![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
|
||||||
|
if it brings your clearances up to spec, then it should be fine. what im noticing here is the new frictions are quite a bit thinner than the o.e.m. frictions that came out from what i saw, and too much clearance is not good. can lead to delayed engagements, and early failure from slip.
the wave plate is a cushion so it doesnt engage forward or reverse harsh. on the selective steel, how think is it? i didnt see anything on its thickness. |
|
||||||
|
Thanks for the reply.
The pack didn't have any different selective steels. just 5 straight standard steels. the Old steel is 0.069 bringing the height to 1.242" 0.002 over specs. Is this 0.002 over an issue? Is there a problem butting an old steel and new steel together on top of the wave plate? |
|
||||||
|
There are 0.049" selective steels- would bring you to 1.222"
|
|
||||
|
extra steel
just add 1 extra steel plate on top of the wave plate that should get you 50/60 thou.clearance general rule of thumb 10 thou.per friction,oem clutch specs are always too loose no one builds them that way who does this for a living
|
|
||||||
|
Thanks for the suggestion Colbalt 327.
I thought a small excessive clearness would not be a real problem,as you pointed out Angila427. still one question unanswered. Is the old and new steel together a problem or not ? |
|
||||
|
not a problem i do it all the time to get the clearance right
|
|
||||||
|
Ok so butting old and new steels together is something that is commonly done by many tranny builders to get clearances right, and there is no adverse after effect like slipping of clutches ??
There you go you learn something new everyday. |
|
||||||
|
just to make sure i have made things clear.
So a stack up like this is ok. old support assembly new friction new flat steel new friction new flat steel new friction new flat steel new friction new flat steel new friction new flat steel old turbular steel old wave plate |
|
||||
|
thats it good luck
|
|
||||||
|
I don't know what you meant by that's good luck??
Anyway, I was not to happy with the previous measurement. so I tried a few other options to try and get the best results. I went beck to re measure the stackup, but this time i placed the waved steel second last. I then measured it two ways, with and without the waved steel. The results were not consistent with the waved steel in the stack. Taking readings at several points around the stack up with the waved i got between 1.243 <> 1.248", 1.245" average. Then without the waved i got 1.1145" consistently. Meaning the additional wave makes reading less accurate. If we add the waved ( 0.095") to the second reading we get a total of 1.21" which falls with in specs. Does this sound correct to those guys who are experienced at doing trannies for a living ?this was my stack up . ![]() old support assembly new friction new flat steel new friction new flat steel new friction new flat steel new friction new flat steel new friction new flat steel old wave plate old turbular steel, obviously the last 2 with be switched on installation ! |
|
||||||
|
Here is yet another way buy i don't have a dial indicator, and using the verni caliper by hand in unsteady, and produces inconsistent reading.
Here you are meant to install the low and reverse clutch pack and and assembly plate, without the low reverse clutch roller and race, so that you can get the scribe in. Some use the scribe pick tool form the bottom. Set the dial indicator on top of the assembly, and zero it. Use the scibe tool to lift the clutches to get a reading on the dial indicator. Anything from 0.50" -0.55" is good. It might also be possible to get some feeler guages in the middle of the stack under the assembly, as another option.
|
|
||||||
|
Some feedback for ya all.
I tried to put the stack back in, it was so tight i could hardly get the snap ring in. I tool out the center roller race and the extra old wave plate. I reinstalled it and this time measured in form the top under the assembly plate. All measurements look fine I got 0.49" using feeler gauges in from the top measuring between the clutched underneath. Does that sound right ???? I would appreciate some constructive reassurance here. Thanks in advance |
|
|
| Recent Transmission - Rearend posts with photos |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Which way does the low reverse roller clutch assembly go? | old yukon | Transmission - Rearend | 6 | 04-22-2011 05:55 AM |
| removing the clutch hub of the reverse input drum | old yukon | Transmission - Rearend | 4 | 02-01-2011 09:37 PM |
| 700R4 rebuild with wider low reverse roller clutch | qwkswede | Transmission - Rearend | 17 | 01-04-2010 05:29 AM |
| th350 int clutch height to low? | sooper | Transmission - Rearend | 5 | 11-27-2009 03:33 PM |
| 700r4 Low/Reverse Clutch Pack | 123pugsy | Transmission - Rearend | 2 | 12-29-2007 08:31 AM |