Early Series slave cylinder question

[Alpineracer8]

This may sound like a stupid question, but I'm having a clutch problem with my racing Series I that I think may be my fault.

The car used to have a 1725 in it with a Series V transmission and the clutch engaged just fine. It felt good and grabbed fairly close to the floor. Now the car has a 1600 in it with a Series III transmission (used the same bell housing that was on the 1725, if that makes any difference). Now the clutch seems to want to engage right at the top of the pedal. It grabs okay but feels like it's worn out.

It occurs to me that I may have the slave cylinder mounted incorrectly. Can anyone tell me how the slave cylinder mounts on an early Series car? I currrently have it mounted with the body of the cylinder sticking forward through the cutout in the bell housing and the mounting ears on the back side of the bell housing. Should it be mounted on the front of the bell housing? Seems to me that, if I moved it to the front, it would shorten the actual movement I'm getting on the clutch actuating arm, thereby allowing the clutch to release closer to the floor. Any thoughts???

Thanks,

 

[Jim E]

When you changed engines did you go to a different size flywheel?

 

[mikephillips]

Did you reuse the same clutch components or replace them?? The same question for the clutch actuating arm and it's pedestal?? There are differences in the height of both over the Alpine run and it's sounds a bit to me like you have the later tall pedestal and an earlier type taller pressure plate.

 

[Alpineracer8]

Jim and Mike:

Thanks for your responses. To answer your questions, the clutch assembly and release bearing from the 1725 showed very little wear so I reinstalled them. I also used the 1725 flywheel as it had already been somewhat lightened. I did have it turned, however, to get the mating surface clean and flat.

Armed with that info, have I screwed up???

Thanks,

 

[mikephillips]

If you reused the same pressure plate, release arm and pedestal, flywheel and bellhousing I don't see anything wrong offhand. I don't recall there being a significant difference in the rear of the block between a 1600 and 1725 in terms of the crank length from the rear main or the bellhousing mount flange. But then I never set the two down beside each other and measured either. Did you change the slave cylinder as part of this and is it possible that the piston in the slave is different causing the rod to be moved forward?? The slave itself should mount the same on all series cars, with the ears on the backside so it "pushes" on the bellhousing when the pedal is depressed.