Ya the normal seal is a press fit but the guide tube is bolted to the bellhousing. http://www.aircooled.net/new-bin/viewpr ... 1241471838
Seems like a bandaid to me.
New Project: 914 2.0L into '67 T-3
- supaninja
- Posts: 1658
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:48 pm
Re: New Project: 914 2.0L into '67 T-3

'65 notch w/ a squirted type 4
http://supaninjanick.wordpress.com/
'68 "Zombie Response Vehicle" Westy
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=140387
- Piledriver
- Moderator
- Posts: 22777
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:01 am
Re: New Project: 914 2.0L into '67 T-3
The one I have seen doesn't bolt into anything, as the early trans does not have the boss to put bolts IN.
A press fit shouldered sleeve isn't going anywhere, and it takes an oil seal of the same type, just a different size...
If it leaked, someone did something wrong, as it's not a hokey looking design from the looks of it.
Here's a good article on the subject...
http://www.volksbolts.com/faq/T4clutch.htm
A press fit shouldered sleeve isn't going anywhere, and it takes an oil seal of the same type, just a different size...
If it leaked, someone did something wrong, as it's not a hokey looking design from the looks of it.
Here's a good article on the subject...
http://www.volksbolts.com/faq/T4clutch.htm
Addendum to Newtons first law:
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
- supaninja
- Posts: 1658
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:48 pm
Re: New Project: 914 2.0L into '67 T-3
I think we are not on the same page. That's why I think it is hookie because the guide tube is NOT bolted in. On the later tranny's, like yours, the guide tube is bolted to the bellhousing...ie way more secure then having the guide tube held in by only a rubber seal.
It just seems like a gear oil leak waiting to happen, purely my opinion that are based on very little facts and almost zero common sense
.
To answer the question, on a earlier trans type 3, IMHO I think a conversion flywheel is a better way to go.
It just seems like a gear oil leak waiting to happen, purely my opinion that are based on very little facts and almost zero common sense

To answer the question, on a earlier trans type 3, IMHO I think a conversion flywheel is a better way to go.

'65 notch w/ a squirted type 4
http://supaninjanick.wordpress.com/
'68 "Zombie Response Vehicle" Westy
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=140387
- Piledriver
- Moderator
- Posts: 22777
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:01 am
Re: New Project: 914 2.0L into '67 T-3
The page I'm on shows a METAL TO METAL press fit into the transmission, not into any rubber seal.
The fellow put a touch of RTV or locktite on it as insurance...
The only rubber seal is the new one for the input shaft that that now resides inside the tube.
It's possible the guy you heard of dorked up the trans getting the old seal out...
I think that same basic idea would make a great setup to mount a hydraulic TO bearing.
The fellow put a touch of RTV or locktite on it as insurance...
The only rubber seal is the new one for the input shaft that that now resides inside the tube.
It's possible the guy you heard of dorked up the trans getting the old seal out...
I think that same basic idea would make a great setup to mount a hydraulic TO bearing.
Addendum to Newtons first law:
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
- aircooledtechguy
- Posts: 1709
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
Re: New Project: 914 2.0L into '67 T-3
Well I can say from experience that I HATE the press-in guide tube that AC.net and others sell. Mine on my buss began leaking catastrophically within only about 10K miles. Of course it leaked when I was 400 miles from home on a camping trip with the whole family, pulling the trailer with my bus fully loaded. . .
One of the flaws of that guide tube sleeve is that there is NO hole down by the seal whereas if a leak develops, the oil can wick out before going into the clutch assembly. So when a leak occurs, literally ALL the oil gets funneled straight down that damned tube into the center of the clutch assembly wetting down BOTH sides of the friction disc. My bus would slip the clutch over 3k RPMs and at the time, I didn't have my type-4 motor installed. If I had I would have never made it home. I had to drive over a mountain pass on I-90 and through a steep gorge never allowing my motor to be loaded over 3K. . . I couldn't get over a simple over-pass faster than 30-35mph. . . 400 miles and 12 hours later (!!!!!!) we were home. Yeah, I'm with Supa; they are HOKEY and I'll never use one again.
Lets not even talk about the challenge of REMOVING ONE of these seal adapters when the seal fails without disassembling the tranny. . .
I now ONLY use the clip-in ring. I have used those on about a dozen or more conversions I've done for myself and clients without a single failure.
On the bright side, I did get 28.8 mpg on the way home proving once again that engine load has a MASSIVE effect on MPG!!! As if THAT was even in question. . .

One of the flaws of that guide tube sleeve is that there is NO hole down by the seal whereas if a leak develops, the oil can wick out before going into the clutch assembly. So when a leak occurs, literally ALL the oil gets funneled straight down that damned tube into the center of the clutch assembly wetting down BOTH sides of the friction disc. My bus would slip the clutch over 3k RPMs and at the time, I didn't have my type-4 motor installed. If I had I would have never made it home. I had to drive over a mountain pass on I-90 and through a steep gorge never allowing my motor to be loaded over 3K. . . I couldn't get over a simple over-pass faster than 30-35mph. . . 400 miles and 12 hours later (!!!!!!) we were home. Yeah, I'm with Supa; they are HOKEY and I'll never use one again.
Lets not even talk about the challenge of REMOVING ONE of these seal adapters when the seal fails without disassembling the tranny. . .


On the bright side, I did get 28.8 mpg on the way home proving once again that engine load has a MASSIVE effect on MPG!!! As if THAT was even in question. . .

- aircooledtechguy
- Posts: 1709
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
Re: New Project: 914 2.0L into '67 T-3
To answer your question directly. . .clockdoc56 wrote:Hi. I have a some questions about breeding the t4 to the t3 tranny? What do I need yo do?
I would invest in a conversion flywheel then you ca just transfer the clutch you have over to it. Done; no fuss, no muss. I've used both of these with really good results. . .
Stock weight:
http://www2.cip1.com/ProductDetails.asp ... C-C20-5100
Lightened:
http://www2.cip1.com/ProductDetails.asp ... C-C20-5101
Both of these flywheels come with the center hole the correct size to press-in the input shaft bearing so no additional machine work is required.
Here's the bearing you need:
http://www2.cip1.com/ProductDetails.asp ... -105-313-A
All that's really needed to physically mount the T-4 to the tranny is to transfer the lower engine mount studs from a stock T-3 motor over to the type-4 motor since the T-4 uses longer studs. Viola!! You've just made your car 150% more fun to drive.