MT Accumulator Delete Mod (ADM) and BS Thread

Thanks. I am very happy with the results.

Most likely, it is ball spring with some sort of damper similar to a strut. It tries to smooth out the clutch movement, which might be good for noobs, but bothers some folks who know how to drive?

 

It basically slows down the action of the clutch fluid travel through the hydraulic system. Creating slower clutch engagement/disengagement.

 

What a bizarre design. It's like a clutch cable in need of lube, and that's exactly how it feels driving my truck. I can't wait to do this mod. Someone could capitalize on it by welding up a run of fittings and brackets.

 

No wonder the clutch is so damn stiff in the winter...

 

Truth. I'd shell out for that.

 

This ^^^

@7r41lbr34k3r

 

Does the 1st and 2nd Gen have this also? Thinking about an MT in my future 3rd Gen purchase.

 

I'm in.

I will be going dark from 9/22 through 9/29-ish, but otherwise I can join in on the fun if you think machining would provide the best solution.

 

The 2nd Gens do have this. That's where some of the ideas about the delete came from.

I don't know about the 1st Gens.

Cool! I'll send you the accumulator so that you can take a look.

 

To reduce wear by keeping a constant clutch pressure. Why add $100 worth of componentry if it did not improve reliability and durability?

 

Lol Tony! It only bothers some folks. If I don't know anything else in life I know how to drive a stick. With that said, the accumulator does not bother me one bit.

 

That's the same logic around the Dual Mass flywheels some manufacturers use. It in no way increases durability of the clutch system, and is twice as expensive to replace as a normal flywheel. The accumulator is a piece that theoretically will never have to be replaced, but it does affect how you release the clutch. It is designed to stop shock loads on the transmission and other components. My Legacy GT had both an accumulator and a dual mass flywheel. Made it harder to launch it, but that stopped me from burning out the clutch, as I knew it took a little time for everything to engage. Notice how Toyota is denying a lot of the clutch warranty claims? They put the possible failure point on something not covered by their warranty to protect the transmission from inexperienced drivers. I understand why they did it, but once my power train is up, or when I replace a clutch, this is coming out.

 

Well yeah, I’m sure it was added deliberately. I just wanted to know how it did what it did. Like say, it acted like an expansion tank etc

 

Scott, unless you work as a warranty analyst for Toyota, you have no idea how many warranty claims Toyota is denying. Please do not use what you read here on TW as a basis for real life, as we are only a small fraction of owners and enthusiasts to boot. The real story might be completely opposite of what you read here. Right?
I design accumulators into my circuits when I need A) guaranteed pressure for a critical action or B) when I need to make sure a constant pressure is needed. I use accumulators from an ounce to 20 gallon and both piston and bladder types in my circuits.
While I understand those who want to change their clutch characteristics to get a better "feel," I also know Toyota is not a company who puts components in their circuit unnecessarily. I of course didn't design the clutch circuit and it feels fine to me so I am not going to question the engineer, so if something is put there to add reliability and durability, I am all for that. But again, I understand that some want to change it up and I am fine with that.

 

https://www.hydraulicspneumatics.co...tors/Article/False/6446/TechZone-Accumulators

 

I'd be surprised if this part cost Toyota $20. For me over the past year, getting going in 1st and downshifting into 2nd (or 1st when in stop-n-go traffic) felt like I was on the clutch pedal longer than I needed to be. IMHO, the accumulator felt like it was delaying engagement.

Also, I'm a big fan of hydraulic clutches and this one felt different than the others that I have had. Now, it doesn't.

Okay. I'll edit that.

 

If I had to guess, and without talking to the guy who originally designed the circuit, I would say it is in there to simply smooth out the clutch engagement. Nothing more, nothing less. While for a purist, this could be an annoyance. For me, this adds longevity to the clutch.

 

A friend of mine is an engineer for GM and his job is to shave cents out of designs. He worked on wiper motors for two years to save fifty cents. So if it were "only" $20 that would be huge. I used $100 just as a number. The volume of components that a company like Toyota uses in a month is staggering. ANY savings is a big deal, even just two cents!

 

Good lord, can we just have this one? Ok I get it, it's there for a reason.

I'm pretty sure anyone who does this delete is a big boy and understands he's changing the original design.

I don't like the feel either FWIW.

Keep going Tony!

 

I get that. Boeing was studying what the weight savings would be if they revised their fastener grip length spec that requires two bare threads showing beyond a nut / collar.

I'm just saying looking at the part itself and a 200,000+ part per year run, that is not a $100 part. The list price is $109. Half that for wholesale and another half to actual?

On the GM side, an expert once said that an extra $2 spread over the entire interior could be seen and felt by the customers. Of course, they weren't spending that $2.