Need help with t/o bearing collar!!??

[ZSaint]

Lets look at this situation... If the Centerforce II clutch is thicker then the collar needs to be thinner to take the "angle" out of the clutch arm. Is the Centerforce Clutch II thicker or thinner. If you use a thicker 280Z collar, it must be a thinner clutch assembly, right?

I have had two people tell me different things on this 280Z vs. 240Z T/O bearing collar. One said the 280Z was thinner and one (you) said it was thicker.

I am curious about your installation. I am thinking that the arms are identical (in terms of fulcrum length) for both 240 and 280 Z's. Did you use the self-adjusting aluminum clutch slave cylinder? I do not understand the difference in the arms vs. slave cylinder?

I will need to bolt the stock 240 clutch to a flywheel and the Centerforce clutch to a flywheel the measure the thickness of the diaphram from the flywheel. Once I know this measurement, I will know whether I need more or less collar.

As long as we have confusion on the 280Z T/O bearing collar (thinner or thicker than the early 240Z) we need to know the clutch measurements. I'll let you guys know.

[Bambikiller240]

the 2/71 would be a type b.... the 5-speed should be universal..... i think....

Actually, according to NISSAN Service Bullitin #148, the F4W71B (commonly known as the Type "B" trans) was new for 1972 Model 240Z's (which are commonly called Series III) which began to be produced in Sept/Oct of 1971

http://zhome.com/History/DesignChanges.htm is also a reference for the information that the new transmission was introduced in Sept/Oct of 1971 in the Series III version of HLS30-U (North American market 240Z)

If a "B" trans is found in earlier models of 240Z, I believe it would have been a transplant performed outside of the Nissan Factory.

[ZSaint]

Thanks, that helps me with the transmission but what about the 240 vs. 280 T/O bearing collar?

[e_racer1999]

Actually, according to NISSAN Service Bullitin #148, the F4W71B (commonly known as the Type "B" trans) was new for 1972 Model 240Z's (which are commonly called Series III) which began to be produced in Sept/Oct of 1971

http://zhome.com/History/DesignChanges.htm is also a reference for the information that the new transmission was introduced in Sept/Oct of 1971 in the Series III version of HLS30-U (North American market 240Z)

If a "B" trans is found in earlier models of 240Z, I believe it would have been a transplant performed outside of the Nissan Factory.

my bad....

[Marty Rogan]

Lets look at this situation... If the Centerforce II clutch is thicker then the collar needs to be thinner to take the "angle" out of the clutch arm. Is the Centerforce Clutch II thicker or thinner. If you use a thicker 280Z collar, it must be a thinner clutch assembly, right?

I have had two people tell me different things on this 280Z vs. 240Z T/O bearing collar. One said the 280Z was thinner and one (you) said it was thicker.

I am curious about your installation. I am thinking that the arms are identical (in terms of fulcrum length) for both 240 and 280 Z's. Did you use the self-adjusting aluminum clutch slave cylinder? I do not understand the difference in the arms vs. slave cylinder?

I will need to bolt the stock 240 clutch to a flywheel and the Centerforce clutch to a flywheel the measure the thickness of the diaphram from the flywheel. Once I know this measurement, I will know whether I need more or less collar.

As long as we have confusion on the 280Z T/O bearing collar (thinner or thicker than the early 240Z) we need to know the clutch measurements. I'll let you guys know.

To tell you the truth, when I put in the Centerforce II, it did not look much different than the 240Z clutch that I took out. I did not measure it, but it could be slightly thinner.

You asked for someone to speek up who had actually DONE this, instead of what they THINK should be done. I just did it, and it works. In my mind there is no confusion.

I followed the advice of our fellow experts here and bought all matching components for the tranny that I was putting in, which is a '78 5 spd. I bought a CF II, clutch slave (auto adjust), T/O beraing collar and fork for a '78 5 spd. Like Carl said above, MSA notifies you to buy a 280Z collar when buying a CF II. And yes, the 280Z collar is definitely THICKER (longer). I put it all in, and after a little tinkering with the pedal adjustment at the MC, it works flawlessly.

I would also recommend that you replace the clutch hose with a stainless steel one from MSA; Earl's hoses, about $15. Also, put in a Speed Bleeder on the slave, to aid in bleeding; http://www.speedbleeder.com/. I believe its the SB7100S, but I could confirm it tonight if you want. I would also recommend using a brand new Nissan T/O bearing.

The only real difference in the clutch fork is that the early ones have a hole in it to accept the rod for an adjustable slave. Later ones have a dipple in it where the later, self adjustable rod connects to the fork. You can use either fork/slave matched set, but why bother with the hassle of having to adjust the clutch???

Let us know hwat you find out on the measurement. You have got me curious now.

good luck,

Marty

[ZSaint]

OK! This is what I need to know. I will buy an 83 Maxima 5-speed collar (T/O) and put the newer aluminum slave cylinder in the car. I will also get the s/s braided line and bleeder. I will have a matched set and it should work just fine. I will let you guys know....