Clutch Fork/Bellhousing Interference

[Rory McNeil]

I didn`t know that GM racers were also having issues with QT bellhousings too. For whatever reason, it seems that Quick Time assumed that everybody that needs a scattershield is using a diaphragm style pressure plate. When they first came out, I wanted to buy a QT for my 428 FE Ford, but between them saying that their bellhousings "met all SFI test standards", yet were not provided with a SFI sticker, and that to use a QT in a Ford application and a Long style pressure plate, like a McLeod Soft Lok, or how every Ford FE powered vehicle to roll off the assembly line came equipped, required stacking 2 or 3 block plates to get adequate room,well screw that BS. I have also heard that in several applications, QT also elected to change the location and angle that the clutch fork is oriented . Too bad, had QT made a product that actually worked in a real race enviroment, they likely would have sold a lot more units. Its weight savings and compact design would have been a real plus, But to get an actual SFI stickered housing costs more, is heavier, negates much of the benefit. Sad thing that since Lakewood bought out Quick Time, that many of the old Lakewood housings have been discontinued, and now many less popular engines have no reasonably priced SFI bellhousings available any more.

[Jim Caughlin]

I do like the lower weight, more compact size and better dimensional qualities of the Quicktime. What I didn't like was the fact that they about doubled in price after they got bought out.

[terry1]

Ed. How is the Browell set up working for you?
I purchased the Browell bell and clutch-fork set up but haven't see it yet;
it's at Bub's so he can zero it in to my block.
Terry K

[james schaechter]

I have a QT in our Nova and have run soft loc, advanced single 10 inch, dual 7 inch and a dual 6.6 Boninfante. They are nice bellhousings. They do make a ton of different models. The only challenge I ever had was that it was about .200 shallower than the older style Lakewood or McLeod bells. When I used the clutch that was spaced off the flywheel and had a thicker disc, I ran the rm-198 spacer and it took care of it all. I also have a steel Browell with the heim joint and billet fork. They are pretty close to the same. The difference I saw is that it was about .100 deeper and the heim joint deal was nice. I had to cut the helm shorter to work with one clutch. It looks like the Browell is scalloped out near the pivot ball mount. The Browell was about 3 lbs heavier than the QT. I have not really bought any new QT stuff since they got bought out by Lakewood.

One thing I noticed, is that jerry Bickel sells a chrome moly foot that you could bolt to the inside if any bell to convert to a billet fork. I bought one, but I haven't switched over yet. I do like the billet fork. Main reason is for the use of a throwout bearing that stays in position when installing the trans. Of course the billet fork, is almost 300 and the bearing will be at least 80 bucks.

They all work. If I had a good QT, I wouldn't change brands just to change brands. In the Superstock car, we now have a 7.5 deep alum bell with a window and it is awesome! Again, it goes way up in price. I think if you were really loaded, you could do an alum for a 142 tooth flywheel and it would fit in a stock tunnel. $$$.

[Greg West]

Just to answer a few of the questions that have come up in this post. This is a single disc set-up. The disc is .380" thick. I have removed all of the spacers on the throwout bearing, it is as short as possible. There are .070" thick shims between the pressure plate and the flywheel.

Will the Browell billet fork set-up work with the Quick Time bellhousing?

It seems to me the area on the transmission face of the bellhousing near the fork should be cut back to allow for more fork clearance. Another option would be to reduce the thickness of the transmission face plate (on the engine side) to give more fork clearance. The plate is .430" thick, milling a pocket .200" - .250" deep in the fork area would help. I think this is something Quick Time should consider. Again, thanks for all the suggestions and comments.

[james schaechter]

Another more controllable option is to have the disc cut thinnner and pull the shims out from under the pp. you might be able to run a lighter pp spring or cut the pockets deeper in the pp. I understand that a thicker disc may last longer, but we ran out discs multiple seasons so being real thick isn't a necessity. There is a lot that can be done if you want to spend money, but I assumed you would rather not have to buy a bunch of stuff. When the pp is spaced up like that, you will have close quarters even with a std depth Browell.