Just wondering what everyone here prefers and why?

My first manual tranny cars (Mustangs) were cable, loved the feel. Other manual's I have had since then have been cable. Then I bought a Ford truck, hydro and the clutch really feels weird, gotten use to it, but I don't like it. Luckily my CRX is cable. I just don't understand the benefit of hydro.

Justin D. Fender

 

i don't care for hydro either. my crx has a cable B16, i prefer the feel by far to a friend's 95 B16 hatch. with an exedy clutch, which should be stiffer than stock, it just feels mushy, as in no pressure sinks the pedal to the floor. i prefer my stock cable clutch. even if i ever swapped in a hydro trans to get more aftermarket following for it, i would custom mount a cable replacement for the slave cylinder.

 

I agree with this, but I might take my words back. My wife has a 2000 Accord 5spd 4cyl, the clutch on it feels fine to me. Anyone know if it's cable or hydro?

Justin D. Fender

 

accords since 90 have had hydro tranny's (possibly before that too).
the benefit of a hydro tranny is that it can shift at any rpm without trouble (wont grind while shifting at 7000 rpms).

 

How does this work? I shift my tranny over 7000rpm with no grinding. I don't understand how a different clutch actuation could do all this?

Justin D. Fender

 

Bullshit, whether the clutch mechanism is controlled hydraulically or by cable has nothing to do with how well the gearbox shifts. Whether you can shift at certain speeds and not grind depends on how good your synchros are. Maybe the synchros in the Older cable tranny you drove were worn or not as good as the ones in the newer hydro tranny you drove.

I personally would love to have a YS1 tranny with LSD if I could find one. It would still be cheaper than a Hydro tranny and still have all the goodies.

Anybody have one for sale?

 

If cable trannys worked fine why would anyone improve on them then?
the old saying goes if it aint broke don't fix it.

 

Also, I believe(IMHO) that one of the main reasons manufacturers go with a hydraulic clutch mechanism is because it is much easier/cleaner/more efficient to route hydrualic lines through an engine compartment than a route a cable through the engine bay. If you'll notice your clutch cable line runs right over your engine, whereas a hydro clutch line runs along your firewall.

The trouble of putting a hydro tranny in our cars is just not worth it as long as descent cable trannies are still available.

 

You've got to remember that whether a tranny is cable or hydro has NOTHING to do with the actual transmission. This is JUST the engagment/disengagment mechanism, which is why you can convert a cable tranny to hydro and vice versa.

 

somewhere i beleive i heard cable is better for racing...just what i heard i dont know fo sho

 

cable clutch doesnt need clutch fluid ,and hydro clutch needs clutch fluid clutch can be adjusted on the cable

lol i dunno wat the difference in feelings are just my $0.02 , dont knock me

 

hydro clutch is nice cause its always adjusting. u never have to adjust a cable. as long as the hydraulic system maintains its integrity, it wont ever have any probs, where as cables can bind, and rust.

 

the problem I am trying to explain is because of engagement issues (grinding gears during engagement between gears).
I am not exactly sure about the situation, I just know and accept what my mechanic told me. Transmissions are complicated as hell, which is why most mechanics dont touch them.
My old 91 accord had a hydro tranny with 135k on it, it engaged fine at all rpms even if I took it up to the fuel cutoff (until I had a prob. with the master resv. which led to my synchro getting out of alignment).
my '91 s1 cable tranny with about 60k on it grinds gears sometimes in high rpms
my clutch and my sycro mesh gear are both fine, i had them checked. If it is not because of the cable tranny like my mechanic told me then what is it??

 

my 94 sol VTEC grind gears at 8k shifts if i wasnt careful. my 99 civic hatch had to have a new gearbox cause it grind so bad. both were hydr trans and this one grinds too, but it is a 12 year old trans

 

most likely one doesnt hold up as good as the other. example: i had a d16a6 with over 100,000 miles on it. the gears never grinded. then i got my b16 with the s1 tranny, supposedly and most likely less than 40,000 miles on it. it started to grind after a few months of use. also if you read other posts, you'll find other people having the same problem with their b16 trannys. my point is, both trannys are cable, but since they were made at different times with different castings or whatnot, there's going to be room for defects on some models and not on others. you cant say that the sun comes up because the rooster crows. in other words, dont relate a faulty tranny to it being cable. i hope this makes sense.

as far as the difference, i've always heard that the hydro's arent as fast reacting. i dont know if this is true though as i've never driven a hydro.

 

Well, I've owned both a 94 integra GSR (hydro Y80 trans of course), and a JDM B16A powered CRX w/ cable Y1 trans (non LSD). The GSR had about 97k on it when i sold it....and it wouldn't grind even if I power shifted into 2nd at 8200rpms. I belive that the Y80 trans has double coned synchros in 2nd and 3rd. The new RSX type S i believe has triple coned synchros on 2nd and 3rd...and double on the other gears....that's bad ***. Anyways, My Y1 grinds like a bitch into 2nd...and a little into 3rd,4th, and 5th. I belive that it has to do with the syncros and not with that actuation method (cable or hydro). Putting GM Synchromesh trans fluid into your B series VTEC gearbox can dramatically reduce grinding...just for all of your knowledge


[Modified by Fishcat37, 4:27 PM 10/30/2002]