Transmission bell crank for pmo's

[dipso]

Can any one confirm that the early style bellcrank 901.423.027.03 is the right one to get for my 75 with PMOs?
Is it necessary?
Anyone that has changed to an earlier, carb appropriate, bell crank. What did you notice as different?

[sixbanger]

That bell crank works fine on my 69 911E and my 70 914-6. They both have PMO'S,

[dipso]

For you, it probably always had that one. I have a 75 CIS bellcrank and would like to change to that one.
Just wondering if it will fit and what improvements I could expect.
I found that part # in another thread, and found that part at a place by my house that sells used parts.
Just wondering.

[dipso]

Here is the thread I saw the part # in.

Bell crank ratios?

[dipso]

I'm thinking about buying that bellcrank in the next day or two.
A lot of people seem to be fine with the whatever bellcrank they have, and others suggest the earlier model designed for Webers.
Did PMO make up for the different ratios in their carb mounted bellcrank?
I'm just trying to get a pedal that isn't so stiff.
I want to move my crossmember linkage, to the bottom hole, right now it is in the center hole.it seems that the bottom hole will provide less resistance.

[toddu]

My $.02, fish for a used one. There seems to be a lot of variance between all of the bell cranks. I paid < $10 for a used one. If it worked (which it did), great, if not I wasn't out much. $60 seems a lot for something that might not address the issue.

Todd

[dipso]

Where did you see $60.00?
I was going to pay 75 for a used one.
When you changed to the early style, what difference did you notice and why did you change in the first place?
Also, what year and model if car do you have.I am on a phone, so signatures do not show up.
Do you have PMOs?

[toddu]

Hmmm, I just skimmed the thread link you had and saw some PP prices in there, maybe it was something different.

I have an '81, so went from CIS to carbs. I have PMOs with "tall" manifolds. To be honest, never drove the car without the current bellcrank. I read a few posts indicating leaving all of the CIS parts in place (bell crank, throttle rod from tranny to manifold) would never achieve WOT, etc. so I didn't even bother.

I have to make a few small adjustments to get final 10% of WOT, but the pedal response is very linear, smooth transition, etc.

Replacement bell crank had "arms" at a much closer angle and one or both were also shorter in length. Guess I got a smoking deal.

Todd

[dipso]

Do you remember what early bellcrank you purchased?
The part # I am thinking of getting is 1965 through 1969, I think.

[dipso]

Did yours fit OK? My transmission is a 75. I think that's a g15? I can't remember.

[toddu]

It would be a 915. Yes, fit fine. Think they are all standard. Just goes on a rod threaded into the transmission. I did put new bushings in.

Part of the issue is these things don't have part no's on them (best I can tell). I'll ser if I can find a pic of it and see if that helps.

Todd

[dipso]

915, right. Oops.

No part numbers, damn! That's my fear.
I called the guy and asked for 90142392703 and he looked it up and said 'yeah, we have those'.
I was wondering how the heck can he be sure, there are so many.
I'm probably going to go buy it anyways, if you have a picture that would be great.

[TimT]

This pic was posted by someone on another thread regarding these bell cranks...

Note that there appear to be 4 different ratios available.

The one on the top right would provide the most travel, the one in the middle left the least...

[dipso]

I'll have to get under my car and take a look, it's been awhile. That 63/43 looks good. Nice long arm for ease of pedal movement.

[LJ851]

Originally Posted by dipso

I'll have to get under my car and take a look, it's been awhile. That 63/43 looks good. Nice long arm for ease of pedal movement.

It's all about the input to output ratio. That long 63 arm is the output so for a given input it would be a stiffer pedal movement.

[dipso]

That's what I was going to check. So the short arm goes to the pedal, the long arm goes to the carb bellcrank.
I'm gonna measure mine tonight, I assume those are MM measurements.
At least then we will know what a stock 75 is.

I wonder if the transmission bellcrank can be reversed? Probably not, due to the tunnel feed.

Quote de dipso

I'll have to get under my car and take a look, it's been awhile. That 63/43 looks good. Nice long arm for ease of pedal movement.

It's all about the input to output ratio. That long 63 arm is the output so for a given input it would be a stiffer pedal movement.

[cabmandone]

I don't know if my brother got lucky but when we installed his rebuilt 3.2 with PMO's we had no problem with throttle linkage and the bell crank was the one off of his 3.0.

IIRC you will get more or less clearance to your CV joint with the different cranks. I could be wrong but I think that's what the concern is.

[dipso]

I get full throttle now. It's just that I want to see if I can make the pedal easier to push.
I want to move the linkage in the throttle arm
to the bottom position, currently it is in the second hole.
I want to move the carb bellcrank linkages to the top holes, currently they are about 2/3rds up. And then I want to get a transmission bellcrank with longer arms, so everything pulls easy.

At least that is my plan. Good to see you in tech Cabmando/enemy.

[dipso]

It looks like stock for a 75 is top left. It doesn't look like I have a perfect 90• like middle right. But with the angle of the arm, top left could be a 90•
But there is no inner bushing at all. I'm sure that is part of the problem.

[dipso]

I took measurements. It's about 45 and 55 from center of tube to center of ball socket.