T5 slave cylinder?

[rngrmat]

Has anyone looked into Tilton or Mcleod style slave cylinders? They are similar to the oe internal Ranger slave. They have kits for T5 and others. www.tiltonracing.com and www.mcleodind.com They are quite expensive but super neat. The greatest feature is that it ditches the fork and external slave eliminating any clearence issues. I think it is the direction I want to go but I might need a little feedback or advice first. Also, one quick question.....on the oe clutch master, is the roll pin the only thing retaining the hydraulic fitting in? What is the best way to drive it out?
Thanks,
Matt

[evensteven]

Yeap the roll pin and an oring is al that prevents a leak. Those units are nice but exspensive.

[cgrey8]

I didn't run into any major fitment issues with my 83-84 Ranger external slave. I had to fabricate a plate for the slave cylinder to mount to and I had to drill the holes in the plate so that the inlet to the slave would be pointed horizontally. This allowed the Ranger's factory hydraulic clutch line to plug right into it. The only nuance to this setup is the slave does not mount in such a way that the bleeder hole is the highest point as is required to get all the bubbles out of the system. This forced me to bleed the slave before mounting it to the plate. I was afraid this was going to be a big deal, but it was a piece of cake. The factory quick-connect connection allowed for easy rotation and mobility of the slave so I plugged'er in, pointed the slave down so the hole was the highest point, opened the allen screw. Gravity did the rest. When the bleeder hole started dripping fluid, I tightened the allen screw and it was done.

In addition, I am not a fan of internal clutch slaves. My 2.9L's manual had an internal slave and every time my clutch was replaced, it wasn't because the clutch was bad, it was because the tranny had to come down to replace that damn internal slave cylinder which would start leaking about every 3-4 years. While the tranny was down, might as well replace the clutch. I'd limp it along as much as possible just adding fluid when it was needed, but eventually the leak would get so bad, the clutch would just not work while I was sitting in Atlanta rushhour traffic. Once it got to that point, I had to replace it. If the same holds true for these very expensive internal slave units, then not only will you have to pull the tranny and bell to replace it, but you'll also have a very expensive slave to replace...in my opinion adding insult to injury.

Since I started this swap, I've LOVED the idea that I'm "upgrading" away from an internal slave to an external slave setup I can easily replace without pulling the whole tranny. I'm sure internal slaves solve a lot of engineering problems, fitment issues and speed up production lines, however from a maintenance standpoint, they suck. They wouldn't be so bad if they'd last 10 years. I think the longest one ever lasted in my truck was 5 years. Although living in a city where the clutch gets used alot, I may have accelerated the wear more than what others experience, thus others may have been able to get more years out of theirs.

That's my 2cents on the subject.

[rngrmat]

I appreciate the feed back on the slave cylinder. The reason I was asking is that I have a 95' T5 Malcolm was saying that the earlier T5s were a better option for using an external slave. I looked at my bell housing and think this one should work ok as well. Reason being, the opening for the fork is angled towards the ground possibly eliminating clearence issues. That being said about the internal slaves, I will definitely look into the much less expensive route.

Matt

[MalcolmV8]

Matt,

That is true, I did say that about the 94/95 Mustang T5s. However that was mostly based on information from Total Performance back in the early days of the swap. Their slave kit did not work with the 95 T5s and I also found the 95 T5s had a larger diameter bell housing giving me less clearance in an already tight spot. The 93 style bell housing and input shaft was 5/8" shorter as I recall. That would put the shifter slightly more forward in the cab too.

If you want to swap to the 93 style it's just a matter of changing the input shaft, retainer, and bell housing. It does not require cracking open the T5. However been that I just got a 4r70w bell housing/tranny into my blue truck I think a 95 Stang bell housing would be a cake walk. It's a lot smaller overall than the 4r70w. I don't have a 95 Stang bell housing right in front of me (got one in the shed if I really need to go look) but as long as you have a flat surface to drill holes and bolt up a solid mount for the external slave then I'd say you're good to go.

Chris, I had the same experience over the years. The clutch in my blue truck got replaced because the internal hydraulic slave was shot and I was pulling the tranny anyway. I too thought of the external slave as an upgrade.

Later
Malcolm

[cjcnomor4]

just to remind everyone the 05 mustang v6 5-speed uses a t-5 with an internal slave. looking at pictures ( i've never been under one yet) it looks like the same quick disconnect fitting the rangers use. they also have a remote mount shifter that may help with shifter placement in the ranger.

[cgrey8]

As Malcolm was saying, just make sure you can get a plate securely mounted to the bell.





As these pics show, there is much less realestate on the newer (right) bell to drill holes and hold a plate with. Use thick plate steel and strong bolts.

This shows the length difference in the newer style. Obviously longer is newer.



If you are planning to do this swap with a standard cab, not an extended cab, then keep in mind the stick coming up through the floor is going to be just in front of the seat. In Malcolm's red truck, this is how close the shifter is.


Using newer bell housing pushes the tranny, and thus the shifter, back even further. However with an extended cab and the seat back all the way, this may not be a big deal for you.

And finally what concerns me the most...

Some people have complained that the Ranger slave locates their clutch release very close to the floor because the clutch master simply can't move enough fluid down to the slave to push the clutch further. With a longer fork to push on, this will be exaggerated even more. If bad enough, you may find the clutch won't completely disengage.

I don't know of anybody that's used the newer bells, and thus it may work just fine. Just keep it in the back of your mind that you may need to replace that input shaft & bell once you get deep into the project. From there, you can hope for the best but are prepared for the worst. The good news is even if you do have to replace that front shaft, it's easy to do.

One final note, if you ever plan to use an FMS aftermarket T5 which has 330ft/lbs torque rating as well as a modified gear ratio, as opposed to a junkyard production T5, you will be forced to use the older bell. Those aftermarket FMS T5's were never made with the longer input shaft. The longer production T5 shafts won't work.

[rngrmat]

Thank you very much for the input and photos. I just came inside from wrenching. I will be going with the newer bell housing simply because it is what I have. I installed an AOD in my 85. This is light years easier than that. The beauty of it is that you can install the clutch and bellhousing to the engine before install and all you have to jocky around under the truck is the tiny T5 and 4 easy to reach bolts. I torched off the rivets to the crossmember brackets and located them forward about 2 inches. I am going to modify the cross member to make up the difference. I already anticipated the shifter being far back, from Malcolm's pics, that I have purchased some explorer cloth buckets. Is it uncomfortable to shift with the lever being so low? That is my only concern.

[cgrey8]

This thread talks about the UPR shifter extension that you bolt to your existing T5 shifter.
Parts needed to adapt the T5 into the Ranger

As you can see, it comes with a threaded bar that can be adjusted for height and location.
<--Click

Although if what it comes with still isn't good enough, you can make your own bar from the same size barstock to get the shifter higher or weld whatever you want to the end of some barstock. So there are options...

[2lo-rngr]

yeah, chop your seat brackets in half.....lol that'll make shifting easier....might not be able to see over the dash though....

[rngrmat]

Got the slave installed today. Late 70s 260Z slave. The pushrod was too short so I made one out of a grade 8 bolt. The bracket to bell has 3 large bolts holding it firm, 2 of which you can't see in the photos. I cut down the length of the fork to accomodate the position and angle of the pushrod. Basically, I cut out the end of the rod with the dimple and welded it in closer to the bearing. Now all I need to do is someway somehow attatch the hose. It is in perfect alignment with the factory set up but not sure how to adapt it yet. Anyone have any idea what threads are in this slave? Pics are on page 3

[MalcolmV8]

rngrmat, on page 2 bottom left you have what's labeled EGR tube mod but that's not the EGR tube is it? It looks like the air injection tube that runs to the back of the heads, or am I wrong?

Thanks
Malcolm

[rngrmat]

To the best of my knowledge it is the egr tube. I believe the air injection tube is the tube to the cat converters. Everytime I have cracked open these tubes, there is carbon built up through the heads and in this tube itself. I am by far an expert on this. I know the upper intakes are different on pre 94s as the exhaust gas flows up or down through the center hole. On 94-95 the hole is blocked off. Maybe I should sit down and learn some of this stuff.

[MalcolmV8]

I used to have a 95 Mustang a long time ago and as I recall it had a copper tube that ran from the headers to an EGR valve on the curved part of the upper intake.
I removed the smog pump on my 95 Mustang and I remember getting a pipe cap for that very pipe that you pictured as the EGR tube. The smog pump used to blow right into it. Wasn't that the way it introduced air into the exhaust system? I know that tube does indeed connect to the exhaust ports as if you leave it open and fire up the engine it sounds much like open headers. Well not as loud, but very loud. I also remember blocking off a few small vacuum tubes and not sure what else. Anyhow I still had a fully functional EGR without that tube, just no smog pump.

[Elect666]

Mine was the same as malcolms, And I also did as Malcolm and placed a pipe cap on it.
Elect666