master from a jeep cj 1980-84 with the 4 cylinder. Way smoother than mechanical.

 

I'm not sure if I understand the last post.

 

I don't have a manual linkage to compare it to but I have had others tell me that my hydro set feels lighter than the mechanical one they have. I also am using all stock components from an 80-84 4cyl CJ on my T18.

 

I have a hyd in my CJ and its easier than a mechanical, but having a bad left knee myself, im still sore some days.

these aren't car clutches... still takes some umph to move in and out..

 

I think Howard was suggesting some type of servo-controlled clutch, rather than the foot operated clutch. JMO - it's an interesting concept, but compared to an automatic swap you'd be way off into R&D land. Not what you asked for.

I think the hydro clutch has to be less effort because of the friction you must overcome for a mechanical setup. How much less effort that is, I don't know. I would say the main factor would be the clutch plate though. A diaphragm clutch would be easier to operate, rather than the 3-finger (Borg & Beck) style.

I suspect you can also adjust the mechanical advantage to make the clutch easier to operate. The linkage is designed to work for a long time without adjustment. The travel of the release rod is longer than it needs to be, if you adjusted it frequently. For more advantage with a mechanical clutch, you make the arm of the pedal-side of the bellcrank longer, or you make the release rod side shorter. With a hydraulic clutch, you have to change the ratio of piston sizes, or move the master up or down on the clutch pedal arm.

Well, let me suggest you consider a (ahem) CJ-7 or YJ with an automatic? 10" longer wheelbase, but factory equipped with an automatic.

 

Vacuum booster for hydraulic clutch master?! Like for brakes but smaller? R&D but?

 

For right now this is just a get me buy deal. When I section it and make a cj6 out of it i will go with a decent automatic

 

I am running the advanced adaptor chain linkage on my flatfender. It takes a lot less pressure than the original linkage to activate. Not sure if it is available for the CJ5 but it isn't expensive or hard to install. Might work for you.
Edit: This is the part I was thinking of.
http://www.advanceadapters.com/products/716640--jeep-1941-71-chain-control-assembly/
They only list it as working with 41-71's. I sent them an email asking if it could be made to work on a 73. I will let you know if I hear back from them.

 

Not meant for the suspended pedals that are used 1972-on.

 

If my left foot/leg have problems, and will be one day, I'll change for automatic transmission on a Jeep.
No pedal at all.
I have a Tiptronic on my Audi, it is pleasure.
Of course, it won't be the Jeep of my young period. This is the choice.

 

That explains it. Thanks.

 

I'm not looking for a free lunch. Really anything that helps cut down the stress the knee takes will do the job.

 

I think Howard means "free lunch" only in a figurative sense. You have to put in a certain amount of work to compress the clutch cover, regardless of what leverage you use to move it. You can put in the same work over more time or distance, but force times distance equals work. More distance, less force, same amount of work.

Conventional wisdom says that a diaphragm clutch is less work than a Borg & Beck, so that's one option. Hydraulic will make less friction so that means less work needed. Or you can change the mechanical advantage and move the pedal further with less force. That's about it.

 

[QUOTE="fesser, post:
http://www.advanceadapters.com/products/716640--jeep-1941-71-chain-control-assembly/
They only list it as working with 41-71's. I sent them an email asking if it could be made to work on a 73. I will let you know if I hear back from them.[/QUOTE]
Got an email from Advance Adaptors. They now make a kit for the intermediates and up.
http://www.advanceadapters.com/products/716639--jeep-clutch-control-system/
A little pricey but I may go for it. I really like what the chain system did for my flatty.

 

The main problem with the bell crank (other than being hard to push if you have a bum knee) is that frame twist will disable your clutch. If you stuff the right front (?) wheel and leave the left hanging, the bend of the frame moves the bell crank away from the bell housing, and the clutch pedal no longer works. Not really a problem in low range 1st gear (just start in gear), but annoying. The chain might help with that.

An easy upgrade is to substitute Heim joints for the weak factory ball joints on the linkage. The ball joint on the release arm will wear out, and the release rod will fall off. If you don't use Heim joints, make a tether to the release rod so that you won't lose it if the ball joint fails.

 

mostly true, but there are instances that you describe (off-road, twisted) where one might need to shift into reverse because going forward is no longer an option. the twisted frame/bellcrank prevents that from being accomplished (driveline bind/torque makes the transmission stuck in gear, and without releasing the pressure [via declutch], you are stuck in first with nowhere to go). i've been there, which is one of the reasons (not the only one) i switched to the hydraulic setup. i know it's a rare thing to happen, but it can. i agree that the chain would probably help with that. i know the hydraulic does.



to the OP, i'm not sure there's much difference in "leg fatigue/pressure" with the hydraulic vs mech linkage. the hydraulic is smoother, though.

 

FWIW, I had a car transmission behind my V-6 back in high school, and the bell housing we used to make it work had the pivot over on the passenger's side of the bell housing giving the actuation a 2:1 ratio (as opposed to the pivot on the driver's side being a 1:1 ratio). We had to use a cable to re-route the actuation to come in from the front, but the end result was twice the pedal engagement, but half the force.

Another end with a similar result would be to alter the ratio of your existing linkage to give you more pedal travel through the range of engagement.