Paul J Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 I have seen some conflicting thread pics of clutch slave cylinder mountings, some with the cyl flange in front of the mounting plate and some behind. I mounted mine in front, my thinking was that all loading is pushing on the plate, if mounted behind the load is on the nuts. As to the workability of the cylinder I suppose it doesn't matter, does anyone have any other ideas of the preferred position. Paul Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) Hi Paul, This Moss WebCat shows the cylinder at the front of the attachment plate. I'm sure this is the same as mine. http://www.moss-europe.co.uk/shop-by-model/triumph/tr2-4a/clutch-transmission-drivetrain/clutch-systems/girling-clutch-hydraulics-tr4-4a.html If you fit it the other way then the push rod may have issues. Roger Edited February 12, 2017 by RogerH Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Mine is front of car side of the plate. Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Richardtr3a Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Why would it make a difference? In one position the pushrod is adjusted to be shorter than the other. It is still moving the same distance. What do you think? Richard & H. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paul J Posted February 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 I can't see that it really matters, I did shorten my push rod to allow a better set up when fitting it to the front of the plate, seems to work ok so will leave alone, have also fitted a return spring. As you pointed out Roger the Moss catalogue picture shows the cyl flange behind the plate, then Buckeyes set up is in front as mine. Not sure if the link will work. Paul http://www.buckeyetriumphs.org/technical/clutch/ReleaseBearing/ReleaseBearingWoes.htm Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Hi Paul, I think you may have your front/behind about face. The Moss picture shows the cylinder in the front (nearer the front of the car). As mentioned it doesn't matter as long as it fits and works. However if fitted on the rear face of the attachment plate you will need to remove the Hydraulic pipe to lace it through. Not a problem usually Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianc Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 The Triumph Workshop Manual shows the cylinder mounted on the front of the plate i.e. nearer the front of the car. Ian Cornish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chris59 Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 And it's well known that workshop manual illustrations must not be used as fitting guide, but consider only as what they are, ie illustrations...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BrianC Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 The Triumph Workshop Manual shows the cylinder mounted on the front of the plate i.e. nearer the front of the car. Ian Cornish I'm sure the confusion arises because the side-screen WSM shows the slave cylinder on the rear of the plate whilst the TR4/4A manual shows it on the front. I've never had a problem with either arrangement, so given the thickness/stiffness of the plate, does it really matter? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Richardtr3a Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Why does my pushrod only line up with the lower hole? I ran it in the middle hole for 2 years and made significant wear on the lower face of the internal slave cylinder. because of the angle of the rod Is it possible that I have the wrong lever from a different model. At the moment I will be using the lower hole unless there is a better answer? Thanks Richard & H. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Hi Richard, a couple of years back I noticed that my push rod was acting at an angle. The clevis aligned with the lever middle hole OK but was sidways adrift. I made a new plate for the cylinder to attach to with the central big hole in the right place. Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paul J Posted February 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Hi Richard, a couple of years back I noticed that my push rod was acting at an angle. The clevis aligned with the lever middle hole OK but was sidways adrift. I made a new plate for the cylinder to attach to with the central big hole in the right place. Roger Well Roger that's the very reason I had a second look at the fitting of mine today, my clevice was actually in line with the centre hole height but if unconnected was about 1/4" off centre. My clevice was actually far too wide so I made a new one and then aligned the clutch arm to it with a little persuasion. Looks much better and functions correctly.Paul Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 So Triumph got it wrong? don't think so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Think again !! If it is not in decent alignment the foot pedal force would need to be increased. And it doesn't look nice on the pi**. My new plate centre was at least 1/4" different form the ST plate. Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paul J Posted February 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 So Triumph got it wrong? don't think so. No Neil not saying Triumph got it wrong, my clutch arm wasn't in line with the clevice and needed straightening or realigning a little. Paul Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 We all live and learn Roger!!!!!! wonder if the original dealers found it? I have never had this problem . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Interesting. The plate on both the 4 and 4A are the same and put the body of the cylinder apprx 1/4" out. I've sorted the 4A but haven't bothered with the 4 yet. Perhaps the TR6 had been sorted. Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Interesting. The plate on both the 4 and 4A are the same and put the body of the cylinder apprx 1/4" out. I've sorted the 4A but haven't bothered with the 4 yet. Perhaps the TR6 had been sorted. Roger Roger A thought was the plate different IE a 3 with pull spring fitted? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Hi Neil, The TR2 has its own shape for Lockheed cylinder. The TR3A, 4 & 4A have another shape - Girling cylinder The TR6 has another shape again Why is the TR6 different to the TR4/4A when it is basically the same components used. Could they have ccorrected the slight mis-alignment at this point. Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Roger As my old motor shop use to say to me (long gone now) you've beat me there lad. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TR4A1965 Posted February 13, 2017 Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 Hi Paul Attached picture may help? You can see mine here: http://tr4a.weebly.com/clutch-slave-cylinder.html Best. Paul. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paul J Posted February 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 1452024931.png Hi Paul Attached picture may help? You can see mine here: http://tr4a.weebly.com/clutch-slave-cylinder.html Best. Paul. Hi Paul I was using your site for reference and also Buckeye which conflicts, obviously your set up is based on the Triumph manual and we should assume is the correct method, however all loading when clutching is on the two nuts and flange ears which in my opinion is a possible weakness, by fitting the cylinder on the other side the load compresses the cyl flange on the plate and makes a stronger base altogether. My other problem was a 1/4" misalignment with the clutch arm which I have corrected now by arm realignment. Don't think it really matters either way just us Cornish have a belt and braces attitude to engineering. I have regularly used your site for reference throughout the restoration, it's been a real boon, the forum has answered many problems and when really stuck Stuart is always willing to oblige. Almost there now, completed rear firewall now interior trim and bumpers to complete, though I dare say there will always be something to do. Thank you all Paul Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted February 13, 2017 Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) Hi Paul, those two bolts attaching the cylinder are more than strong enough for the job. If you want to worry have a look at the taper pin holding the clutch fork in place. Roger PS - having the cylinder at the forward face of the attachment plate gives a longer distance for the push rod to work over thus improving alignment. Edited February 13, 2017 by RogerH Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paul J Posted February 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 Hi Paul, those two bolts attaching the cylinder are more than strong enough for the job. If you want to worry have a look at the taper pin holding the clutch fork in place. Roger PS - having the cylinder at the forward face of the attachment plate gives a longer distance for the push rod to work over thus improving alignment. Hi Roger Yes no doubt the bolts are more than capable but it doesn't make it a good engineering practice, no hydraulic cyl should be mounted allowing the bolt heads/nuts to take the load. The taper pin is another very poor design which underlines the fact that triumph did not always get it right, the clutch operation in my opinion is a bit of a pigs ear, but it works and has done for many years, a few mods can only improve it as we have all been doing. Paul Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paul J Posted February 14, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Hi Paul, those two bolts attaching the cylinder are more than strong enough for the job. If you want to worry have a look at the taper pin holding the clutch fork in place. Roger PS - having the cylinder at the forward face of the attachment plate gives a longer distance for the push rod to work over thus improving alignment. I have been giving this a little more thought Roger, as your PS message with the cylinder further away it would improve the misalignment angle somewhat, is it possible this is the reason Triumph decided to fit the cylinder in this position, but surely if it was a common fault they would have re designed the bracket plate.Not content with realigning my clutch fork I have removed the cylinder again. If anyone else finds their alignment wrong there is quite an easy fix, there is enough clearance in the cyl bracket hole to align the cyl and drill another hole, in my case the misalignment was 1/2". This new position has not altered the height of the clevice significantly. Edited February 14, 2017 by Paul J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.