TBF clamp fix offer - long
03-05-2005, 01:45 PM
#1
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBF clamp fix offer - long
Some of you might remember that I have been studying the Thrust Bearing Failure (TBF) problem in 928 automatic cars. One area of great concern found by many 928 automatic owners was the driveshaft pullout at the front flexplate clamp. This presented itself by a bowing in of the front flexplates toward the engine and when the pinch bolt was released, the flexplate clamp would move back onto the driveshaft a few millimeters. This forward pressure is transmitted to the back of the engine's thrust bearing by pushing the crankshaft into the bearing.
To remedy this problem, different approaches have been used to stop this movement. Some have advocated using a new pinch bolt at the front flexplate clamp and torquing it to a 10% higher foot pound rating, from 59 to approximately 65 ft lbs. Others have used a loctite formula squeezed into the splined area of the flexplate clamp. Others have merely decided to check the movement periodically and relieve the pressure. We decided on a mechanical solution and want to present it for a possible group purchase by those interested.
Although we have a lot more information on the whole TBF situation involving the 928, we will focus this post to the information concerning the driveshaft pullout at the front flexplate clamp. Tests performed to measure the clamping force of the OE clamps showed deficiencies with them. It is our opinion this deficiency was exacerbated when it was decided sometime in 1984 to discontinue the use of a circlip, bearing and washer arrangement at the front of the driveshaft. These helped set the distance between the flexplate and flywheel. It also helped the driveshaft from being pulled through the clamp. It is our opinion the design of the front flexplate clamp should have been changed at that time. The following is the testing process we used to test the OE clamp and new clamp.
We first tested the OE front flexplate clamp in a test jig made of a press with a PSI gauge mounted to the press jack. Two OE flexplate clamps were tested with a portion of a OE driveshaft clamped within. We used both old and new pinch bolts using the recommended torque ratings of 59 ft lbs and the new, higher 65 ft lb rating and found no difference in the indicated PSI of when the driveshaft moved. One OE clamp let movement at a registered 1700 psi while the other let movement at 2100 psi. We then re-clamped the driveshaft into the OE clamp with the higher clamping force with a new pinch bolt set to 65 ft lbs and heated the whole affair in an oven for 30 minutes at 200 degrees F, to replicate the heat soak which occurs when the 928 is running. The front flexplate clamp is right above the exhaust pipes as they leave the headers. The coupler was tested and movement occurred at a registered 1400 psi, a loss of about 700 psi.
We next tested our new clamp design in the same manner. The six pinch bolts in the new clamp were torqued to 25 ft lbs each, although they can be torqued to a higher value. The clamp was tested and no movement was seen up to a registered 4100 psi. The clamp and driveshaft were then heated in an oven set at 200 degrees F for an hour due to it's larger mass and re-tested. No movement was seen at 4100 psi and the test was stopped at a registered 4300 psi, still without driveshaft movement. After cooling the new clamp was loosened and the driveshaft came out easily.
This same clamp was installed in our 1986.5 track car, the one shown in the "Excellence" magazine, February 2005 edition. The car has been used for PCA driver education days at local race tracks, and normal road travel for over 5000 miles. Periodic checks of the clamp has not found any movement of the driveshaft. No forward pressure has been found being exhibited onto the front flexplate. The clamp was subjected to redline upshifts and full throttle, kickdown launches from slow corners.
This new clamp can be retrofitted to 928s having both the older constant diameter drive shaft as well as the newer, thicker driveshaft. The new clamp is designed to fit onto the OE flexplates after removing the old clamp. The new clamp can be easily re-adjusted and will last the life of the car since it will not stretch out as the OE clamp seems to do. The downside to this new clamp is it can only be installed after removing the torque tube/transmission from the car.
The other remedies have their own limitations. The new pinch bolt/higher torque setting does not seem to work. Using loctite solution in the splines has been found to be hard to readjust, needing heat and force to disengage the coupler and driveshaft. There was even a reported instance when the coupler had to be unbolted from the flexplates to remove the torque tube assembly from the car. Periodic checks and loosening of the front flexplate coupler is not acceptable since we have found forward pressure to begin within a few weeks of normal driving, less than 300 miles. Of course, this may vary with driving styles and other factors and we suggest owners do their own inspections at weekly intervals to see when movement occurs in their 928s.
Truthfully, we have wavered in offering this clamp to 928 owners. We are not in this line of business and, in private conversations with a few individuals, some thought the price too high for most owners, as well as the hurdle of having to do a torque tube R&R to install it. However, we have also been contacted by some who have heard about the new clamp and expressed interest in purchasing it. It is with them in mind that we have decided to offer this new clamp publicly and find how much interest there is in getting a group purchase together. We suspect there are 928 owners who want to have a mechanical solution to the driveshaft pullout problem, one that is worthy of being placed into a 928. We also hope that other 928 forums are advised of this group purchase by 928 forum members since we do not subscribe to all existing 928 forums.
The price per coupler will be approximately $350-$375 USD, not including shipping. The U.S. based manufacturer suggested a minimum order of 25 to make the price per unit reasonable. The final price will be determined after contact with the manufacturer to make sure of the manufacturing cost per unit. We request that anyone interested send us an e-mail directly so we can get a count of the number interested. If we get the target of at least 25 people, we will re-contact each buyer and accept payment by Paypal or money order for the clamp and shipping costs.
If anyone has questions about this or our study into TBF, please feel free to ask questions. We would also like to publicly thank Mark Anderson of 928 International for donating parts for testing and giving helpful insights to us during our research.
Constantine
1986.5 928S, AT, Track car
1989 928S4, AT, Daily driver
928 OC member
Rennlist member
To remedy this problem, different approaches have been used to stop this movement. Some have advocated using a new pinch bolt at the front flexplate clamp and torquing it to a 10% higher foot pound rating, from 59 to approximately 65 ft lbs. Others have used a loctite formula squeezed into the splined area of the flexplate clamp. Others have merely decided to check the movement periodically and relieve the pressure. We decided on a mechanical solution and want to present it for a possible group purchase by those interested.
Although we have a lot more information on the whole TBF situation involving the 928, we will focus this post to the information concerning the driveshaft pullout at the front flexplate clamp. Tests performed to measure the clamping force of the OE clamps showed deficiencies with them. It is our opinion this deficiency was exacerbated when it was decided sometime in 1984 to discontinue the use of a circlip, bearing and washer arrangement at the front of the driveshaft. These helped set the distance between the flexplate and flywheel. It also helped the driveshaft from being pulled through the clamp. It is our opinion the design of the front flexplate clamp should have been changed at that time. The following is the testing process we used to test the OE clamp and new clamp.
We first tested the OE front flexplate clamp in a test jig made of a press with a PSI gauge mounted to the press jack. Two OE flexplate clamps were tested with a portion of a OE driveshaft clamped within. We used both old and new pinch bolts using the recommended torque ratings of 59 ft lbs and the new, higher 65 ft lb rating and found no difference in the indicated PSI of when the driveshaft moved. One OE clamp let movement at a registered 1700 psi while the other let movement at 2100 psi. We then re-clamped the driveshaft into the OE clamp with the higher clamping force with a new pinch bolt set to 65 ft lbs and heated the whole affair in an oven for 30 minutes at 200 degrees F, to replicate the heat soak which occurs when the 928 is running. The front flexplate clamp is right above the exhaust pipes as they leave the headers. The coupler was tested and movement occurred at a registered 1400 psi, a loss of about 700 psi.
We next tested our new clamp design in the same manner. The six pinch bolts in the new clamp were torqued to 25 ft lbs each, although they can be torqued to a higher value. The clamp was tested and no movement was seen up to a registered 4100 psi. The clamp and driveshaft were then heated in an oven set at 200 degrees F for an hour due to it's larger mass and re-tested. No movement was seen at 4100 psi and the test was stopped at a registered 4300 psi, still without driveshaft movement. After cooling the new clamp was loosened and the driveshaft came out easily.
This same clamp was installed in our 1986.5 track car, the one shown in the "Excellence" magazine, February 2005 edition. The car has been used for PCA driver education days at local race tracks, and normal road travel for over 5000 miles. Periodic checks of the clamp has not found any movement of the driveshaft. No forward pressure has been found being exhibited onto the front flexplate. The clamp was subjected to redline upshifts and full throttle, kickdown launches from slow corners.
This new clamp can be retrofitted to 928s having both the older constant diameter drive shaft as well as the newer, thicker driveshaft. The new clamp is designed to fit onto the OE flexplates after removing the old clamp. The new clamp can be easily re-adjusted and will last the life of the car since it will not stretch out as the OE clamp seems to do. The downside to this new clamp is it can only be installed after removing the torque tube/transmission from the car.
The other remedies have their own limitations. The new pinch bolt/higher torque setting does not seem to work. Using loctite solution in the splines has been found to be hard to readjust, needing heat and force to disengage the coupler and driveshaft. There was even a reported instance when the coupler had to be unbolted from the flexplates to remove the torque tube assembly from the car. Periodic checks and loosening of the front flexplate coupler is not acceptable since we have found forward pressure to begin within a few weeks of normal driving, less than 300 miles. Of course, this may vary with driving styles and other factors and we suggest owners do their own inspections at weekly intervals to see when movement occurs in their 928s.
Truthfully, we have wavered in offering this clamp to 928 owners. We are not in this line of business and, in private conversations with a few individuals, some thought the price too high for most owners, as well as the hurdle of having to do a torque tube R&R to install it. However, we have also been contacted by some who have heard about the new clamp and expressed interest in purchasing it. It is with them in mind that we have decided to offer this new clamp publicly and find how much interest there is in getting a group purchase together. We suspect there are 928 owners who want to have a mechanical solution to the driveshaft pullout problem, one that is worthy of being placed into a 928. We also hope that other 928 forums are advised of this group purchase by 928 forum members since we do not subscribe to all existing 928 forums.
The price per coupler will be approximately $350-$375 USD, not including shipping. The U.S. based manufacturer suggested a minimum order of 25 to make the price per unit reasonable. The final price will be determined after contact with the manufacturer to make sure of the manufacturing cost per unit. We request that anyone interested send us an e-mail directly so we can get a count of the number interested. If we get the target of at least 25 people, we will re-contact each buyer and accept payment by Paypal or money order for the clamp and shipping costs.
If anyone has questions about this or our study into TBF, please feel free to ask questions. We would also like to publicly thank Mark Anderson of 928 International for donating parts for testing and giving helpful insights to us during our research.
Constantine
1986.5 928S, AT, Track car
1989 928S4, AT, Daily driver
928 OC member
Rennlist member
Last edited by Black Sea RD; 04-26-2009 at 02:04 PM.
03-05-2005, 02:41 PM
#2
Rennlist Member
A very clever device - it appears to be a conical sleeve clamped down on a collet producing a far superior distribution and magnitude of clamping force. 
Two questions: Did you investigate applying a retro refit of the circlip and shim approach as per the early cars? ( or, is it even possible?).
Secondly, did you perform yield tests on the OEM coupler/clamp that had been treated to a well cured splash of loctite 290? - if so, what were the results?
Having two seasons of experience with the '290' treatment that demonstrated zero movement, I am particularly interested in this point.
edit: for comparison to the OEM clamp (single circumferential collar with a pinch bolt ), the following image is attached - for those yet to enter this area ...
Two questions: Did you investigate applying a retro refit of the circlip and shim approach as per the early cars? ( or, is it even possible?).
Secondly, did you perform yield tests on the OEM coupler/clamp that had been treated to a well cured splash of loctite 290? - if so, what were the results?
Having two seasons of experience with the '290' treatment that demonstrated zero movement, I am particularly interested in this point.
edit: for comparison to the OEM clamp (single circumferential collar with a pinch bolt ), the following image is attached - for those yet to enter this area ...
03-05-2005, 02:53 PM
#3
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Garth,
Question 1: I believe 928 International is selling them now for this purpose, however they cannot be used with the new, thicker driveshafts.
Question 2: No, since I was not interested in using loctite due to the issues in re-positioning the driveshaft easily. Good that the Loctite is working for you.
Cheers,
Constantine
Question 1: I believe 928 International is selling them now for this purpose, however they cannot be used with the new, thicker driveshafts.
Question 2: No, since I was not interested in using loctite due to the issues in re-positioning the driveshaft easily. Good that the Loctite is working for you.
Cheers,
Constantine
03-05-2005, 03:22 PM
#4
Dean of Rennlist, "I'm Listening"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Out of curiosity, do you have an idea as to why there was no difference between the two different torque values using the OEM clamp? That somehow seems counterintuitive.
And, for a non-wrench, what force is it that causes the drive shaft movement in the first place? Would this be a worse problem in an SC'd car?
Could you let us know the details of what the clamp is made of? Steel, I presume? And the specific type/gauge of steel. Is it heat-treated?
Finally, the drive shaft splines look squared-off in the picture, as opposed to the stock rounded-off splines. Maybe it's just the reflection from a very clean shaft. Is your drive shaft OEM?
I'll send you a PM. I would be very interested.
And, for a non-wrench, what force is it that causes the drive shaft movement in the first place? Would this be a worse problem in an SC'd car?
Could you let us know the details of what the clamp is made of? Steel, I presume? And the specific type/gauge of steel. Is it heat-treated?
Finally, the drive shaft splines look squared-off in the picture, as opposed to the stock rounded-off splines. Maybe it's just the reflection from a very clean shaft. Is your drive shaft OEM?
I'll send you a PM. I would be very interested.
Last edited by bigs; 03-05-2005 at 03:43 PM.
03-05-2005, 03:42 PM
#5
Dean of Rennlist, "I'm Listening"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Another question. Are the 6 pinch bolts included in the package - I presume?
03-05-2005, 04:21 PM
#6
Race Director
Consantine
Very nice work! Great looking clamp! Heres a question you mention holding force in PSI, how does that correlate to HP or Torque, example is 4100psi holding force equilvant to a 400hp/400ft 928 engine etc?
Thanks
Very nice work! Great looking clamp! Heres a question you mention holding force in PSI, how does that correlate to HP or Torque, example is 4100psi holding force equilvant to a 400hp/400ft 928 engine etc?
Thanks
Trending Topics
03-05-2005, 08:18 PM
#8
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bigs,
The OE clamp strectches out and cannot clamp as well, like bottoming out.
My theory is the driveshaft twists on intial windup (heavey footed launch from a stop) and it shortens a bit. The driveshaft is then pulled out from the front clamp and when it returns to normal length, it pushes against the clamp and flexplate. I have checked this by marking the relation of the driveshaft to the bell housing webbing as well as at the coupler. The coupler mark moved and the bell housing mark did not.
I have not done any research with SC'd cars, but if you increase the torque that should increase the wind up of the driveshaft to a point. I would definetly start checking the driveshaft pullout at the front clamp.
The specifics of the clamp makeup is with the manufacturer. Suffice to say it is a very solid piece of equipment.
It is a stock driveshaft and yes the six pinch bolts come with the clamp.
Thanks for your interest,
Constantine
The OE clamp strectches out and cannot clamp as well, like bottoming out.
My theory is the driveshaft twists on intial windup (heavey footed launch from a stop) and it shortens a bit. The driveshaft is then pulled out from the front clamp and when it returns to normal length, it pushes against the clamp and flexplate. I have checked this by marking the relation of the driveshaft to the bell housing webbing as well as at the coupler. The coupler mark moved and the bell housing mark did not.
I have not done any research with SC'd cars, but if you increase the torque that should increase the wind up of the driveshaft to a point. I would definetly start checking the driveshaft pullout at the front clamp.
The specifics of the clamp makeup is with the manufacturer. Suffice to say it is a very solid piece of equipment.
It is a stock driveshaft and yes the six pinch bolts come with the clamp.
Thanks for your interest,
Constantine
03-05-2005, 08:26 PM
#9
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Brian,
I honestly can't say. I believe what your asking is if the clamp will hold in a 400HP/TQ engine environment and I say it will. Remember, I only torqued the six pinch bolts to 25 ft lbs each. They can be torqued to over 40 ft lbs. which would be excessive I believe. The beauty of this clamp is it can easily be adjusted and clamped tighter.
Hope I answered your question,
Constantine
I honestly can't say. I believe what your asking is if the clamp will hold in a 400HP/TQ engine environment and I say it will. Remember, I only torqued the six pinch bolts to 25 ft lbs each. They can be torqued to over 40 ft lbs. which would be excessive I believe. The beauty of this clamp is it can easily be adjusted and clamped tighter.
Hope I answered your question,
Constantine
03-05-2005, 08:40 PM
#10
Under the Lift
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I recall a report here or on the email list of the Loctite fix not holding in an SC'd car. Constantine, put me down as a buyer.
Is the requirement to remove the tranny a clearance issue with the end of the TT shaft? I know the bellhousing lower crossing piece prevents the TT from being tilted down, but if the bellhousing could be removed and the tranny mounts loosened, you should be able to drop the end of the TT and remove the old coupling and install the new one. Some have just cut a space in that bellhousing obstruction. It does not appear structural.
Is the requirement to remove the tranny a clearance issue with the end of the TT shaft? I know the bellhousing lower crossing piece prevents the TT from being tilted down, but if the bellhousing could be removed and the tranny mounts loosened, you should be able to drop the end of the TT and remove the old coupling and install the new one. Some have just cut a space in that bellhousing obstruction. It does not appear structural.
Last edited by Bill Ball; 03-05-2005 at 10:17 PM.
03-05-2005, 10:15 PM
#11
Dean of Rennlist, "I'm Listening"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by Constantine
Hi Bigs,
The OE clamp strectches out and cannot clamp as well, like bottoming out.
My theory is the driveshaft twists on intial windup (heavey footed launch from a stop) and it shortens a bit. The driveshaft is then pulled out from the front clamp and when it returns to normal length, it pushes against the clamp and flexplate. I have checked this by marking the relation of the driveshaft to the bell housing webbing as well as at the coupler. The coupler mark moved and the bell housing mark did not.
I have not done any research with SC'd cars, but if you increase the torque that should increase the wind up of the driveshaft to a point. I would definetly start checking the driveshaft pullout at the front clamp.
The specifics of the clamp makeup is with the manufacturer. Suffice to say it is a very solid piece of equipment.
It is a stock driveshaft and yes the six pinch bolts come with the clamp.
Thanks for your interest,
Constantine
The OE clamp strectches out and cannot clamp as well, like bottoming out.
My theory is the driveshaft twists on intial windup (heavey footed launch from a stop) and it shortens a bit. The driveshaft is then pulled out from the front clamp and when it returns to normal length, it pushes against the clamp and flexplate. I have checked this by marking the relation of the driveshaft to the bell housing webbing as well as at the coupler. The coupler mark moved and the bell housing mark did not.
I have not done any research with SC'd cars, but if you increase the torque that should increase the wind up of the driveshaft to a point. I would definetly start checking the driveshaft pullout at the front clamp.
The specifics of the clamp makeup is with the manufacturer. Suffice to say it is a very solid piece of equipment.
It is a stock driveshaft and yes the six pinch bolts come with the clamp.
Thanks for your interest,
Constantine
I'm very interested, but I'm also cautious. I have a '93 GTS, and I hear GTS replacement engines are very expensive and in very short supply. So I just want to clear up any questions that occur to me before taking the plunge.
Thanks.
03-05-2005, 10:17 PM
#12
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bill,
I have heard that it is possible to move the trans back and remove the front flexplate, but I'm unsure that will work with the older, constant diameter drivehshaft since it's longer than the thicker, newer drive shaft. As far as cutting the bellhousing, the torque tube is connected to it which helps to connect the engine and trans as one unit. The engine twists underload and I wouldn't want to weaken the connection between the engine and trans. I know this does not help in the installation of the new clamp, but I want to stay true to the cause of keeping our cars healthy.
Could you also e-mail me privately if your still interested in buying a clamp? It makes it easier to keep track of how many want one.
Cheers,
Constantine
I have heard that it is possible to move the trans back and remove the front flexplate, but I'm unsure that will work with the older, constant diameter drivehshaft since it's longer than the thicker, newer drive shaft. As far as cutting the bellhousing, the torque tube is connected to it which helps to connect the engine and trans as one unit. The engine twists underload and I wouldn't want to weaken the connection between the engine and trans. I know this does not help in the installation of the new clamp, but I want to stay true to the cause of keeping our cars healthy.
Could you also e-mail me privately if your still interested in buying a clamp? It makes it easier to keep track of how many want one.
Cheers,
Constantine
03-05-2005, 10:26 PM
#13
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bigs,
The rear of the driveshaft has a groove in it which has the rear pinch bolt seated in it and which helps hold the driveshaft in the rear flexplate coupler. The 928 manuals have a picture of this set up. This holds the driveshaft very well, as long as the bolt is torqued correctly. They have been known to loosen and cause damage to the rear driveshaft splines.
No problem being cautious, I would be too if I had a GTS!
Regards,
Constantine
The rear of the driveshaft has a groove in it which has the rear pinch bolt seated in it and which helps hold the driveshaft in the rear flexplate coupler. The 928 manuals have a picture of this set up. This holds the driveshaft very well, as long as the bolt is torqued correctly. They have been known to loosen and cause damage to the rear driveshaft splines.
No problem being cautious, I would be too if I had a GTS!
Regards,
Constantine
03-05-2005, 10:32 PM
#14
Under the Lift
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
The TT shaft is said to twist 90-180 degree under torque. This causes it to shorten and pull back on the flex plate. You'd think the plate, being flexible, would accommodate the shortening, but it isn't flexible enough, I suppose, under sudden shortening. Others have proposed that the shaft actually moves forward over time due to "ballooning" of the torque converter. But so many people have documented that the TT actually pulls back though the front clamp, that that is more commonly accepted. That said, my TT does seem to be further forward (or longer) than before. Each time I release the forward tension and the clamp moves back I seem to have less of the splines exposed behind the clamp than I used to several adjustments ago. Hmmm... If that is true, then the better clamp would not be the answer. I tend to discount my observation and the ballooning TC hypothesis as the earlier cars, with the end shims and circlip to prevent the TT shaft from pulling back through the front clamp, are not known to suffer from TBF. So, I'm very interested in Constatine's clamp, especially since I am going to install an SC soon.
03-05-2005, 10:47 PM
#15
Under the Lift
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by Constantine
Hi Bill,
I have heard that it is possible to move the trans back and remove the front flexplate, but I'm unsure that will work with the older, constant diameter drivehshaft since it's longer than the thicker, newer drive shaft. As far as cutting the bellhousing, the torque tube is connected to it which helps to connect the engine and trans as one unit. The engine twists underload and I wouldn't want to weaken the connection between the engine and trans. I know this does not help in the installation of the new clamp, but I want to stay true to the cause of keeping our cars healthy.
Could you also e-mail me privately if your still interested in buying a clamp? It makes it easier to keep track of how many want one.
Cheers,
Constantine
I have heard that it is possible to move the trans back and remove the front flexplate, but I'm unsure that will work with the older, constant diameter drivehshaft since it's longer than the thicker, newer drive shaft. As far as cutting the bellhousing, the torque tube is connected to it which helps to connect the engine and trans as one unit. The engine twists underload and I wouldn't want to weaken the connection between the engine and trans. I know this does not help in the installation of the new clamp, but I want to stay true to the cause of keeping our cars healthy.
Could you also e-mail me privately if your still interested in buying a clamp? It makes it easier to keep track of how many want one.
Cheers,
Constantine
Removing the flexplate on an S4 is no problem (I've done it), but there is not enough room to remove the clamp. Tilting the TT down should overcome that, but the TT is trapped by the bellhousing. Unbolting the bellhousing is not a big problem. However, getting it out is impeded by a bracket than holds the bowden cable - it's on the top of the bellhousing and is a b*&ch to remove due to it inaccessible location. I suppose the cable could be removed with the bellhousing. Anyway, I think there may be a way on later cars to install your clamp with the tranny and TT in-place, just tilted down at the front.
I will PM you. Thanks for coming forward with this offer.
Last edited by Bill Ball; 03-06-2005 at 03:23 AM.