Quick Time Bell users, ones that are up and running, question

[My427stang]

I shot QT an email and not hearing much yet, but years ago on the forums we say the QT bell had the throwout fork location a bit lower in clock position than a Lakewood or Ford bell.

I linked a post from a few years ago, and I believe it was unchanged for Chilly in 2018... anyone know if they changed the bell since then or used it with stock linkage?  Looks to be pretty crooked....application will be a factory Day 2 style build in a relatively rare car, so looking for the option to keep stock style linkage. 

https://www.fordfe.com/quicktime-bellhousing-clutch-fork-alignment-proble-t105492.html

I can't imagine a benefit for doing it, but I think it is what it is unless we find an older Lakweood

[Cyclone03]

Not running a new QT. But I’ve ran one since 2009 ,TKO length, with stock linkage,6114 Hookers. I did replace the lower rod with a hyme joint but still used the stock type “ball” on the fork end. I never had a problem until I swapped headers to FPA’s. Those headers required raising the pivot,frame and block,about 5/8” and the geometry went to hell. It created a weird  reducing ratio feeling. It’s hard to explain but the more you pushed the clutch pedal the slower the through got. It required full pedal travel to completely release clutch.
I just went to a hydraulic TO bearing.
I had no problems with stock linkage before the header change.

[Barry_R]

I run a QuickTime with "stock" linkage in the Torino.
We flipped the adjusting rod from the Z bar to clutch fork to the opposite side of the Z bar to straighten out the geometry - seems to work really well now

[ACHiPo]

In my ERA Cobra built in 2017 I had to run a hydraulic TOB because of the QuickTime fork location.

[My427stang]

Likely going to see if we can find a Lakewood, doesn’t need SFI. Shame they did that

[chilly460]

Ross, my stock linkage had to be lengthened by 2.5” to match the fork position on the Quicktime, but I believe this was due to the earlier style bells having a position that was higher (don’t know when they changed the bells exactly but 63 or older for sure).  They also used the pivot position that’s for a later bell so I had to redrill mine

[bill_396]

My 68 Mustang is assembled with one that I bought a couple of years ago. There is a lot of "non-stock" in my set-up, REF headers and a twin disc so my Z-bar may not be indexed quite like stock. To get the alignment to my liking I believe I only lengthened the Z-bar 5/8" to 3/4".

[TomP]

I don't know if they offer options on that location but I've got a smallblock one and it has the clutch fork and cable holes rotated down and also the starter rotated down too, This makes a bunch of extra header clearance. Normally the cable sits in prime header tube space, now it's against the pan.

 Can't move the starter location on the FE and the fork would certainly foul up geometry with mechanical linkage. Maybe they intended it for hydraulic clutch conversions?

[cjshaker]

Can't move the starter location on the FE and the fork would certainly foul up geometry with mechanical linkage. Maybe they intended it for hydraulic clutch conversions?

If it were only intended for hydraulic, there would be no need for that large of a hole. Apparently "made correctly" means "we don't care what problems you have" in layman terms.

"I called QT and they assured me my bellhousing PN 6057 was the correct one and that it was made correctly."

I have no use for companies like this, and I won't use a QT bell for that reason. It seems like everybody who uses them has major issues that have to be worked around, and they don't care enough to change anything. I don't see how swapping the rod from side to side changes anything on the geometry, and lengthening the Z-bar changes the pedal ratio and would result in a quicker release/engagement. Not good if you have a strong clutch.

Ross, over the last few months there have been a couple of Lakewood units that were posted in the classifieds. Maybe you could do a search and see if any are still available? I don't know how big of a hurry you're in, but I'll have a spare later this year, the one that's currently in my car, but it won't get changed out for several months yet. I bought a nice one, still in the box, at a swapmeet a couple of years back, in anticipation of having to have it re-certified. My current one has been stripped and painted because I didn't care about certification on it.

[Towd56]

Can't move the starter location on the FE and the fork would certainly foul up geometry with mechanical linkage. Maybe they intended it for hydraulic clutch conversions?

If it were only intended for hydraulic, there would be no need for that large of a hole. Apparently "made correctly" means "we don't care what problems you have" i
n layman terms.

"I called QT and they assured me my bellhousing PN 6057 was the correct one and that it was made correctly."

I have no use for companies like this, and I won't use a QT bell for that reason. It seems like everybody who uses them has major issues that have to be worked around, and they don't care enough to change anything. I don't see how swapping the rod from side to side changes anything on the geometry, and lengthening the Z-bar changes the pedal ratio and would result in a quicker release/engagement. Not good if you have a strong clutch.

Ross, over the last few months there have been a couple of Lakewood units that were posted in the classifieds. Maybe you could do a search and see if any are still available? I don't know how big of a hurry you're in, but I'll have a spare later this year, the one that's currently in my car, but it won't get changed out for several months yet. I bought a nice one, still in the box, at a swapmeet a couple of years back, in anticipation of having to have it re-certified. My current one has been stripped and painted because I didn't care about certification on it.

Would you happen to have the Lakewood part # handy

[Barry_R]

I don't see how swapping the rod from side to side changes anything on the geometry,

Doug
On a Torino the adjusting rod clips over a stud that points towards the "outside" of the car.  With the Quicktime (and to a lesser extent with the factory) orientation and clutch fork the rod is at an angle as it travels, causing some pivoting and binding.  My factory stuff showed considerable wear from this over the years.  If you relocate that stud so it is on the "inside" of the Z bar the rod travels in much more of a straight line.  Clutch feel is much smoother and more linear.  If I leave my car as is (thinking of ditching the race stuff and putting a T56 in the car) you can try it out at Beaver Springs - I think you'd be surprised at how nice it feels.

[My427stang]

Thanks guys, Doug we have time, haven’t started the build yet but will likely look around now too. Thanks  everybody, It’s a shame they stopped making the Lakewood no other option now unless you go used

[blykins]

15210 is the Lakewood number, but they no longer make them. 

Aside from any alignment issues, the quality is much higher from the QT bells than the LW bells.  More room for headers, lighter weight, and the need for new bellhousing dowels has went down considerably. 

[e philpott]

I had to double up the block plate to make room for a McLeod soft lock clutch on mine , there wasn't enough room for the throw-out bearing but that was the only problem . I run stock 1968.5 CJ  linkage on mine no problems

[chilly460]

I don't see how swapping the rod from side to side changes anything on the geometry, and lengthening the Z-bar changes the pedal ratio and would result in a quicker release/engagement. Not good if you have a strong clutch.

Very much the truth, I knew it would make for higher clutch effort to extend the leg of the z-bar the way I did, but I can tell you it makes for a very stiff clutch.  I have the engagement set very high so it just takes a quick stab to disengage/engage the clutch so I don't have to push it in much, but it's a PITA in traffic.  I was tired of fiddling with it so I did it just to get it up and running, and it's been fine for a few years, but definitely not optimal.