1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Purchased a new clutch fork boot and clutch rod boot.

I know where the fork boot goes but where does the clutch rod boot go? The LMC diagram does not show where it goes. I also noticed that mine is missing the clutch fork return spring. Where does it go? It seems to be working just fine without it.

Also in looking at the clutch linkage diagram it appears that someone has taken the pushrod "wing" nut and placed it behing the clutch fork and then just put a regular nut on the end. Is this correct?

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

A little late, but I will try to help as I'm working on the same stuff:

The wing nut is correct, mine has one as well, though a photo of yours would help, as there is no nut between the fork and the wing nut. In fact, the fork is grooved to accept the wing nut, a regular nut would be wrong.

I'm trying to figure out how to but my spring back, will have a pic in my thread when I do. Here is a link to the thread. It has a good diagram of the linkage that should help you.
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...clutch+linkage

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

HELP: So this so called push/fork rod wing nut is not threaded. Does it go on the front side of the clutch fork or back side? Either way, it appears that the push rod will require a regular nut on the very end, correct?

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

the wing part goes on front side of fork and nut on back side. Return spring goes to DS frame rail and clips in hole

Leave the rear nut lose so the fork does not bind on the wedged spacer on the front side of it

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

The rod at the clutch arm on some of them doesn't have threads. (unless it has been replaced) That wedge piece that everyone calls a "nut" isn't really a nut because it doesn't have any threads in it, it just slides onto the end of the rod. The long spring holds it all together. The spring goes from the end of the clutch arm to a hole in the bottom frame rail.

LockDoc

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

I think all the nut was for was to keep from losing the wedge if the linkage somehow came apart.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Awesome, thanks for the quick reply. One more question, so to reduce the play in the clutch, do you move the swivel piece forward thus shortening the amount of thread on the end or backwards towards the fork thus increasing the amount of thread on the end?

I moved the swivel forward and then I could not get it back in the hole to secure it with the carter pin. Therefore, I have to remove it from the fork and discovered this issue with the placement of the so called push rod wingnut.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Linkage adjusts on the other end of the linkage with the 2 jam nuts. Further adj (if absolutely needed) can be made by putting a few washers under the wedge. Adjustment is made by controlling clutch pedal end play inside the cab.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

where does the clutch rod boot go?

On/at the firewall where the clutch rod passes through to interior.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Thank you. I am assuming you loosen the two jam nuts and move the swivel piece forward thus reducing the amount of threads on the front end. When you say putting a few washers under the wedge are you referring to in between the wing nut and clutch fork itself?

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Under the wedge up against the step in the rod. Forget about the nut on the end, it has nothing to do with adj... Wedge rides against the fork with the spring holding it together ---nothing in between the 2

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Thank you again. So you are saying to put a washer or two between the wedge and the flange/stop on the push rod. See picture. However, in order to do this it will require adjusting the swivel on the opposite end between the jam nuts in order to get the push rod back in. Correct?

Just getting the wedge back in the correct location has made a bit difference.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

OP, look at my pic in post 4. I have a 1/4" spacer between the ridge of rod and wedge. This is because without it there were not enough threads on end of rod to draw the rod/wedge against the fork. I bought the wedge because mine was missing, and it is shorter than what is shown in factory manual I also posted in #4. You don't want the wedge tight against fork, just enough so the wedge stays engaged to fork recess. You otherwise adjust the rod shorter or longer to make pedal clutch engagement closer or higher off the floor

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Here's the pedal pushrod boot on the firewall.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Thanks. This is excellent information that I have been troubleshooting for years. Now I have noticed that when we had the clutch replaced 30 years ago that the POS shop failed to reinstall the transmission cross member. I am assuming this is pretty important?

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

A lot of the early trucks had the transmission suspended by the 4 bolts without a cross member underneath it. My 68 GMC was like that. That got changed when I installed an overdrive and converted to an SM465 trans. The original Rear engine mount was the bell housing. Clutch gets adjusted by the clutch pedal end play in the cab. Usually about 1-1/2''to 2'' of end play

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

so just because the tranmission tail has 2 open screw holes doesn't mean the cross member is missing? I'll have to take a picture.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Yes a pic would show a lot

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

My 72 3 OTT 250 6 cyl did not have an X member. The Saginaw 3 speed did have trans mount to X member holes.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Here are two pictures. There does not appear to be any holes on the frame that would align with a cross member.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Unless your going for original, Go hydraulic and eliminate all the bracketry. I’ve done 2
My LS and my sons 383 with Muncie 4 speed. Works perfect

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Pictures of your hydraulic setup?

But I am missing the cross member correct?

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Take a picture of the front of the transmission and the bellhousing. If there are mounts on the bellhousing then it doesn't get a cross member at the back of the transmission. It's one or the other, not both.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

will take a few pictures.

can you explain the two bolt holes in the transmission tail that could bolt to a cross member? Looks like I have the 4 speed saginaw.

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

Normal. Same transmission was used in other applications that required the cross member. Nothing to worry about. If you didn't have the bell housing mount the entire engine would be bouncing around creating a ton of other issues

Re: 1972 C10 clutch fork and clutch linkage issues
 

One ($) of many options
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/i...RoCIxUQAvD_BwE