Volvo RWD 120-130 Forum

INDEX FOR 10/2025(CURRENT) INDEX FOR 1/2002 120-130 INDEX

[<<]  [>>]


THREADED THREADED EXPANDED FLAT PRINT ALL
MESSAGES IN THIS THREAD




  REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

Cable vs hydrolic clutch mechanism 120-130

Is there a difference in feel or reliability with a cable clutch mechanism? Given a choice why wouldn't you go this route to avoid having to deal with leaky clutch slave cylinders (over time) etc...?








  •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE    PRINT   SAVE 

    Cable vs hydrolic clutch mechanism 120-130

    I used to be very wary of hyd clutches untill a few cable clutches had snapped. Now I prefer the longevity of hyd clutch plus the feedback as it starts to fail. A hyd starts to be a little fussy and need some pumping (usually) or sometimes needs more fluid for a temporary fix. A cable can and will fail all of a sudden, though they also just got stiffer and stiffer sometimes and then it's time to pull it.








  •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE    PRINT   SAVE 

    Cable vs hydrolic clutch mechanism 120-130


    It's not worth the bother, and a broken clutch cable is an absolute fail, a leaky cylinder will drive indefinitely if kept topped up.

    To convert to cable clutch you need to change the release arm, the cable pulls, the cylinder pushes. And to do that means dropping the gearbox. The Volvo cable design is a pain to change the cable on. The only reason Volvo changed to the cable clutch on a 120 on the '69 and '70 cars was for clearance on the dual circuit brakes.

    If you change the fluid on the hydraulic clutch as part of regular maintenance they last pretty much indefinitely. I've yet to rebuild one twice.








    •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE    PRINT   SAVE 

      Please elaborate on your statement! 120-130

      "The only reason Volvo changed to the cable clutch on a 120 on the '69 and '70 cars was for clearance on the dual circuit brakes." Thanks








      •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE    PRINT   SAVE 

        Please elaborate on your statement! 120-130

        I always thought it was fo rcost savings, Just my guess. I have always thought the hydraulic felt better, and yeah, the cables are a pita to replace and the newer ones seem a little bit long, (for the 142 anyway) again this is just a guess but I think they're a 240 unit that is also apliccable fo rthe 140 but are just a bit long.
        CU








        •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE    PRINT   SAVE 

          Please elaborate on your statement! 120-130

          I think it's probably down to the decision to mount the servo as flush to the bulkhead as possible on the B20 144. The earlier "trumpet" type allowed a hydraulic MC to be fitted and was probably designed to allow this and for no other reason. Fitting a cable clutch and shortening the servo also allowed the battery to fit in front of it as well. Back engineering the B20 into the Amazon for a couple of years meant more compromise. You've only got to look at the RHD set up with the cross over bar to the servo and the cable looping across the top of the engine to see that. As said, cables are MUCH cheaper and are direct acting, so no strange effects when the seals start to go. The hydraulic system pushes and the cable pulls. I think that the longer cable clutch arm will give a lighter feel than the hydraulic one although the diaphragm clutch helps. A light clutch is always a plus point on a test drive on a new car so way back then it would have been a selling point, especially to women. Now days they are VERY light.







<< < > >>



©Jarrod Stenberg 1997-2022. All material except where indicated.


All participants agree to these terms.

Brickboard.com is not affiliated with nor sponsored by AB Volvo, Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. or Ford Motor Company. Brickboard.com is a Volvo owner/enthusiast site, similar to a club, and does not intend to pose as an official Volvo site. The official Volvo site can be found here.