I’m having a problem with throwout bearing fitting into two different clutch forks that I’ve purchased. The opening on the fork is 1/8 in smaller than the fork I removed. Maybe the powder coating? Has anyone had to alter a clutch fork to make the bearing seat inside the fork? I’ve used a caliper to measure and confirmed the opening to be 1/8 in smaller on the new one.
![Image]()
![Image]()
![Image]()
JibberJabber
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Joined
·
12 Posts
I’m having a problem with throwout bearing fitting into two different clutch forks that I’ve purchased. The opening on the fork is 1/8 in smaller than the fork I removed. Maybe the powder coating? Has anyone had to alter a clutch fork to make the bearing seat inside the fork? I’ve used a caliper to measure and confirmed the opening to be 1/8 in smaller on the new one.
![Image]()
![Image]()
![Image]()
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
Neither one of those is for a Camaro. It has the wings on it which I think is a Corvette unit. You need a GM 3892632. Here is a good reference.
Identifying GM's 3892632 Clutch Fork.
1967-1972 Camaro & Firebird Clutch Fork Assembly All SB & BB GM# 3892632 - 1967, 1968, 1969 Camaro Parts - NOS, Rare, Reproduction Camaro Parts for your Restoration
Identifying GM's 3892632 Clutch Fork.
1967-1972 Camaro & Firebird Clutch Fork Assembly All SB & BB GM# 3892632 - 1967, 1968, 1969 Camaro Parts - NOS, Rare, Reproduction Camaro Parts for your Restoration
Joined
·
12 Posts
Joined
·
12 Posts
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
I would compare the dimensions on that reference site to your units, but they don't look correct to me with the wide wings on them. I do see that several companies make a China replacement with the wings but the McCleod for example is an inch longer than the GM part.
Joined
·
3,511 Posts
Contact Craig Wright at Wright Connection. He has the correct arm. There is a difference in the arms, ever so slight but there is a difference. I found this out when I had a Muncie in my 68. "craig@wrightconnection.net" <craig@wrightconnection.net>
1967 Camaro coupe. Daily driver restored in remembrance of my 1967 Camaro SS350 from years gone by.
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
Looks like the lower side clip (that holds the T/O bearing) on the old one is bent …. Assuming that is the problem, it is likely due to the fork being made for a later model year Camaro.
What happens is the upper part of the fork (arm) hits the firewall (on first gen Camaros) which cause the fork to twist as the clutch is fully depressed. The top of the fork is stopped at the firewall and the bottom portion continues to move back toward the firewall. This twisting of the fork would easily produce the damage I am seeing on your old fork.
I use this same later model fork on my 67, but I clearanced the firewall to allow room for the fork to swing freely, as it should.
My point is, I dealt with this exact problem (broken spring/clip) on my car. Once I identified the cause I did that little bit of fabrication to the firewall and kept the fork I already had. 😜
Your best bet is to make sure you purchase a fork designed for a first gen Camaro.
What happens is the upper part of the fork (arm) hits the firewall (on first gen Camaros) which cause the fork to twist as the clutch is fully depressed. The top of the fork is stopped at the firewall and the bottom portion continues to move back toward the firewall. This twisting of the fork would easily produce the damage I am seeing on your old fork.
I use this same later model fork on my 67, but I clearanced the firewall to allow room for the fork to swing freely, as it should.
My point is, I dealt with this exact problem (broken spring/clip) on my car. Once I identified the cause I did that little bit of fabrication to the firewall and kept the fork I already had. 😜
Your best bet is to make sure you purchase a fork designed for a first gen Camaro.
Definitely not original style 69 fork.
1967 Camaro coupe. Daily driver restored in remembrance of my 1967 Camaro SS350 from years gone by.
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
That is the difference between the first gen fork and the later (about 70 to mid 70s). That extra bend in the fork arm allows it to swing and not hit the firewall. That additional bend allows the clutch to fully extend/engage without the fork hitting the firewall.
Here are a couple of PICs that might help see what happens with the later model fork on a first Gen Camaro regarding the firewall interference.
Later model fork has less bend.
In the PICs you can see where I recessed my firewall behind the fork to allow it to swing freely.
Without the recess the top of the fork hits the firewall and the lower part can continue to move back twisting or torquing the fork. Since the throw-out bearing is snug around the transmission input shaft it cannot accommodate the fork twist and the spring/clips will bend and break.
This is why you need that fork designed for a first Gen Camaro. As I recall, the Classic Industries catalog is not real clear on this difference.
Joined
·
3,511 Posts
Craig Wright sells the CORRECT arm
68 Base Camaro, 355 Offy crossram, Richmond Street close ratio 5 spd, 92K SoCal car
Joined
·
4,697 Posts
I am betting Classic Industries sold you the OER reproduction fork. None of that brand is exact fit or function. For something this important and to prevent rework go with a GM fork.
Wonder if the previous owner of my 68 had that issue at one time. He/she took a chunk out of the firewall. I didn't know why that was done, but I now see what the concern is.
The current setup doesn't go near that area, so I can only assume this car had a different engine/drivetrain at one time that required that clearance.
Yeah that's jacked up. Good example of how to not do something.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
