If you are encountering login problems please check here

Cable vs Hydraulic clutch for 87-88 TC/T5 to Fox swap?
#1

Up in the air at the moment on what would be better. Working on a complete swap from a 88 TC into a 89 Fox body. The fox already has pedals, quadrant, cable (i believe for a v8 though) installed. I still need to track down bellhousing for a 2.3 with the fork and everything else to use my tc trans. 


Orrrrrr transfer it all over and make those pedals from the TC work on a fox body. I have not found too much info on swapping the TC hydraulic setup though. 

Definitely leaning towards Cable but since I have basically everything already to make it hydraulic that would be a good option. The car wont be a daily driver and im not planning on running any crazy stiff clutch. Also trying to get away from parts that might be harder to track down later in life.

Any opinions suggestions thoughts lol??
Reply
#2

I've had both and prefer cable. In my opinion, the cable gives better feedback, and has fewer issues the long term. The only benefit I found with hydraulic is it will give you a lighter pedal if you do a lot of stop and go driving in traffic. If you go cable, I would ditch the Ford quadrant and get a billet one along with a firewall cable adjuster.
Randy Tagg
'86 SVO
Reply
#3

(01-21-2020, 04:33 PM)rtagg Wrote:  I've had both and prefer cable. In my opinion, the cable gives better feedback, and has fewer issues the long term. The only benefit I found with hydraulic is it will give you a lighter pedal if you do a lot of stop and go driving in traffic.  If you go cable, I would ditch the Ford quadrant and get a billet one along with a firewall cable adjuster.


Makes sense and frankly its going to be rare im stuck in traffic with this thing. Do you happen to know if I need a 2.3L specific bellhousing block plate or if a TC hydraulic block plate is the same thing?
Reply
#4

The complete 88 TC system bolted right into my 84 fox 13 years ago, that was an auto never had a lick of trouble out of it. Before installing I disassembled it and cleaned it ( cups inside ). It's like doing a wheel cylinder.
1963 Chevy Impala
1941 Chevy coupe
1931 Ford Tudor 2.3 Turbo; T5; 9" ford diff; P.I.M.P ECU
1984 Stang with 88 TC driveline.
Reply
#5

(01-22-2020, 12:57 AM)supercab78 Wrote:  The complete 88 TC system bolted right into my 84 fox 13 years ago, that was an auto never had a lick of trouble out of it. Before installing I disassembled it and cleaned it ( cups inside ). It's like doing a wheel cylinder.
That’s interesting when you bolted in the pedal set did you have to drill into the firewall?
Reply
#6

It was all direct replacement. Pedals, hydraulic master and slave cylinder and all. If I remember correctly I used the large rubber grommet from the TC which used the same screw holes in the firewall.
1963 Chevy Impala
1941 Chevy coupe
1931 Ford Tudor 2.3 Turbo; T5; 9" ford diff; P.I.M.P ECU
1984 Stang with 88 TC driveline.
Reply
#7

Yep, straight bolt in. I also prefer the cable, mostly for the adjustability, on the street I like the engagement near the top, but at the track I like it further down.
2017 F150 Ecoboost 3.5 TT (sold)
2017 Mustang GT PP (sold)
2019 Mustang EcoBoost (sold) 
86 SVO not stock
83 Ford Ranger project
2019 E350 service body, work truck and tow rig.
Reply
#8

It is true that hydraulic is nonadjustable as far as I could tell. It is very smooth working though. It does catch a little higher than I used to keep my old linkage style cars.
1963 Chevy Impala
1941 Chevy coupe
1931 Ford Tudor 2.3 Turbo; T5; 9" ford diff; P.I.M.P ECU
1984 Stang with 88 TC driveline.
Reply
#9

(01-24-2020, 02:13 PM)supercab78 Wrote:  It is true that hydraulic is nonadjustable as far as I could tell.  It is very smooth working though. It does catch a little higher than I used to keep my old linkage style cars.

By their very nature, hydraulically-activated clutches are self-adjusting, Jeff. When the pedal is fully released, the m/cyl piston is drawn to the rear of its' bore, thus uncovering the "compensator port" and allowing the fluid in the "system" to be open to the reservoir. This prevents fluid from "stacking up" in the conduit  (which it would do  otherwise) as the clutch disc wears thinner. [Image: confused0024.gif]

If you want the pedal to "catch" a little lower, it's a simple matter of shortening the pushrod under the dash. This will result in increased mechanical  free-play before the m/cyl piston is forced into its' bore, thus lowering the engagement-height  of the pedal. [Image: happy0034.gif]
Placerville, California
(former)  '78 2.3T Courier w/blow-thru carb ~ (current)  '87 2.3T Ranger w/PiMP’d EFI
Reply
#10

Thanks for the info. When I switched it over 10 years ago I probably saw the adjuster but was afraid to change it thinking it may not fully disengage. I know doing that 88 TC into a 84 fox was quit involved and I would have just been happy the clutch worked.
1963 Chevy Impala
1941 Chevy coupe
1931 Ford Tudor 2.3 Turbo; T5; 9" ford diff; P.I.M.P ECU
1984 Stang with 88 TC driveline.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)