Flywheel housing for 2v.

[Freightrain]

My truck is together so there is no way to measure anything.  Oops, I see I typed #2 up above.  That wrong.

 

I don't need mounts on the bell housing.  I am going to have to fab up something else, maybe something underslung near the back of the box?  That will have to be done after I get a transmission picked 

[Freightrain]

Something a long these lines?  This for 18 spd.

https://www.vanderhaags.com/detailview.php?manufacturer=fuller&model=rtlo18918b&inventorytype=transmission-clutch-housing&partnumber=K3672&wcf=parentmodel

 

I guess you have to buy it for the particular model transmission?  If I have a choice, I am going for something with a double OD.

[Geoff Weeks]

I THINK this is what you are looking for:

Nodal mount

Push and pull Clutch

Doesn't say what model trans it came off

https://www.heavytruckparts.net/item/Mack/-/Bell-Housing/297005/1/83669829

What I remember, but DO NOT go off my memory alone, that the newer model Roadranger trans bells are different than then earlier (pre RLO) -6 and older transmission clutch housings, although they look similar.

edit: it doesn't look like the lower bosses are machined out for a push clutch, the bosses are in the casting but they haven't been machined.

Edited November 26 by Geoff Weeks

[Geoff Weeks]

Found this:

https://www.eaton.com/content/dam/eaton/products/transmissions/vehicle-transmissions/eaton-transmission-clutch-housing-selector-cmt1540-en-us.pdf

It seams to  imply that push and lower pull are NOT the same on the cross shaft (learned something new) and I can't find a push nodal mount for the older transmissions. SO I may be wrong. That said if you can fit a double disk pull flywheel, the trans with the nodal mount shouldn't be hard to come by.

[Geoff Weeks]

Wooo hooo! I found what you need to know!

https://www.redramgear.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/eaton-fuller-transmission-identification-guide.pdf

A 6064 is a nodal with symentrical mount bolts in aluminum with both push and pull

A 4373 is a nodal iron for push clutch only

A 4232 is a iron nodal in SAE #2

Hope this helps

[Geoff Weeks]

Hum, 6064 is listed as both nodal and non nodal and any pictures I see are non nodal? So not sure we are out of the woods yet.

[Freightrain]

I can put a pull clutch in, just have to revamp my linkage under the truck.  It's been done before.  I am just looking around to see if I can find the unicorn that will make this a bolt in. On a side note, I also need to look for a forward top cover.  Just to help move the shifter more forward where it is with original transmission.  

That link you posted is awesome information.  Kinda confusing but will need to do some reading and soak it in.

[Geoff Weeks]

Top cover should be any problem RTO is std cover RTOF is foward set shifter cover. I assume you're looking to make a RTOOFxx5 or6 13?

I am getting no hits on any of the numbers other than the 6064, and that is suspect for being a Nodal mount.

From what I have read, you don't want anything new than a "6" trans and they are now so out of date that they aren't what show up most of the time.

5 series is "course gearing"

6 series is "fine gearing"

7 is the start of the low inertia series transmissions.

I take it you are looking for a .68 top O/D gear?

[Geoff Weeks]

This says it is for Mack, seams to be double bushed for both over/under but listed pull only

https://www.ebay.com/itm/292528684947

[Geoff Weeks]

This one is nodal, but the bottom bosses are not machined out. The above post with the .pdf  has the drawing with the dimensions to locate the lower shaft for push applications.

https://www.vanderhaags.com/detailview.php?manufacturer=fuller&model=a-4456&inventorytype=transmission-clutch-housing&wcf=model

If you have the ability to do the machine work or know someone who does, you could make a push bell with nodal mount with the info we now have.

It would appear that Mack uses the symmetrical nodal mount from what I can glean from the E bay listing.

Edited November 26 by Geoff Weeks

[Geoff Weeks]

This one has the correct drilling of the lower shaft for a push type clutch, but unfortunately is not nodal mount.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/296632014527

If you look carefully at the pictures you can see the lower shaft is toward the transmission side of the housing more than the upper.

Flipping between the last two I posted, I think one could locate and machine the nodal mount one to take a push clutch shaft.

That is as close as I have come.

[Freightrain]

Mounts on the bell are not a priority.  I plan on making something I can bolt under/around the transmission.  Maybe around the back box?  Fabricating is not an issue.

Not having that mount casting in the way is actually a good thing.

I work at a machine shop, so machining something is not a problem.  Here I am opening the holes in my single disc wheel to fit the oddball bolts in my 237.

[Geoff Weeks]

In that case, the A-6064 is what you want. You are likely to need a hanger at the back end of the transmission if you get away from the nodal mount for the rear engine mount.

I learned quite a lot doing the research on your issue. I had always thought that the bells with the lower holes were for push clutches, and now know that they can be or can be for lower pull clutches depending on placement of of holes.

I hope you now have enough info to carry your project to fruition. 

[Freightrain]

I will fab up a mount once I have a transmission in hand.

I saw that difference about holes also.  Who would have thought?

I see that that housing works for 12500 series transmissions.  So I will check on a 12513 box with a forward shifter.

Thank you for all the effort you put into this.  It was very helpful and gave me a lot of insight on this matter.

If this all works, it surely will help others with this kind of conversion.

[Geoff Weeks]

As far as top housings, you can swap them as needed.

The question I have is what O/D ratio are you looking for?

The "std" is direct in 12th and OD of .86 (?) in 13th.

The old "double OD or RTOO is something like .73 in 12th and .68 in 13th but rare to find but can be "built".

 New RTLO boxes have a different gear set that is direct in 11th a .83 in 12th and .73 in 13th or something like that. I'd have to go into books to find the exact ratios.

 If you are buying from a yard, they should be able to set you up with the shifter position of your choice. If you are buying from a private sale you may need to take it as it comes, and buy a cover to get the position you want.

Std cover for a double OD has top gear against the dash, but an X bar cover will give you conventional H pattern.  They came about when more "steering wheel holders" than drivers entered the market and couldn't deal with the last two gear positions being "reversed" from what they were used to.

Older = cheaper, but even the RTLO series is now "older"

[davehummell]

Larry to bad you can't find a trans like mine 13 double over triplex it really gets up to speed with 370's rear gears 

[Freightrain]

I'll take what I can get for OD.  I can keep my Spicer for added OD for now. I don't use it a lot due to dropping Rpm and it really lugs on the triplex and that is rough on a worn out box(feel it in the shifter).  Once I replace it, I can use it more but would like to maybe find a 8341 or the like to replace the 6041 since it is leaking also.  Upgrades.

 

Dave, if someone had one that was in good shape it would be an option.  

[Geoff Weeks]

Just a thought from someone who has gone through the re-ratio deal.

Look at what you can find, then do the math in each gear for startability, ratio jump (progressibilty) and top speed, and decide if it does what you want.

 The wrong match, free and delivered to you is more expensive than the correct match you have to search out and pay a premium  for.

[Freightrain]

Lucky I shouldn't have any issues with gearing, I don't need much first gear(plus if I keep the spicer it is 2.19 low), splits aren't an issue with a 237.  It only needs 5 gears anyhow, but I like the ability to split.  I can't lug the triplex anyhow.  The 13 spd won't care.  OD is covered also.

 

All good questions when doing something like this.  Quick(or cheap) decisions might lead to problems.

I am going to look for a reman box because I don't want to have issues later.  Money spent today makes my life easier later.

[Freightrain]

I guess the next step is cross shaft and fork. (I'll assume my old cross shaft won't fit?)Then clutch part number for a push version.  I assume that bellhousing is for dual disc?  I have to confirm mine is 14"?  

I need to get under and measure my fork location and confirm with their 4.375 dimension.  I would assume it would be farther away then mine with that being dual disc?  Dunno??  Speculation until I figure it out.

I also looked at the K3688 you posted above.  It is similar to A6064 but it doesn't list what transmission it fits?  The price difference is quite a jump.  Most places say 6064 out of stock.  If the difference is just pockets for clusters, I can fix that.  There isn't any reference of size to either bells.

I did find parts list for the bushings for the cross shaft,but not shaft or fork.

[Geoff Weeks]

from the ad

'CLUTCH HOUSING FORCED LUBE ALUM'

which I believe would make it for a late model RTLO series?

As far as cross shaft, they are OEM not an Eaton part, as each mfg had their own linkage .  I would think your original and fork should fit if reuseable. That is the idea behind the SAE spec.

To bad Glenn is no longer with us to answer these questions.

The following are just guesses subject to correction:

The RTLO used taper roller bearings on the counter shaft, the earlier ones used plain rollers, I think the taper rollers had lube fed to them from the pump, early ones could have a pump or not, mainly for an oil cooler circuit.

I think the SAE spec sets up the distances and the different clutch assmeblies conform to those distances? In otherword a window is in the spec and how the clutch designer meets that window is up to them?

 It would seam the pull design allows for more compact design and allows the yoke to be placed slight closer to the flywheel, where as the push has to ride on the front bearing retainer so has to be (slightly) closer to the transmission.

 Likely why we see more pull clutches in multiple disks and push in more single disk clutches?

I thought the reason you were looking to stay with push is so you can use what you have now?  Double disk pull will make finding clutch parts easier as they have almost taken over.

If it were I (I like spending your time and money!) I would buy the used iron nodal with the lower holes missing and bore the boss from the dimensions from the Eaton .pdf, and fit your cross shaft and yoke.  you have all the info to locate the holes, getting them true is the issue and that comes down to the machinist's skill and what tool they have. Not me! but you seam to have access to what is needed. 

 It seams Mack used the nodal mount so mounts and isolators should be "off the shelf" items and you may have scrounge the frame brackets and re drill the frame, but will end up with something that is more or less stock. If at a later date you decide you need a multi disk pull the same clutch housing could take a top shaft and yoke.

 Aluminum makes machining easy, but may not be as strong in a nodal mount as iron. May be why they are harder to find?

Just spit-balling, it seams you have to machine a clutch housing and keep the same clutch, or replace the flywheel with one for that engine that is made to accept a pull clutch and install a new linkage. Both are do able (assuming part can be had) and both are viable for long term use.

I don't think one is better than the other, but I never wore a clutch out even heavy hauling, I used 14" double disk organic. For hauling your race trailer I don't see you wearing out a clutch either!

[Freightrain]

First clarification. My B model has no nodal mount.  I don't think R models had it either so it is a later model change.  Mine is front crank and middle of transmission.  That is why I say a nodal is a moot point.  With my rear spring hanger/clutch linkage in that area it just makes too many potatoes in a bag to deal with.

 

I again assumed this clutch housing would automatically changed it to dual disc even with push clutch?  Again, I have no clue about this stuff.  If I can just bolt this up to my existing flywheel/clutch, great.  I assumed it would change?  I don't need more clutch.   It is a composite disc and has plenty of grip.

I was curious if the housing would be 8" or 6" deep like mine.  That I would assume would denote single or dual?

My car stuff is one and done.  This is all Chinese to me.  I get sae # 1 or 2.  Does 1 mean single disc?  #2 dual disc?(Besides other size changes).

They list that 4.375 to shaft, I will confirm what mine is.

Machining the cross hole is doable but reaching across that length in one drill and then procurement of a ream would be tooling out of my pocket.  We have stuff but not for parts like this.

[Joseph Cummings]

I'm new to this thread. But why are you putting yourself through all this aggravation? Why not just fix whatever is wrong with your triplex?

[Joseph Cummings]

27 minutes ago, Freightrain said:

My car stuff is one and done.  This is all Chinese to me.  I get sae # 1 or 2.  Does 1 mean single disc?  #2 dual disc?(Besides other size changes).

 

[Geoff Weeks]

I had a small cam SAE #1 that had 3/8" bolt holes, but I doubt it was as old as 1953? Came off a CPL 150 small cam engine.