Date: 21 Dec 2001 21:05:52 GMT From: davehinznopsamcop.net Subject: Re: 9000s - hydraulic clutch years
Grunff <runffnopsamo.co.uk> pressed random keys until the following was produced: > <davehinznopsamcop.net> wrote in message > news:3c2396c1$0$43577$272ea4a1nopsam.execpc.com... >> And, of course, the Saab 92, 93, (94 I expect), and 95's and 96's up until >> 1964. > Absolutely. Funny you should mention it, I actually started typing all that > in my original post, but got bored, and deleted it. Is that a hint? ;) > I think the main reason for switching was the need for heavier diaphragms > for the bigger engines, and they didn't like the idea of loading a cable > that heavily. Well, I don't think so. The 64/65 change was from bullnose to longnose, and the engine wasn't (substantially) changed at that time. I know for certain that the '63 has a cable (I'm restoring one right now), and that the '65 has hydraulic, and I think the change was made when they went longnose. The engine wasn't substantially changed (they moved the waterpump off of the generator and onto the head, since the radiator was now in *front* of the engine (weird), but the horsepower wasn't more than an incremental change. Isn't '65 when they went to high-mounted pedals also, rather than pivoting from the bottom? Sure makes the brake m/c easier to get to... That probably happened either because of, or so they could, move to a hydraulic clutch. The cable feels just fine, though, not at all like some more modern cars with a cable clutch that I've driven, which weren't nice at all. Dave "Looking for an oil injection tank for an MC-850" Hinz
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
