GMT400 4L60e to T56 swap write up *dialup warning*

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

90'rado

I'm Awesome
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
208
Reaction score
10
Yeah your guess is as good as mine when it comes to the year of my bracket, it works the same as any of the others; which I figure is all that really matters, it just looks different.

I've never seen an OBS cab which was ORIGINALLY equipped with this upper bracket so I'm not sure how the upper bracket was welded, but, most OEM welds I've seen are pretty bad looking, I'm sure this bracket would be no exception. From the factory, putting a couple of dabs of weld on that upper bracket and then bolting in the clutch pedal itself is probably STILL cheaper than fully and completely welding up all accessible areas of the clutch bracket W/O the upper mount bracket. Hardware itself is still cheaper than welding equipment & supplies. Now I honestly don't know about the quality of welds on this upper bracket, like I say, I've never seen one in an OEM setup. Even if they bothered to do good welds, (which I'm skeptical of until I see otherwise) that still leaves everything below.

The clutch bracket itself is more than thick enough to spread out the load, so doubling up material is unnecessary, redundant. Like I already said there really cant be any strength improvement in this bracket b/c it still is welded to the sheet-metal which is going to be the weakest link and the most likely point of failure. (Which is probably why GM put several angles in the sheetmetal in that area, strength.)

We can really only guess as to why GM used it. Perhaps they realized it would be nice to have this bracket installed in all their cabs so that people could just grab a ratchet and tighten a few bolts to install the clutch pedal bracket rather than draggin out the welder,and dicking w/ all that.

Why wouldn't they just weld it to begin with you say? Perhaps for the same reason GM decided to make the OBS frame in such a way that requires dropping the A-arms in order to get access to the nuts which are used to back up the bolts holding the rubber engine mounts to the frame. Or perhaps for the same reason they used the brake-light switch that they did on the OBS as opposed to a more simple, reliable and effective plunger style design. My point is stuff is over-engineered all the time, especially since 25ish years ago and certainly today. GM is a huge lumbering corporation, and I'm not afraid to say they've done a lot of pointless and even stupid stuff before. I'm not attacking you b/c you chose to install the bracket. I would have too, had I been able to locate one, however I realized that it is simply another over-engineered, superfluous piece, (one of many on these trucks I would say).
 

KennyB01

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweet Home Alabama
i just received my shifter relocator kit from Keisler and i will have to agree with Aloicious about the shifter they provide with the kit, i have not even installed it yet and i can already tell it is not a good shifter. it is stiff and will hardly move sideways. the kit was $300.00 but i think it is worth it to get the shifter to be as close to the stock location as can be.
 

KennyB01

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweet Home Alabama
I had a NV3500 flywheel off of a 98 5.0 1500 the reason i was wondering, but your right that is a 168 tooth wheel and the bell housing will not even come close to going around the wheel, then like you said even if that worked, the preasure plate would have to work too.

anyone who might have had this crazy idea as i did, beside the pointers that Alocicious pointed out i just got a flywheel and they are not flat like your traditional flywheels and after going back over the pictures he provided you can see the differance.
 

90'rado

I'm Awesome
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
208
Reaction score
10
I wonder why Keisler cheaps out on their shifter? I'm running a PRO 5.0 and I love it, it's a great shifter.
 

KennyB01

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweet Home Alabama
Aloicious,
just wondering which spec clutch did you go with. i know you have to be pushing at least 350 HP's maybe even close to 4 with a whipple on top so i figure your at least useing a spec II or even a spec III+.
 

Aloicious

Hired Goon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
102
Location
UT
Aloicious,
just wondering which spec clutch did you go with. i know you have to be pushing at least 350 HP's maybe even close to 4 with a whipple on top so i figure your at least useing a spec II or even a spec III+.

I'm running a stage 3 in there right now which does great. but next time I'm going with a 3+ to get the same material on the disc, but full faced rather than the puck style....

90'rado said:
I wonder why Keisler cheaps out on their shifter? I'm running a PRO 5.0 and I love it, it's a great shifter.

I've wondered that too. I love my modified pro 5.0, it hasn't given me any problems or issues.
 

KennyB01

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweet Home Alabama
Ok, so I got a hold of the discoed part numbers.... and here is the breakdown, according to the GM EPC. I checked through each year to make sure I didn't miss anything.

88-94: 15679661
95: 15714315
96-00: 15030123

I know mine is from a 94, so it's the first style. I have no idea why 95 is it's own part number Aloicious, but I'd be willing to bet the bracket you pulled from that 95 was possibly built in 94.... And 90'Rado, I would think your pedal bracket is from a 96+....

Of course, I could be wrong.... but part numbers usually don't lie.
i had put the wrong informaion here. sorry
 
Last edited:

Aloicious

Hired Goon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
102
Location
UT
I'm not sure I'm following you on this.

but I've only worked with the 1992 truck master, with that one it uses a push in fitting, which is the same as the fitting on the T56 slave. and I built the line with the fittings to mate the truck master and T56 slave together.

are you saying that the 96+ truck master cylinders have the line as a non-removable part of it? if that were the case, I'd agree that the pre-96 setups would be the way to go.
 

Aloicious

Hired Goon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
102
Location
UT
I don't remember, I think I purchased 6' or something like that and just cut it to the exact length I needed. I'm a habitual over-buyer on projects like this. I'd rather have too much than not enough
 
Top