

| Subject: | Re: Clutch Cable |
| From: | Phil Marston |
| Date: | Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:48:52 -0000 |
> At 3:28 PM +0000 3/16/00, Phil Marston wrote: > >I think 1600 Aircooled vans were clutch cable & 2000 Aircooled vans were > >hydraulic. > > (The following speaks only to North American spec vehicles. I have > no clue what kinda crazy stuff they were up to elsewhere). > > All buses up to 1979 (the old "breadloaf" body style) used clutch > cables. They switched to hydraulics in vanagons. I *think* all > vanagons starting in 1980 had hydraulics, including air-cooled > vanagons. I believe the cable/hydraulic change occured with the > breadloaf/vanagon design change and was independent of engine size or > cooling system. > > As regards Phil's comment, I know all 2000cc (OK, 1970cc for you > picky types) breadloaf aircooleds (1976 - 1979) sold in the US/Canada > have clutch cables. But maybe they have something different in the > UK? Yes, as you can imagine, my first T25 (an '80 model) came with a 1600 engine & a cable clutch. My later rolling shell (an '81 model) came without a 2l engine but with a hydraulic clutch gearbox. So now I have an '81 rolling chassis with a 1600 aircooled (rebuilt with 1600 beetle parts) so no head gasket problems, waterleaks, green or orange anti-freeze...blah blah..) with a hydraulic clutch. To be honest a new clutch cable is about $20 to replace, whereas to replace the hydraulics must cost at least $250, plus you can change a broken clutch cable at the side of the road unlike a hydraulic system. So which is really better ? Phil T25.
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »