Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I recently put my rb20 gearbox and clutch on my rb25 and put the engine back in and now have just put my clutch slave on and tried to put the brake fluid through it using the DIY on here (bleeding the air out of each section)

now I think I have done it right but my clutch pedal still doesnt have any pressure. I dont know how much movement the fork is supposed to have but when I put the slave on I had to compress the pin on it to get it in between the fork and where it sits. The only movement I can get on the fork is by by pushing it into the slave which pushes the slave pin in even more. Is it supposed to have more movement then that?

I could hear when I push the fork into the slave when the clutch pedal is down it makes the clutch pedal jump.

Another thing I notcied is that its hard to get the gears into place but Im not sure if thats because the gearbox doesnt have any oil in it. Would this cause this? or has something gone wrong with my clutch fork when my clutch went on?

Or have I just put the fluid in wrong?

This is how my slave sits normally. The fork cannot move backwards at all. is this normal?

post-85299-0-19753300-1310635605_thumb.jpg

Have you got the right slave. I changed my rb20det gearbox to a rb25det and I had to change the slave.

Try adjusting the nut at the top of your clutch pedal where it pushes the rod into the master.

Yeh I have the right slave. Im using a rb20 box. The rb20 uses a push clutch which means the slave pin should be able to push the clutch fork right??? If so I think something has gone when I have put the clutch and box on cos I cant push the fork at all. it will only move towards the slave, and isnt the slave supposed to push it??

Yes the slave should push the arm. I would suggest taking the slave off the side of the gearbox and see if it moves with out the arm in the way. That way you will know if its clutch or hydrolics.

If its not the hydrolics then look at the pivot ball. Possibly a different clutch might sit further out so the fulcrum angle will change.

Thanks Ducati, I will try taking it off when i get home in a couple hours and see if it moves without the fork in the way. The fork definantly has no backward movement so maybe something with the pivot ball or thrust bearing has gone wrong

I tested the slave and it is fine. I took the gearbox off and when I moved it off a bit the clutch fork was able to move fine, but when its moved back on the fork cant move backwards at all. It feels like the clutch cover is too big or something for the bearing to move forward.

Is the rb20 and rb25 clutch cover different?

I was thinking maybe I have a rb25 one? cos the 20 and 25 clutches are the same as far as I know

20 one will work if it's a 20 gearbox. The difference between RB20 and RB25 (R33 era) is the bolts are on the other side of the slave. R34 GTT and late 32GTR onwards went to pull type clutch.

Have you tried cracking the bleed nipple on the slave and getting some fluid through? Probably got a huge air lock.. there's also a bleed nipple on the master cylinder.

Yeh I did the whole process of bleeding th air out of each section for the slave. It's just that the slave needs the pin pushed in a fair way just to get it in place (shown

In the pic in my first post) and the fork has absolutely no backward movement even If I tap it with a hammer.

That's what's made me think that I may have a rb25 clutch cover if they are bigger then rb20 ones??? Cos that may explain why my fork can't move. What do you reckon?

And I just remembered my clutch cover didn't line up to the pins on my flywheel and I had to drill the holes out a bit on the cover to make it go on which I found a bit strange :huh:

Edited by dantheman88

By the looks of this site the rb20 and rb25 pressure plates are the same. And according to the site I definantly have a turbo pressure plate and flywheel so Now i have no clue what the problem could be :(

http://www.skylineowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=151491

your not trying to push the clutch fork with your hand are you as there is no way in hell you will move it.

I would say you just havent bled it properly. Even if its the wrong cylinder it would still move, it just wouldnt move enough to get gears thats all.

If it doesnt move at all, ie by pushing the clutch fork with a pry bar, by operating the clutch through the pedal, then you have something wrong inside the bell housing.

Why are you using a 20 box on a 25 anyway? I hope your not a crazy driver as ist not going to last long

Well i have tried tapping it with a hammer and using a pry bar and couldnt get any movement. I am not 100% if it bled right as I have never done it before. But i didnt follow the instructions on here and I still couldnt get my clutch pedal to get pressure. but I thought that may have been becasue my slave pin was compressed so much.

I am using a rb20 box as thats what came with my project. I have an aftermarket clutch, but I still have a stock pressure plate and flywheel. Could the stock flywheel with an aftermarket clutch be causing the fork not to move?

I know the rb20 box isnt very strong but i wasnt planning to go very hard on it until I could get a rb25 box

I swaped a rb20 box for a rb25 box and found the slave cylinder were different. I also had no pedal feel at first when I changed to a rb25box. The clutch and flywheel where all the same. After I bled it I still had no pedal feel. In the end I had to adjust the nut and pin that went into the master at the top of the clutch pedal. Wind the pin in until it hits the cyliner.

Has your pedal any pressure or does it feel like its not even pushing the master pin in?

I found that the hard line from the master wasn't done up very tight and was leaking a little. So I tightened it and now the clutch pedal Has some pressure and pushes the fork, but it doesn't feel quite normal yet. It feels loose until it jut about hits the floor, then gets pressure a little. I'm not sure if I need to adjust the clutch or try bleeding out any air again

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...