I'm at the point of connecting the brake lines to the Master Cylinder, but do not know which circuit is for the Front Brakes and which is for the Rear Brakes.
I have a HydroBoost from a 2003 Mustang GT, and a new MC. The MC is not marked in any way as to front or rear. Neither was the one that came on the HydroBoost. A local Ford dealer "guessed" that the rear circuit was for the front.
Any words of wisdom regarding the bleeding of this MC? I assume (dangerous word) that it is done on the car, using the two bleeder screws. Is that correct?
I can post a picture if necessary.
Thanks
John
I'll look at my setup, but I think the Ford dealer was guessing wrong. Not sure if the proportioning valve my lines are going thru will allow for a proper determination, but I'll look after my coffee.
You said new master cylinder, but is it the Mustang style, or Wilwood/standard style? If it is the Mustang style, they cannot be bench-bled. I mentioned that before, and suggested making a bleeder jar with two hoses so you could bleed both at the same time.
I ran the front port on the Master to the front inlet port on the proportioning valve. The front outlet on the proportioning valve then goes to the front brakes. I'm sure I checked that all out, like you are doing, before I ran the lines. Seems like another lifetime ago.
Bigger reservoir to the front brakes and smaller reservoir to the rear.
A picture is worth a thousand words.........Here is what I have. I don't see anything that "divides" the MC. Having said that, the larger volume/area of the MC is in the rear. So If I had to guess,the rear circuit is for the front brakes. Just a guess.
Rich , you spoke about a proportioning valve. I did not get the factory proportioning valve, if there is one, when I got the HydroBoost, but I do have a Wilwood Proportioning vale in the rear brake line. Is that an issue?
Thanks, Rich and Gary for your help. I do appreciate it.
John
(https://i.imgur.com/3ayP8Kc.jpg?2)
I'm using a Wilwood proportioning valve as well. Maybe Gary's reservoir has 2 sections, ours is one. You would have to be almost out of fluid for that to come into play with the angled position.
I did get the OEM valve with my hydroboost, but I did not use it because I don't believe it was adjustable, and the Wilwood additionally provided a port for the brake light switch which I wanted/needed if I remember correctly because I needed 2...one for the brake lights and one for the computer.!? My second one is on the brake pedal assy.
I'm assuming when you said "nothing dividing the MC", you actually were talking about the reservoir.
If your assumption about the rear port going to the front brakes is correct, mine have been hooked up wrong for 58k miles and work just fine.
Yes Rich, I was referring to the reservoir, when I said MC.Duh! I think I will check the inventory at the local Pull-A-Part and see what they have, and how it is plumbed.
John
John, any follow-ups on this?
I was always though the larger reservoir was for the front as the calipers take more fluid as they wear or more so than the rear drum wheel cylinder's.
You are correct.
As mentioned, the hydroboost setup we are talking about uses the single reservoir for both m/c cavities. See the pic John posted. I'm still curious what John finds out checking oem setups at the salvage yard.
The Street Rod Nationals start tomorrow, here in Louisville, and there are several Brake Vendors, Wilwood,ECI and others, that will be here. My plan is to show them the MC and ask the question as to which port should be connected to the front brakes. Stay tuned.........I'll tell you what they had to say.
I took the MC with me to the Street Rod Nationals and posed the question about which port is for front or rear brakes, to several vendors of brakes and brake parts. Bottom line........They didn't know.
I did run into a friend that works in an auto parts store. He is very knowledgeable, having been at it for 35+ years. He said the Smaller brake line port(smaller fitting) is usually for the front brakes. Although the reservoir is not divided, the larger portion of the reservoir is above the smaller port, which is the port closet to the firewall, on this particular MC. The MC I'll be using, is made such, that if it were to run low on fluid, what fluid was there, would flow to the rear of the reservoir, feeding what I believe is the front brake port. Makes sense to me.
I said I would go to a Pull A Part yard and see if I could make any determination. Did that yesterday, in the 95* heat. I was sweating like Mike Tyson in a spelling bee!
Here is what I found........(There were plenty of Mustangs, but no GT's, my Hydro Boost came from a GT) The two lines coming out of the MC go to a distribution block. So you can't say with certainty, which is the front and which is the rear. The fittings on the two lines coming out of the MC , that go to the distribution block, are identical. So the smaller port theory, doesn't work with this MC.
From the distribution block, there are three output lines. Separate lines to the Left and Right Front Brakes and a third line that goes to the rear brakes.
"I've been told" that, this distribution block has a floating pin inside the block. If, for example, the rear brakes go out with let's say a ruptured hose, the pin will slide to block off brake fluid from going to the rear brakes. Remember, that the MC reservoir has no divider. so if the scenario I just outlined, were to happen and there was no distribution block with the sliding pin, the reservoir would theoretically completely drain, through the ruptured circuit, and there would be no brakes.
If, I'm wrong on how this distribution block works, please correct me. BTW, to remove any doubt I had about there possibly being a divider inside the MC reservoir, I cut the top off of the old reservoir with a cut off wheel. There is no divider!
Next, is to confirm that the GT Mustangs have the same basic plumbing as what I found at Pull A Part, before I add the distribution block to my Ranchero. Anyone on the Forum have a '98 to '04 Mustang GT, that could send me some photos?
John
QuoteI took the MC with me to the Street Rod Nationals and posed the question about which port is for front or rear brakes, to several vendors of brakes and brake parts. Bottom line........They didn't know.
Now that's scary (IMO)
Same as most 'kit' vendors, they don't have the foggiest either. One needs the exact year WSM of the braking system being used to ascertain how the MC operates and what valving is included or needed. You go to GM or other systems in a mix and you are really asking for it.
MC design has changed greatly since the 60's/70's.
As an example, if the MC has bleeders. it most likely has an internal PDV. It may also be designed while the rear piston is for front disc, the secondary piston will be come operational first as to energize the rear drums if DISC/DRUM (elimination of the METERING VALVE). Also, the RESIDUAL PRESSURE VALVES have been eliminated.
Be careful you don't get your hands on one designed for DIAGONAL BRAKING. That will give you an additional thrill.
Had a guy in a 2007 Mustang Roush at our Saturday night meet. It had the supercharged 4.6, but I was surprised to find it was a sohc, and the booster was vacuum.......so no luck there.
I agree with Kultulz......only way to know for sure is find a same vintage Mustang. My donor was a '02 Cobra 4.6 dohc. Engine won't make a difference, but I'm not sure if the GT sohc had the hydroboost, as I mentioned above with the '07 Roush. They're not that hard to find, if we had our normal 1st. Saturday of the month cruise-in last Saturday, there may have been one or two there. Maybe I'll see if I can contact someone from our local Mustang club.
Thanks for the replies. I found two Mustang GT's of the correct age, on a Ford Dealer's lot........I'm going there today to do, my due diligence.
KULTULZ.....Could you please explain what WSM, and PDV stand for.
I'll post a photo of the distribution block I purchased yesterday, later today. And yes, the HydroBoost I purchased has a MC with bleeders.
Stay tuned.
John
That distribution block may/may not work on your car, depending on how your entire brake system matches up with the brake system on the donor car, (rear discs or drums). As I had mentioned, The one that I got with the hydroboost was not adjustable, (yours may be.?), and why I went with the Wilwood proportioning valve. Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: KYBlueOval on 2022-08-10 05:50KULTULZ.....Could you please explain what WSM, and PDV stand for.
John
Guess that might help ...
WSM - WORKSHOP MANUAL (FORD)
PDV - PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL VALVE
Be sure to check the vehicle for ABS and T/C (TRACTION-CONTROL) and whether it has front disc and rear drum/disc. They are different.
I wish I had a period WSM to help you guys.
Today I went to a local Ford Dealer that had a 2004 Mustang GT on the lot. The plumbing connections/configuration on the GT were the same as on the V6 at Pull A Part.
Armed with the VIN #'s from the 2003 at Pull A Part and the 2004 GT on the lot, I went to the parts dept, and they looked up this part(they call it a proportion valve). The part "looks the same" for both applications and as I said, is plumbed the same. HOWEVER, there are different part numbers. The difference in the part numbers is the last two letters.
The 2003 V6 Mustang uses part F9ZZ 2B091 AA , 2004 Mustang GT uses F9ZZ 2B091 CA. The part for the GT had a note in the computer that said it was applicable for cars equipped with Traction Control and ABS Brakes.I have neither.
So I now feel comfortable plumbing the non Traction Control and non ABS part into my Ranchero, running the line from the smaller fitting on the MC (closest to the firewall) to the top "IN" port on the proportioning valve.(See the photo below) The other port on the MC will go to the Lower "In" on the valve. The front brakes are plumbed separately coming out of this valve, and I'll do the same. Got to modify the bracket to get it mounted.
I hope my explanation is clear, if not say so.
John
(https://i.imgur.com/2IocctX.jpg?2)
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2022-08-10 08:22That distribution block may/may not work on your car, depending on how your entire brake system matches up with the brake system on the donor car, (rear discs or drums). As I had mentioned, The one that I got with the hydroboost was not adjustable, (yours may be.?), and why I went with the Wilwood proportioning valve. Just my 2 cents.
Rich, I may be incorrect, but I do not think that this distribution block(Ford calls it a Proportioning Valve) will present a problem for me. As you stated, there is no adjusting this "valve". It has been explained to me like this.... Fluid comes into the proportioning valve/distribution block, call it what you want, and goes out. If the valve senses a major loss of fluid,it will slide the pin inside the valve to block off the fluid loss. There is a spring under the one removable fitting, and as you look into the various ports you can see a RED pin in one of them. I think the name Proportioning Valve is a complete misnomer. I think a more accurate description is a distribution block, with a built in safety feature. I don't believe it proportions anything, unless Ford considers the pin moving inside, as being proportioning. And like you I have a Wilwood proportioning valve in my rear brake line plumbing. When I get it up and running, I'll post how the brakes work.......or don't work!
John
I am following this as I too will need to do the same thing and need the same parts/pieces.
Quote from: KYBlueOval on 2022-08-10 14:34Rich, I may be incorrect, but I do not think that this distribution block(Ford calls it a Proportioning Valve) will present a problem for me. As you stated, there is no adjusting this "valve". It has been explained to me like this.... Fluid comes into the proportioning valve/distribution block, call it what you want, and goes out. If the valve senses a major loss of fluid,it will slide the pin inside the valve to block off the fluid loss. There is a spring under the one removable fitting, and as you look into the various ports you can see a RED pin in one of them. I think the name Proportioning Valve is a complete misnomer. I think a more accurate description is a distribution block, with a built in safety feature. I don't believe it proportions anything, unless Ford considers the pin moving inside, as being proportioning. And like you I have a Wilwood proportioning valve in my rear brake line plumbing. When I get it up and running, I'll post how the brakes work.......or don't work!
John
A DISTRIBUTION BLOCK was used on pre-1967 FORD Cars.
What you have (showing) is a COMBINATION VALVE, that being a block that contains more than one type valve. What you are describing with the moveable pintel is the PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL VALVE.
The valve that controls rear brake line pressure on the rear brake circuit is the PROPORTIONING VALVE. It would only be used on non-ABS.
The other important valve is the METERING VALVE. It holds off front disc brake line pressure until the rear drum brakes begin to apply for vehicle stability. Some new MC designs have eliminated this valve and is plumbed into the MC by internal valving.
If you take the VIN of the vehicle to the dealer parts dude, they can run a build sheet that tells exactly how the car was assembled.
Do you know for certain the 2003 MUST did not have ABS?
I forgot to mention ... :-[
The ENGINEERING PN on that valve -
COMBINATION VALVE - XB33-2B091-AB.jpg
... can be crossed to a SERVICE PN by the parts dude on his CDP. That will help ID what you have.
KULTULZ.........You sir are a wealth of knowledge! Thank you for clearing things up for me, and possibly others.
To address the points you raised.....1)So, is the correct term for the valve I purchased from a V6 2003 Mustang, called a COMBINATION VALVE or a PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL VALVE? I like"Pressure Differential Valve"! I think that describes its function, but I defer to you for the correct description.I have the VIN # and will do as you suggested and get the vin decoded as to what this donor car had as equipment. When I removed the Valve, I did not see anything that looked like ABS plumbing.
2)Proportioning Valve.....I have installed one on my rear brake circuit. Is there a FORD OEM Proportioning Valve that one would adjust? I read your reply to say a Proportioning Valve is not a function of the Combination Valve or Pressure Differential Valve.
3) Metering Valve....If you know, how does one determine if there is a metering valve and where it is located?
4) Yes, the parts guy looked up the engineering number for this part from the donor 2003 Mustang and from a 2004 GT. The engineering numbers are different, as are the part numbers. The part numbers are the same until one gets to the last two letters, and they are different.
Now sir, please give me your recommendation as to which of these Pressure Differential Valves I should use. Here is what I have: Front Brakes are from '93-'97 NON GT Mustang 2 Piston Calipers. Rear brakes are Discs from a 2001 Explorer. There is a Wilwood Proportioning valve in the rear brake line. Having said all of that, which of these two Pressure Differential Valves do you suggest I use? The one from a V6 or from a GT (The notation on the dealer's computer says the GT version is for cars With Traction Control and ABS and I do not have either of them)
Thank you!
John
SIR?
Who came in?
If you are using an adjustable anti-bias valve, you do not want the OEM COMBINATION VALVE in the rear (drum) circuit.
FORD had a little trouble with naming the valve(s) (METERING - PDV - PROPORTIONING) on intro. The valves were separate from 1965 to 1971/72. FORD then combined all the valving in one unit which is normally referred to as a COMBINATION VALVE. FORD, for whatever reason, still called the assembly a PROPORTIONING VALVE (2B091). There is where the confusion lies.
The real need to know is how the 2003 MC(s) are valved inside (and if those changes eliminated the METERING VALVE portion of the combination valve).
Now I did not know FORD used a mechanical PROPORTIONING VALVE with an ABS equipped vehicle. This is where the need for the correct year WSM is needed to see how engineering changed. I have a 2005 WSM but it is for TAURUS only.
You also will need an inline RPV (RESIDUAL PRESSURE VALVE) ON THE REAR CIRCUIT (#10 - immediately at/after the MC rear circuit line if using an older rear drum system.
OH! The only true ADJ PROPORTIONG VALVE released by FORD (other than SHELBY) was the 1965 (corrected)-66 MUST BORG-WARNER unit. It was adjustable and was also used on the VETTE of that period.
If you need more info or this wasn't clear (which I understand), please feel free to rattle my cage.
Again a lot of information. Thank you!
As to the SIR........I was raised in the South, Georgia to be exact. Using Sir is the way I was raised. Can't change at this point.
Your comment regarding the adjustable anti-bias valve, and the OEM Combination Valve, in the rear DRUM circuit. My set up has 2001 Explorer Rear Disc Brakes. With that added information, what is your recommendation as to what valve should be in the rear brake circuit, with rear disc brakes? IF any?
And YES, the various names for the various valves is rather confusing to someone that does not use the words frequently.
Any thoughts on how to determine the presence of a metering valve?
I have no knowledge regarding Ford using a mechanical proportioning valve with ABS. How does that affect my set up? As I stated, I have a Wilwood mechanical proportioning valve in my rear disc brake circuit.
As to the RPV, I have rear disc brakes, so I don't believe I need a RPV.
I'm going to send you a PM (private message) with my contact information, as I would really like to speak with you and get my head wrapped around this issue.
John
QuoteAs to the SIR........I was raised in the South, Georgia to be exact. Using Sir is the way I was raised. Can't change at this point.
I understand fully. I was raised in SW VA so I understand what you are saying.
OK, here we go ...
Quote... please give me your recommendation as to which of these Pressure Differential Valves I should use.
Here is what I have: Front Brakes are from '93-'97 NON GT Mustang 2 Piston Calipers. Rear brakes are Discs from a 2001 Explorer.
There is a Wilwood Proportioning valve in the rear brake line. Having said all of that, which of these two Pressure Differential Valves do you suggest I use?
The one from a V6 or from a GT (The notation on the dealer's computer says the GT version is for cars With Traction Control and ABS and I do not have either of them)
In all reality, with four wheel disc, there is no need for a PROPORTIONING VALVE
if the setup is on an original OEM car (and it did not use any type of a PPV). Brake bias was built into the car by engineering. Now where this fails is when using different model FRT and RR DISC setups from two different cars on one car.
When all install is completed, the car needs to go to a skid pad and tested during emergency braking (WALLY WORLD PARKING LOT on a rainy SUN morning. Be observant of any light poles). If the rear wants to come around (limited pressure stops at first), you would then begin to dial in the adj. anti-bias (proportioning ) valve to limit application pressure @ the rear brakes. Leave the WILDWOOD valve in the rear circuit and leave wide open before skid test. If she comes down in a straight line, leave the adjustable valve alone.
In all actuality, you don't really need a PDV (PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL VALVE). All it does is illuminate a WARNING LAMP pending a hydraulic failure. That is your option. A METERING VALVE is not needed on a DISC/DISC application. Nether is a RPV (RESIDUAL PRESSURE VALVE) as it is used for drum brakes only.
The valves (2B091) you are mentioning, were both from DISC/DISC or DISC/DRUM?
The MC has to be from a DISC/DISC car.
This is all on a '57? How is it powered? Is this vacuum or hydro-boost?
Now the above is without consulting any PERIOD CORRECT FORD TECH INFO. If any of this (or me) doesn't make sense, feel free to ask.
Here is a brief tutorial on BRAKE SYSTEM VALVING (Pre-ABS) -
https://www.ecihotrodbrakes.com/brake_facts.html
KULTULZ........I looked back in this thread to see if this "2B091 Valve" is mentioned, and I didn't see that reference, so I can't answer that question.
I have a HydroBoost from a 2003 Mustang GT. My understanding is that 2003 Mustang GT's were 4 wheel disc cars. I'll verify that this morning.
I replaced the MC with a New MC for a 2003 Mustang V8 WITHOUT Traction Control.From what I can find on the internet All V8 2003 Mustangs W/O Traction Control use the same MC.
Thanks
John
Quote from: KYBlueOval on 2022-08-13 05:45KULTULZ........I looked back in this thread to see if this "2B091 Valve" is mentioned, and I didn't see that reference, so I can't answer that question.
Again, my mistake. 2B091 is the BASIC PN on the part (in this case a brake valve), whether ENG, ASSY or SVC. If you notice on the valving you showed, the middle characters is the BASIC PN, which in this case is 2B091. The characters before are the PN PREFIX, the characters following are the PN SUFFIX.
I went by a Ford dealer yesterday to get the VIN#'s decoded, and here is what I found:
2003 Mustang GT was the donor vehicle for the HydroBoost. It had Traction Control,ABS, and Disc/Disc. When I purchased a replacement MC for this HydroBoost I bought one for a NON traction control car, as my Ranchero does not have traction control.FYI when buying the replacement MC, the only option/question was, with or without Traction Control. Was that a mistake?
2003 V6 Mustang was the donor car for the "2B091 Valve" that is pictured early in this post. It had Disc/Disc, it did NOT have Traction Control ,and did NOT have ABS.
So, with this information, will these parts go together and "like one another"? Or are there other parts that will make for a better system? And what is your opinion of using DOT 5 Silicone Brake Fluid ?
Again, thank you for your interest in this issue, I do appreciate it!
John
John Dot 5 is good stuff. The folks that restore exotics and rare automobiles swear by it. If you plan on short trips and long rest periods for the car it is perfect. I have never used it because of the cost and some idiosyncrasies I have heard about it. Can't shake the can? If you try to replace Dot 3 or 4 with it every rubber item in the system must be replaced? The pedal never gets a "hard" feel like Dot 3&4? Old wives tales?
Bill, Thank you for your input. I asked the question because "KULTULZ" really know his stuff when it comes to Fords and Ford parts, and he might know if there was an issue with using Silicone with the parts I plan to use.
I have Dot 5 in my 2 other cars and it has been in them for many years, without any issues.
John
!!! DO NOT USE DOT 5 FOR A STREET CAR !!!
We can get into that discussion later.
Let's get this one straightened out first and then we can food fight that one out ... :002:
Quote from: KULTULZ on 2022-08-14 08:39!!! DO NOT USE DOT 5 FOR A STREET CAR !!!
We can get into that discussion later.
OK... Let me fire the first shot -
QuoteDOT 5 doesn't absorb moisture, so some folks think it is the better choice, but is it? Before you go rushing off to the parts counter, remember even though DOT 5 doesn't absorb water, it can't/won't prevent moisture from entering the brake system. And since the water isn't absorbed by DOT 5, moisture puddles and causes localized corrosion within the brake system. As funny as it sounds, DOT 3, 4, and 5.1 absorb moisture, which in turn eliminates the puddling that can cause corrosion.
More importantly, when brake fluid heats up, water trapped inside the brake lines (but not absorbed by the brake fluid) is converted from liquid to vapor. Steam compresses easier than liquid. With this in mind, imagine barreling down the road at high speed and hitting the brakes. When the hydraulics sends DOT 5 fluid through a pocket of steam in the line, that drop in pressure creates a soft pedal.
SOURCE - https://techtalk.mpbrakes.com/brake-fluid/can-i-use-dot-5
:happy1:
Quote from: Ford Blue blood on 2022-08-14 07:45John Dot 5 is good stuff. The folks that restore exotics and rare automobiles swear by it. If you plan on short trips and long rest periods for the car it is perfect. I have never used it because of the cost and some idiosyncrasies I have heard about it. Can't shake the can? If you try to replace Dot 3 or 4 with it every rubber item in the system must be replaced? The pedal never gets a "hard" feel like Dot 3&4? Old wives tales?
No, all are true. If one wants the benefits of DOT 5 without the drama, research DOT 5.1.
It is not performance restorers are looking for, but paint protection if one gets sloppy. It will aerate and leave one with spongy brakes, if not complete failure.
It does not absorb outside moisture as does regular fluid (hygroscopic) but moisture/water does get into the system as it does in any system. That water will find it's way to the lowest points in the hydraulic system, pool and begin to eat.
Regular brake fluid needs to be changed at a minimum of every two years. That rids the system of any moisture before it does damage (the moisture is suspended in the brake fluid).
What is not explained is that most ( the sharp ones) that use this fluid for classics usually have to flush the system completely before driving the vehicle after a long storage.
For anyone contemplating a late model DISC CONV on an earlier car -
The correct YEAR WORKSHOP MANUAL for the donor car is invaluable to understand how all of this plumbing works.
In lieu (Fr.) of a WSM purchase ($$$), one can go the the PARTS DEPT and see if the counter dude will print out an ILL of the braking system for the exact donor car (both brake and booster install), and PARTS TEXT PN printout of the MC and PPV sections. Without this exact info, it is all guess work.
This is much different from a 60/70's conversion. DISC/DISC would not have either a METERING VALVE or RESIDUAL PRESSURE VALVE. The PDV may be integral to the MC. The OEM PPV cannot be used as the rear disc in this example (57 FORD - rear disc from another application other than donor MUST FIS) is from a different vehicle and the valve is calibrated for the original build (2003 MUST DISC/DISC non-ABS). An adj PPV is the fall back option.
Of course detailed photos of the system from the donor would be invaluable.
This is an interesting discussion as in the old days ... :003: ... the system from an early LINC was used.
QuoteI purchased a replacement MC for this HydroBoost I bought one for a NON traction control car, as my Ranchero does not have traction control.
TRACTION CONTROL is an extension of ABS. ESC (ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL is a move forward from T/C).
As long as the MC you bought is for a 2003 MUST (to match FRT CALIPER PISTON(s) SIZE (same calibration) (non-ABS - T/C). The difference in rear disc (not being from the 2003 MUST donor) will be regulated by the ADJ PPV.
Quote from: KULTULZ on 2022-08-15 02:22As long as the MC you bought is for a 2003 MUST (to match FRT CALIPER PISTON(s) SIZE (same calibration) (non-ABS - T/C). The difference in rear disc (not being from the 2003 MUST donor) will be regulated by the ADJ PPV.
If I'm reading this correctly, a proportion valve will adjust for a mismatch between the brakes and MC. If that is correct, could one also correct a mismatch between the mc and the front brakes?
I'm asking bc I also have a mismatch in the front which came from a non-pb vehicle. Would the hydroboost over power the mc from that vehicle?
John, sorry for the hijack.
Quote from: terry_208 on 2022-08-15 13:55If I'm reading this correctly, a proportion valve will adjust for a mismatch between the brakes and MC. If that is correct, could one also correct a mismatch between the mc and the front brakes?
No. When you do a conversion, you want to, if possible, match the front caliper piston(s) size/swept volume with the same donor vehicle MC. That is a factory designed match.
The rear bias (DISC/DISC) (different sizes from OEM) can somewhat be overcome with an ADJ PPV if using other than donor DISC/DISC - DISC/DRUM rear bake assemblies.
QuoteI'm asking bc I also have a mismatch in the front which came from a non-pb vehicle. Would the hydroboost over power the mc from that vehicle?
Are you describing the caliper piston or MC bore size?
If you are going to POWER ASSIST with a donor MC without POWER ASSIST, you most likely will have to source the matching PB MC for the front calipers with power assist. There is a MC DESIGN for manual, power, DISC/DRUM or DISC/DISC.
While there are rules concerning MC piston/bore size to PB, some drivers will appreciate a harder pedal while some want more assist (MC piston size). And don't forget pedal ratio. This should be the first consideration for the upgrade.
HYDRO-BOOST is going to give the best line pressure, depending if the PS PUMP OUTPUT PRESSURE is adequate for whatever HYDRO-BOOST system you choose.
Hope that made sense. If not, hit again.
Remember, an ADJ PPV is not a true PPV. It only begins to control rear pressure at the knee-point cut-in (brake fluid pressure cut-in). It offers no slope after cut-in as does a true PPV. It's something you have to remember and to make the correct initial adjustment. There is really no other choice as a special PPV would have to be calibrated for every possible application.
It helps to state what you are working on and whether kit or donor
Quote from: KULTULZ on 2022-08-15 16:21Are you describing the caliper piston or MC bore size?
It helps to state what you are working on and whether kit or donor
I have a mix of donor parts/pieces. Spindles, calipers, and rotors are from 74 Maverick (I also have on hand the manual mc from same), Hydroboost and mc from 99 Mustang GT and am planning to replace the stock rear drums of the 57 with parts from a Crown Victoria/Marque.
Seems like I have a box of problems, doesn't it?
I have done the Granada style front disc swap ('74 Maverick should be the same caliper) with hydraulic booster and rear Crown Vic/Explorer disc on two '57s. Both cars used the '57 OEM manual brake pedal and the original hole (the ratio is correct). Using the '57 manual pedal, I set the pedal height at the same height as manual brakes and the same as the clutch pedal. I am assuming you also have power steering. The hydraulic boosters will not work correctly without PS! One '57 had booster and MC from a Mustang GT. The other '57 had a '75 Lincoln donor. I saw no difference. The Mustang MC was metric and aluminum which made it prettier. The Lincoln ugly iron MC worked fine but it was later changed out because it was...ugly. Both cars had Wilwood adjustable bias valves and both were cranked in as far as they would go leading me to believe they were a waste of money...at least they are not real expensive...better to have and not need than...you know. Fixed bias is a joke. So many things enter into adjusting front to rear bias. Springs, load, road surface, tire sizes, more and more. What works for me may or may not for you. I'm just sharing what I've done.
I am gathering parts to convert to four wheel disc this winter. This time, donor cars and time to search for donor cars has gotten short and valuable. The plan is for a hydraulic booster (will really help with valve cover clearance) and I still have one in my hoarder pile. A 1" Wilwood MC and six piston Wilwood conversion kit on the front and with Crown Vic disc on the rear. This time I am going with Wilwood's combo adjustable proportioning/isolation valve.
I forgot all three cars have line locks just for fun!
Quote from: KYBlueOval on 2022-07-19 11:22A picture is worth a thousand words.........Here is what I have. I don't see anything that "divides" the MC. Having said that, the larger volume/area of the MC is in the rear. So If I had to guess,the rear circuit is for the front brakes. Just a guess.
(https://i.imgur.com/3ayP8Kc.jpg?2)
This overshot my ears, I need to sit up a little better ...
The reason for the reservoir to appear tilted as it is to compensate for a MC that winds up mounted non-horizontally. The actual fluid level stays level to fill either MC piston chamber.
You have to keep an eye on the fluid level because as the pads wear, there is quicker fluid drop (compared to a drum MC) because of caliper piston/bore size.
Any style MC reservoir(s) must be level at final install.
Quote from: terry_208 on 2022-08-15 18:45I have a mix of donor parts/pieces. Spindles, calipers, and rotors are from 74 Maverick (I also have on hand the manual mc from same), Hydroboost and mc from 99 Mustang GT and am planning to replace the stock rear drums of the 57 with parts from a Crown Victoria/Marque.
Seems like I have a box of problems, doesn't it?
Have you considered using the SCAREBIRD caliper adapters to be able to use KH-4 PISTON fixed calipers (and WILDWOOD now offers a direct replacement caliper if wanting to go flashy) on the stock spindle?
This will eliminate the GRANADA spindle setup that can cause alignment problems and bump-steer?
Why do you want rear disc?
RE; Silicon brake fluid.
Used in my 57 after brake overhaul in 1983, still in there no problems at all.
Ron.
KYBlueOval -
Haven't seen you post recently.
Were you able to get a diagram (PARTS ILL) of the complete system and the circuity of the MC (SERVICE INFO)?
I almost got to verify an '03 hydroboost setup. A show I did a week ago had an '03 Mustang GT with the hood propped open a foot or so in front.....just enough to see the reserve canister on the hydroboost. The guy was nowhere to be found all day. I was told he was part of the group assisting with the show, so was apparently off doing that. No way I was going to mess with his car too have a look. Anyway, it at least verified that the SOHC GT's had the hydroboost as well as the Cobras.
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2022-08-21 11:50I almost got to verify an '03 hydroboost setup. A show I did a week ago had an '03 Mustang GT with the hood propped open a foot or so in front.....just enough to see the reserve canister on the hydroboost. The guy was nowhere to be found all day. I was told he was part of the group assisting with the show, so was apparently off doing that. No way I was going to mess with his car too have a look. Anyway, it at least verified that the SOHC GT's had the hydroboost as well as the Cobras.
What I am trying to verify (without the purchase price of a 2003 WSM) is the brake plumbing and MC internal valving.
There are so many caveats (Fr.) using late model braking on an earlier vehicle.
To Wit -
QuoteQ - Which front and rear brake setups does it work with?
The Hydro-boost is simply a type of power assist, just as a vacuum booster is a type of power assist. It will work with most of the front and rear caliper setups used on SN95 and Fox Mustangs. A limitation is the lack of master cylinder sizes available for the Hydro-boost. This makes it important to confirm that the volume of fluid required to move the caliper pistons is compatible with the volume of fluid the master cylinder can deliver. If the caliper piston requirement is excessive, the brake pedal will have an overly long stroke, which is very disconcerting for the driver. At the extreme, if it exceeds what the master cylinder can deliver, the piston in the master cylinder will reach the end of its stroke and bottom out, preventing full application of the brakes.
While you're confirming that your Mustang's calipers are a match to the Hydro-boost master cylinder, it's also a good time to confirm your Mustang's front to rear brake bias (or any retro-fit) is in the range of what works well. Fox and SN95 Mustang brakes should have between 70% and 75% front bias (also referred to as 70/30 and 75/25). The more heavily modified the suspension is for improved handling, the closer to 70% the front bias should be. An exception is a street and/or strip Mustang running an extreme 'big-and-little' combination of fat rear tires and skinny front-runners, where substantially more rear bias is required to offset the lack of front tire grip.
Q - How do I confirm my brake calipers are a match to the Hydro-boost master cylinder, and that my bias is good?
You can calculate the fluid requirement of your calipers from the piston area, and then segue into calculating the bias by taking into account the rotor diameters. Or, you can take advantage of MM's Technical Services and let MM's setup engineer do the math. Select the Fox Hydroboost Conversion option, and follow the instructions.
Most of the aftermarket big brake kits listed for SN95 Mustangs also work well on a Fox Mustang. There are some exceptions. Brake systems we've done the calculations for are listed on the Fitment tab. If you don't see your brakes listed, go to the Technical Services page, select the Fox Hydroboost Conversion option, and we'll run the numbers for you.
The brake setups most likely to have poor bias are those put together by DIYers. These systems are often done following dubious Internet directions, or simply because the parts were readily available and easily bolted up. Good DIY mechanical skills don't always coincide with good brake system engineering
.
SOURCE - https://www.maximummotorsports.com/Hydroboost-Conversion-Kit-1999-2004-Hydroboost-in-1979-1993-Mustang-P1618.aspx
You guys are doing this as there is little room left after a COYOTE INSTALL in an older chassis?
Am not complaining, just trying to figure all of this out.
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2022-07-19 08:35I'll look at my setup, but I think the Ford dealer was guessing wrong. Not sure if the proportioning valve my lines are going thru will allow for a proper determination, but I'll look after my coffee.
Were you able to inspect the setup? The Proportioning Valve would be in the rear brake circuit if it is freestanding (not part of a Combination Valve).
QuoteYou said new master cylinder, but is it the Mustang style, or Wilwood/standard style? If it is the Mustang style, they cannot be bench-bled. I mentioned that before, and suggested making a bleeder jar with two hoses so you could bleed both at the same time.
Why would you say 'cannot bench bleed' this period OEM MC?
Now you used the late MUST HYDR0-BOOST as you have a COYOTE engine in a '57. Was there no room for a vacuum booster or did you just want to go HYDRO-BOOST?
I ain't questioning or yelling but just trying to nail some information down.
First of all, I'm not sure anyone on this forum has a Coyote motor. I sure do not. Mine is a '95 Lincoln 4.6 DOHC. I can't remember what John/KYBlueoval's plans are for a motor. I wanted power brakes, and had no other options as the DOHC version of the 4.6 is a very wide motor, with absolutely no room for a vacuum booster. Years ago when I was trying to sort all this stuff out (where John is now), I got input/ recommendations from other members on this forum that had done the hydroboost. It was then I was told the Mustang hydroboost's master could not be bench bled. I believe I was referred to a printed article on that subject, but don't remember for sure. I for sure am not an expert on the different systems and their component compatibility, all I know is I was apparently given good advise as my brakes have always worked well. I'm sure not as well as a complete Wilwood or similar system, but the single piston Granada front discs and '88 T-Bird rears have worked well enough to keep me happy.
This whole discussion started when John was trying to confirm which M/C port went to the front and which went to the back. That's what I was trying to see on that '03 Mustang at the show. I have my front M/C port going to the front brakes. I don't remember how I determined that, but I sure wouldn't have just taken a guess. It was probably info offered by the ones helping me way back when. Last input from John was he thought the front port should go to the back brakes.
Using a Hydroboost is not always because of a space problem, others have used it because of inadequate vacuum produced by their modified/racing motors.
BTW, the Lincoln Mark VIII did not use a hydroboost. Like many cars factory designed for wide motors, the Lincolns had a recess in the firewall to accommodate the vacuum boosters, which the '57's obviously do not have.
Something else I've been thinking about......The Mustang M/C has the single reservoir as shown in John's posted pic a few pages back. It is tipped, and it was said the most volume of brake fluid was in the back, so maybe that "larger" volume should be over the front brake piston. I think that's what got John thinking the back port should feed the front brakes. But would that be the best scenario on an unknown damaged/leaking system? We know front brakes do the majority of the braking, so if the reservoir was rapidly depleting to the point where the front M/C piston was not being fed, would you even notice it if it was the back brakes that were not working? For sure you wouldn't notice it as rapidly if the front brakes stopped working. It may be possible that you would end up with NO brakes too late, as opposed to having brakes that obviously were not operating correctly. Does that make sense? It's kinda like those run-flat for 80 miles tires they brought out years and years ago. How do you know you've got a flat to begin with?
John was going to try and go by the dealer and see if they still had a 2003 WSM.
The mystery is how the internal reservoirs in this MC are arranged.
Now to correct something I posted earlier regarding the valving-
The valve pictured previously seems to be a PPV only as I see no provision for a PDV WARNING LAMP SENDER SWITCH and DISC/DISC would not have a METERING VALVE. So what is shown is a true PROPORTIONING VALVE only. But it would not be calibrated correctly other than for the actual car it was released for. An ADJ ANTI-BIAS valve would have to be used as long as the installer realizes the difference(s) between the OEM PPV and the ADJ. One of these things can get you into some serious trouble on the street under the wrong conditions.
I am curious as to why someone said one cannot be bench bled. You couldn't do it on the car as once mounted it is tipped upwards and guess where the air bubble would settle and stay?
Both MC internal bore/piston sizes should be the same as it is DISC/DISC.
Do you have bleeder screws on your MC?
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2022-08-23 09:55Something else I've been thinking about......The Mustang M/C has the single reservoir as shown in John's posted pic a few pages back. It is tipped, and it was said the most volume of brake fluid was in the back, so maybe that "larger" volume should be over the front brake piston. I think that's what got John thinking the back port should feed the front brakes. But would that be the best scenario on an unknown damaged/leaking system? We know front brakes do the majority of the braking, so if the reservoir was rapidly depleting to the point where the front M/C piston was not being fed, would you even notice it if it was the back brakes that were not working?
For sure you wouldn't notice it as rapidly if the front brakes stopped working. It may be possible that you would end up with NO brakes too late, as opposed to having brakes that obviously were not operating correctly. Does that make sense? It's kinda like those run-flat for 80 miles tires they brought out years and years ago. How do you know you've got a flat to begin with?
It is the MC that is tilted on install. The reservoir will become horizontal (if the vehicle trim is correct - you know how these hot rodders are).
On the old FORD MC system, the rear reservoir was the for the front whether DISC or DRUM. Now some GM are opposite and this is where you have to be careful using vendor kits. That being said, it appears the larger portion of the reservoir is over the MC rear piston. Now one would think because of this the rear of the MC operates the front calipers as they require more juice and as the pads wear will need more fluid than the rear disc (smaller piston size). This is where a LOW LEVEL WARNING LAMP comes into play. It tells you that the fluid level is low (usually on a single reservoir as shown here, the low warning would indicate that the level is low for either port.
Now if ABS and the fluid is low, the ABS LAMP will be activated, indicating a low level and the first thing to do if the ABS lamp illuminates is to check the fluid. If after topping the lamp stays on, then you go to diagnostics.
Now if there is not a FLUID LEVEL WARNING SWITCH in the reservoir (connected by plug) there has to be another method of warning the driver. This is another reason for the need for the manual.
The front disc does the most work, one reason for the rear disc being smaller. The rear pads should last longer than the front and use less make-up fluid for pad wear.
I hope that made sense.
EDIT -
I found online the 2009 MUST OWNERS MANUAL. There seem to be two instrument clusters, one MUST and the other GT.
There is a BRAKE WARNING LAMP, an EMERGENCY BRAKE APPLICATION LAMP, and a ABS LAMP. I would assume that on a model without ABS, the ABS lamp would be non-functional.
If one could have printed out a BRAKE HYD SYSTEM ILL, a HYDRO-BOOST SYSTEM ILL and possibly the MC (2140) and MC REPAIR KIT (2004) application page (along w/ the 2B091 PPV), it may answer a few questions.
Cars have become more complicated as of late.
Life events have gotten in the way of working on my Ranchero as of late,but they are in the rear view mirror now, so back to working on the Ranchero.
I will visit a local Ford Dealer on Saturday to see if they have a 2003 WSM and will print out the brake system parts etc. I've found that the Saturday Parts counter guy has very little do do, and my requests are less of a bother. We'll see if I get what I need.
I opened the WEBSITE, for Maximum Motor Sports that KULTULZ posted in post #48 and read all of what they had to say regarding a Hydroboost conversion kit they sell for Fox Body Mustangs.They prefer the '99-04 version of the Hydroboost, which is what I have ('03). A closer examination of the MC that was on the HydroBoost when I bought it( donor car had T.C.) and the replacement MC I recently bought for a NON Traction Control '03 Mustang GT, reveled that the outlet ports of the NEW MC are the same size front or rear, and the MC that was on the Hydroboost when I bought it, has a larger port closest to the radiator. This difference is confirmed, with photos, on the Maximum website under parts ID.
They also offer a "Brake Proportioning Valve Eliminator Kit for '87-'93 Mustangs", but no mention of a kit for '94-'04 Mustangs. I'll call them today and see what they have to say.
To be continued......
QuoteThey also offer a "Brake Proportioning Valve Eliminator Kit for '87-'93 Mustangs", but no mention of a kit for '94-'04 Mustangs.
Those kit(s) are meant only for the original install on a MUSTANG. One will enable you to disable the PPV so as to keep the body (DIST BLOCK) and not disturb the factory plumbing and the other giving enough plumbing parts to eliminate the original valve completely without a total plumbing redo.
There is little choice other than an ADJ PPV. This is how you have yours, correct?
You are correct, I have not installed the PPV, and yes I have a Wilwood Proportioning Valve in the rear circuit.
The front brakes are connected to the port closest to the firewall.
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2022-08-23 09:18First of all, I'm not sure anyone on this forum has a Coyote motor. I sure do not. Mine is a '95 Lincoln 4.6 DOHC.
My mistake. I should have posted modular.
Quote from: KYBlueOval on 2022-08-24 05:17Life events have gotten in the way of working on my Ranchero as of late,but they are in the rear view mirror now, so back to working on the Ranchero.
No problem. I just didn't hear anything and was wondering.
Quote from: KULTULZ on 2022-08-24 07:01No problem. I just didn't hear anything and was wondering.
QuoteThe front brakes are connected to the port closest to the firewall.
Correct install is important and the OEM plumbing (incl MC circuitry) needs to be verified.
My brain doesn't work as it use to......you are correct, the reservoir does have a low fluid warning sender(?)/connector. Mine is not wired, have no idea what would be involved to make it function.
Yes, the Mustang master cyl. has bleeders..two.....one very close to the nose to get the air bubbles that would be otherwise trapped because of the tilted mount. I've never noticed bleeders on any other type of MC, so kinda goes along with these not being able to be bench bled. The second bleeder is 3" or so back from the front one.
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2022-08-24 09:23Yes, the Mustang master cyl. has bleeders..two.....one very close to the nose to get the air bubbles that would be otherwise trapped because of the tilted mount. I've never noticed bleeders on any other type of MC, so kinda goes along with these not being able to be bench bled. The second bleeder is 3" or so back from the front one.
I am not 100% sure, but I believe those bleeders are for an internal PDV (it will trip an instrument cluster warning lamp). Those bleeders allow you to center it.
The MC has to be bench bled before being installed, as the MC nose will be tilted upwards and will allow air to be trapped in the nose and it won't come out, just as a caliper has to be level to completely bleed it.
I guess I am going to have to bite the bullet and find a 2003 WSM copy. This lack of info (and I have found nothing on the net) is driving me (and my driving you guys) crazy.
Quote from: KYBlueOval on 2022-08-24 05:17I opened the WEBSITE, for Maximum Motor Sports that KULTULZ posted in post #48 and read all of what they had to say regarding a Hydroboost conversion kit they sell for Fox Body Mustangs
John,
The reason I posted the URL was to reference a quote from their TECH. Most of the info there is related to an earlier MUST only. It is this 2003 MC that needs to be defined.
What you have is going to be fine (IMO), once proper plumbing is established.
KULTULZ......After reading the Maximum Motor Sports website, it seems they much prefer a written question, rather than a phone call. So I sent a written request containing several plumbing questions.Their site said it could take several days for a reply. Time will tell if I get a response/reply.
In thinking through the various parts that I have assembled for my "brake system", it dawned on me that although the MC Reservoir is not divided, it appears that the actual MC is. And this point may have been discussed before in this thread, so excuse me if I'm repeating what has already been posted.
The MC has two "bleeders" on the engine side of the MC. My thinking is that the only reason for two separate bleeders,is there must be two separate sections inside the MC. DUH! Which would compensate for the lack of separate sections in the MC Reservoir.
This is just a WAG (Wild Ass Guess) on my part, the more knowledgeable guys, like you, on this site will weigh in and set the record straight......I hope.
John
I contacted Maximum Motor Sports and asked several questions regarding the use of 2003 Mustang Brake Parts on my Ranchero. The most important questions I asked were 1) The correct MC plumbing connections 2) The use/need for the PPV as shown in Post #18. 3) Is the MC constructed such, that if I were to rupture the rear brake flexible line, would I lose all braking?
The answer they gave on #1 is "99% of all cars have the front brakes connected to the port closest to the firewall"
The answer to #2 Since I have a Wilwood PPV in the rear brake line I do not want to have the OEM PPV as shown in post #18 in the system.
The answer to #3 was that if the rear brake line was to incur a rupture, I would have front brakes.The reverse situation, no front brakes, I would have rear brakes.
John
Quote from: KYBlueOval on 2022-08-27 05:33I contacted Maximum Motor Sports and asked several questions regarding the use of 2003 Mustang Brake Parts on my Ranchero. The most important questions I asked were 1) The correct MC plumbing connections 2) The use/need for the PPV as shown in Post #18. 3) Is the MC constructed such, that if I were to rupture the rear brake flexible line, would I lose all braking?
The answer they gave on #1 is "99% of all cars have the front brakes connected to the port closest to the firewall"
That is possibly true, but one wants to know exactly before he busts his butt and/or tears up his ride and face a possible civil suit. Their answer is a 'guess'.
Brake system designs have changed significantly since the sixties/seventies.
QuoteThe answer to #2 Since I have a Wilwood PPV in the rear brake line I do not want to have the OEM PPV as shown in post #18 in the system.
Correct. You want to use one or the other as you cannot use both. It may be possible the OEM PPV will work on your application. You would need the PPV knee point and slope info (found in the WSM) and test the car from there. If unbalanced, you have to go with the 'spin for a possible solution' adjustable anti-bias valve.
QuoteThe answer to #3 was that if the rear brake line was to incur a rupture, I would have front brakes.The reverse situation, no front brakes, I would have rear brakes.
John
Correct. That was the reason for the 1967 FEDERAL MANDATE, to make braking safer. The design is in the MC, not the PDV.
I wish you luck at the dealer later this morning,
Here is a tutorial that may help explain theory -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gD7X9kgj_k
Well, whichever way you decide to go, I'm sure you're gonna do some serious testing in a safe area. If it were me, I'd just make a decision and go for it before I wore my brain out overthinking it. It's gonna be a while before you get to that point, if I'm still around and have my '57, I'll be watching to see how your brakes work out. I did actually look at my plumbing to see how hard it would be to switch ports, and it actually will be pretty easy because I have loops in the lines there. I'm sure it'll take much longer to rebleed.
Well a local Ford Dealer was not much help. He was more than willing to print information, but none of it showed the brake system in it's entirety.
So based on what I have learned from those that have replied, and more reading and research than I care to think about, I'm moving on. The MC I'm using is for a '03 Mustang W/O Traction Control. It is attached to a '03 Mustang GT HydroBoost. The donor car had ABS and Traction Control. My Ranchero has neither. The port closest to the firewall in connected to the Front Brake Circuit.
There is a Wilwood Proportioning Valve in the Rear Brake Circuit. If anyone wants to know the piston sizes or other particular specs, I'll be glad to post what I know. When I have this Ranchero up and running, I let you know how this Shade Tree Engineered Brake system works.
John
Did a small car show put on by the local Mustang club. As it turns out, one of their club officers was there with his '03 w/ hydroboost. Better yet, he is a lead mechanic at the local Ford dealer. First, I got a decent look at his setup, and because of the OEM valve/ block, you can't tell which port is which, however, I talked to him at length. He confirmed what you found out..his car, the front port goes to the rear, and the rear port goes to the front brakes. So, if I were you, John, that's the way I would do it. Mine may be backwards from OEM setup, but the proportioning valve we are both using makes up for that difference. He did give the opinion on mine that if everything is working well, it would be silly to change it.
QuoteMine may be backwards from OEM setup, but the proportioning valve we are both using makes up for that difference. He did give the opinion on mine that if everything is working well, it would be silly to change it.
You have a PPV in the front brake circuit and the guy said that was OK? And you believe his advice?
My proportioning valve is in the rear brakes as it should be.. Not sure where you got the idea I had it adjusting the front brakes. So yes, I trust his advise.
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2022-08-28 09:44My proportioning valve is in the rear brakes as it should be.. Not sure where you got the idea I had it adjusting the front brakes. So yes, I trust his advise.
Listen, I am only trying to help here. I didn't mean to upset you.
Simply put, you cannot plumb a braking system without knowing which circuit is which.
QuoteHe confirmed what you found out..his car, the front port goes to the rear, and the rear port goes to the front brakes. So, if I were you, John, that's the way I would do it. Mine may be backwards from OEM setup, but the proportioning valve we are both using makes up for that difference. He did give the opinion on mine that if everything is working well, it would be silly to change it.
And he is a LEAD TECH at a dealership?
And where was it found definitely the MC rear power goes to the front brake circuit? The only way to know without FORD TECH INFO is with a pair of gauges.
Can this thread be moved to the OTHER BRAKE ISSUES FORUM?
It may get lost here and if in the correct forum, someone may come across it and answer the question
I am too cheap to buy a WSM,
THANX!
done