Pirate 4x4 banner

5.0 to NP435, internal slave?

5K views 26 replies 10 participants last post by  wyldstallyn73 
#1 ·
Is there such a thing as internal clutch for this? The external one is taking up a lot of room I really need...
 
#2 ·
i can't remember, but the t5 use and internal slave, but i'm unsure if they use a removable bellhousing, and if it fits the pattern on the 435, but that pattern is a common pattern though.
 
#5 ·
possible, you might be able to use one for a mazda tranny, or a ZF as well.... but I would really reconcider if I was you, internal slaves are jjjuuuunnnnnnnnnkkkkk...
 
#8 ·
I agree, the ZF is bad ass(i've owned several) but what does the non removable bellhousing have to do with the question at hand?
 
#11 ·
Internal slaves are the least desireable because you have to pull the tranny or engine to get to them when something goes wrong. My first choice would be a mechanical linkage, then external hydro, then internal as a last resort-- which is what I HAD to do. I used a Howe (stock car racing) slave and a Willwood 3/4 master. Had to have my front input retainer machined down for the Howe unit to fit (I assume that due to it being for stock car racing, it's probably chevy tranny specific)
 
#13 ·
Jrod, i was thinking that he was wanting to keep the 435 and thus needing a new bellhousing for the internal slave (i could be wrong as i haven't really played with them so i don't know if the bellhousing are specific to the internal slave or not), but whatever.

Diddo on the mechanical, much simpler, easier to adjust and no fluid to worry about.
 
#14 ·
Ford t5s did not use an internal slave, they used a pull-type clutch fork. as for an internal slave, the ZF and M5R2 slave cylinders will not fit fork type transmissions. The snout for the throwout bearing is in the way. You could machine it to a flat plate and then put the ZF T/O on there.

McCloud TOs are expensive as hell btw. I would fabricate an external hydraulic cylinder to the clutch fork rather than go through all the work of adapting something to your 435.

Mechanicals aer cool until you have to deal with the engine torquing to the side or body flex, then they tend to be unpredictable in my experience. I personally prefer hydraulic and have both types (ZF internal and T18 external).
 
#17 ·
the above mentioned stuff about having to pull the tranny for any work is the reason i HATE internal slaves, however, I would also never use a mechanical setup(owned them, dirven them, didn;t like them) My F-250(300/zf) had a internal slave, and I got lucky with it, no problems, same with my BII(R2) and exploder(R1) however, I have one buddy with a R2, that has put in 3 slaves, and another with a ZF that put is on slave #4, both in DD's, that alone is enough for me to stay away from them...

The 435 in my wheeler, and the ZF in my DD both have external slaves, and I wouldn't have i any other way...
 
#18 ·
Forgot to mention that my internal Howe setup is adjusted with shims that are obviously inside the bell also- not bad to setup, but as the friction plate wears down, you need to REMOVE shims or the throwout bearing will put constant force on the pressure plate= slipping clutch. Sucks in theory, but it seems as if I always have the bitch torn apart for some reason from time to time, so I check it then. Seems as if I have plenty of travel, so next time I have it split for whatever reason, I will take out an extra shim and see how that works out.
 
#21 ·
possible yes...but why?

Extenal hydrolic is the way to go IMO. And I have owned all three (external hydro, internal hydro and mech.)

I hate mechanical linkage, as the body moves I've had a real hard time getting the clutch to engage or dis engage. The cable would correct this, but why put that work into an alredy working and pretty dependable system?
 
#22 ·
FYI,83-86 f150 with the 300 six and 4spd has the external slave on a removable bell that will bolt to the np435 :D
maybe a few other years and combo's as well :)
 
#23 ·
If you guys are getting enough body/frame flex to fawk with the mechanical linkage then you must have some bigger issues at hand, as we have a number of 4 sp early 80's ford (most 4wd) with the swiss cheese frame, and as anyone that has any experience with those truck then you know the amount of flex they have, that said we have never had any issues with the linkage not engaging/dissengaging, as if the setup is working there is way more than sufficient movevement and flex in the linkage to allow for the flex, hell there isn't even a bolted connection between the clutch fork and the pedal, its just essientally a pointed bolt thats allowed to turn and pivot on the clutch fork, then on theres the ball/socket joint that the linkage that transfers the direction of the pedal force pivots one, as said we've never had any trouble with the setup other than the return spring breaking off and the bolt that pushes on the clutch fork dropped off (spring rusted out is what happened).
 
#26 ·
If you guys are getting enough body/frame flex to fawk with the mechanical linkage then you must have some bigger issues at hand, as we have a number of 4 sp early 80's ford (most 4wd) with the swiss cheese frame, and as anyone that has any experience with those truck then you know the amount of flex they have,
I probaly did. I dont drive decent vehicles on the trail. Find a 500 dollar beater, weld the diffs, chop the fenders, kill it, repeat.

Oh and "holy mother of a run-on batman". :flipoff2:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top