Has anyone done it? I keep toying with the idea of thowing some modern twists as the Cav as it's still in development. Being honest I am getting lazy and I just want something that works without minimal fuss, but if I am going to have to spend cash to replace all the bushes, rods and so on to make it "s new" why not look at ways of making it better.
So I have been reading old threads on forums where people have adapted this into MK2 cav's, Astra's and Nova's and corsa's. So - has anyone got this working in a MK3 cav, and if so - how much of a chew on was it?
So far, I think getting all the bits from a 1.8 Vectra C is going to be all I need with the possibility of making up some brackets depending on the F16 box I have (Fingers crossed, it's got the old MK2 mounting holes on it eh? )
Then theres always the.. Should I make the clutch hydrolic..
Mocking up a cable through shift system on an f16 box..
Re: Mocking up a cable through shift system on an f16 box..
Wow Gary,
Sounds a lot of extra effort -
Regarding the hydraulic clutch.
Admittedly the Vectra-C clutch is very reliable and works remarkably well.
I am wondering though about the additional weight and complexity of adding fluid lines, master and slave cylinders and a fluid reservoir.
Same with the Vectra-C gear change mechanism. We have a M40 6 speed box in our "C" with 1.9CDTi 150.
The gear shift mechanism is very smooth and precise even with 11 1/2 years and 130,000 miles worth of wear.
Visual impression is that the linkages and rods are beefed-up modernised versions of those on a Cavalier.
Not wanting to poo-poo your thoughts, my understanding a few years ago was the simplification of the gear change mechanism, using threaded rods and ball-joint assemblies to make a quick-shift assembly.
Therefore a bit of discussion is required to consider the trade-off / compromise between smoothness and ease of operation, and the effect of additional weight on the driving experience.
I wholley understsnd as I get older (nearer to my 50's) that comfort and smoothness of a well constructed and laid out car cockpit start to become more appealing compared to the slightly more raw and somewhat basic experience of a 20-odd year old cockpit.
(Especially as muscles and joints become less willing and able).
Okay a final comment - is the Mk2 / Mk3 gear linkage and clutch set up that bad?
If not - my theory is "If it ain't broke, you don't fix it".
I toyed with the dash on my Cavalier.
Should I stick with 90's interior of should I upgrade to 2005 technology.
The Vectra-C sat nav stuff was great and useful, but I threw / wasted loads of hours at it.
This time around, I am reverting back to original, because I found the charm and originality of a basic set up (In the Yaris) more to my liking. And of course - a lot less involved with cutting and shutting the dash and modifying to make it all fit.
So less stress in the making.
Sounds a lot of extra effort -
Regarding the hydraulic clutch.
Admittedly the Vectra-C clutch is very reliable and works remarkably well.
I am wondering though about the additional weight and complexity of adding fluid lines, master and slave cylinders and a fluid reservoir.
Same with the Vectra-C gear change mechanism. We have a M40 6 speed box in our "C" with 1.9CDTi 150.
The gear shift mechanism is very smooth and precise even with 11 1/2 years and 130,000 miles worth of wear.
Visual impression is that the linkages and rods are beefed-up modernised versions of those on a Cavalier.
Not wanting to poo-poo your thoughts, my understanding a few years ago was the simplification of the gear change mechanism, using threaded rods and ball-joint assemblies to make a quick-shift assembly.
Therefore a bit of discussion is required to consider the trade-off / compromise between smoothness and ease of operation, and the effect of additional weight on the driving experience.
I wholley understsnd as I get older (nearer to my 50's) that comfort and smoothness of a well constructed and laid out car cockpit start to become more appealing compared to the slightly more raw and somewhat basic experience of a 20-odd year old cockpit.
(Especially as muscles and joints become less willing and able).
Okay a final comment - is the Mk2 / Mk3 gear linkage and clutch set up that bad?
If not - my theory is "If it ain't broke, you don't fix it".
I toyed with the dash on my Cavalier.
Should I stick with 90's interior of should I upgrade to 2005 technology.
The Vectra-C sat nav stuff was great and useful, but I threw / wasted loads of hours at it.
This time around, I am reverting back to original, because I found the charm and originality of a basic set up (In the Yaris) more to my liking. And of course - a lot less involved with cutting and shutting the dash and modifying to make it all fit.
So less stress in the making.
- Envoy CDX
- Club Admin
- Posts: 9652
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:51 pm
- Location: Jarrow, Newcastle Upon Tyne
Re: Mocking up a cable through shift system on an f16 box..
I can't see there being that much weight being added, after all, I am simply swapping like for like in theory.
F17 Turret and selector onto my F16
Rod for a pair of cables and one (possibly) additional bracket if all the holes don't line up on the F16 box
Then there is the gearstick which from what I can tell is a like for like replacement.
Hydraulic clutch, yes, would be a bit more effort, but would it be worth it?
F17 Turret and selector onto my F16
Rod for a pair of cables and one (possibly) additional bracket if all the holes don't line up on the F16 box
Then there is the gearstick which from what I can tell is a like for like replacement.
Hydraulic clutch, yes, would be a bit more effort, but would it be worth it?