C2 65 L79 - NCRS Discussion Boards

C2 65 L79

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Mike M.
    Expired
    • September 30, 1999
    • 710

    C2 65 L79

    I'm trying to make sure the clutch rod that attaches to the clutch pedal and goes through the firewall is the proper one for my car. I would like to know the length that the rod should be. If anyone knows this or could measure one and post the length that would be great. Thanks Mike
  • Joe L.
    Beyond Control Poster
    • February 1, 1988
    • 43193

    #2
    Re: C2 65 L79

    Mike-----

    The GM #3819154 (63 through early 66) or GM #3888213 (late 66 through 67 and all 63-67 SERVICE) pedal rods are 19-3/16" in length, end-to-end.
    In Appreciation of John Hinckley

    Comment

    • Mike M.
      Expired
      • September 30, 1999
      • 710

      #3
      Re: C2 65 L79

      That explains things, why I was having problems ajusting the clutch before I took the car apart.The rod that was in my car is 18in long. Are there any differences between the 2 parts GM#3819154 & GM3888213?
      Thanks Joe
      Thanks Joe

      Comment

      • Joe L.
        Beyond Control Poster
        • February 1, 1988
        • 43193

        #4
        Re: C2 65 L79

        Mike-----

        Well, as I check I find that the 2 pushrods were of different length. The GM #3819154, used in PRODUCTION from 63-65 (except L-78), was, indeed, 18" long. So, the one you have is original.

        However, in 1966 GM changed the PRODUCTION pushrod to GM #3888213 which is 19-3/16" OL. They also changed the 63-65 SERVICE pushrod to the 3888213. So, that pushrod should SERVICE the 63-65 application, even though the 63-65 application originally used a different cross shaft than the 66+. If you use the 66+ crosshaft, GM #3888279, then you MUST use the 3888213 rod. If you have the original 63-65 crossshaft, GM #3832857, then you should be able to use either the 3819154 or the 3888213 rods. However, the fact that GM replaced the 3819154 with the 3888213 for all 63-65 SERVICE applications and did so as early as Novemeber, 1966 IMPLIES that they might think that the 3888213 is better for all the applications. Of course, it could also be that the 3888213 was functional for 63-65 applications and they wanted to eliminate a part from SERVICE inventory requirements. But, I would bet on the former theory.
        In Appreciation of John Hinckley

        Comment

        Working...

        Debug Information

        Searching...Please wait.
        An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

        Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
        An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

        Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
        An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
        There are no results that meet this criteria.
        Search Result for "|||"