Found a dual master cylinder for 4 wheel drum brakes NMC22125 1 1/8" bore for Kelsey Hayes under dash booster no need for a portion valve. Question which port on the M/C should go to the front brakes?
I'm no brake expert, but it is my understanding that the larger reservoir is always for the front brakes. So connect to the port for that reservoir.
Did the instructions suggest you bench bleed the MC before installing? If not I'd suggest you do that.
Let's see what others on the Forum have to say, they are more knowledgeable.
John
Also, many Ford masters had larger fitting for front brake circuit.
If the MC is an original FORD (BENDIX) drum/drum design, the rear reservoir supplies the front brakes and the front reservoir supplies the rear brakes (each reservoir being equal in size). Other car manufacturers sometimes had it reversed, so the MC has to be spec'd for FORD. What vehicle did you spec the MC for?
You must make sure the replacement MC has RESIDUAL VALVES in both outlet ports. This being an aftermarket off-shore unit, it is difficult to figure so you have to read the manufacturer's instruction sheet very carefully.
You may also have brake line size differences which may require adapter fittings.
You must get back after successful install as I am curious how it will all work out.
1 1/8" bore sounds pretty large for a manual brake application, or do you have power brakes? Typically, a manual brake master cylinder has similar sized reservoir chambers, disc brake usually has one chamber much larger than the other, the large chamber is for the front disc brakes, to allow for displaced fluid as the front pads wear and get thinner, causing the pistons to extend. Also keep in mind, a manual brake master will have a pushrod between the brake pedal and master pistons, that is "captured" by a clip, to prevent the brake pedal from swinging back far enough to allow the pushrod to fall out of the piston, causing no brakes. A power master has just a hole in the rear piston, which engages into a pushrod inside the vacuum booster.
I did a search for 1 1/8" dual master for 4 wheel drum brakes and found that number NMC-22125 Oreillys also Raybestos MC36355 its for a 1967 Ford F350 truck uses the same wheel cylinders F 1 1/8 R 15/16 The 15/16 is on the Skyliners, Wagons and Rancheros I have a Skyliner. On Monday I will call Raybestos abut the ports I believe you are correct about the rear port to the front brakes.
The OP has 57/59 SWIFT-SURE POWER BRAKE
Quote from: mbmd57 on 2021-01-02 11:49
I did a search for 1 1/8" dual master for 4 wheel drum brakes and found that number NMC-22125 Oreillys also Raybestos MC36355 its for a 1967 Ford F350 truck uses the same wheel cylinders F 1 1/8 R 15/16 The 15/16 is on the Skyliners, Wagons and Rancheros I have a Skyliner.
On Monday I will call Raybestos abut the ports I believe you are correct about the rear port to the front brakes.
You did your research ... :002:
Make sure you ask them about the RESIDUAL PRESSURE VALVS install on the outlet ports. You will have a soft pedal without them.
Please get back as to the results.
Can you see the rubber duckbill residual valves without pulling out the seat out from the master?
i'm watching this post as i still have the orig style MC, so far the NMC 22125 is sounding good for a replacement, i don't have anyone doing my work for me, so what i need to know is, is this a shoe in other then reworking the brake lines, or is it more involved, thanks, jerry
Quote from: rmk57 on 2021-01-02 13:55
Can you see the rubber duckbill residual valves without pulling out the seat out from the master?
You may or may not. Take a paper clip and insert an open end gently into the outlet post(s). If you feel like a rubber (bouncy) resistance, that should be the valve. If no resistance, no valve.
Quote from: geraldchainsaw on 2021-01-02 14:08
i'm watching this post as i still have the orig style MC, so far the NMC 22125 is sounding good for a replacement, i don't have anyone doing my work for me, so what i need to know is, is this a shoe in other then reworking the brake lines, or is it more involved, thanks, jerry
It is fairly straight forward far as plumbing, unless you decide to use a PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL VALVE.
You have power brakes, correct?
I am assuming the outlet ports on this MC are on the outboard side.
As stated above I have the under dash power brake booster made by Kelsey Hayes for 57-59 cars you can use a 1" MC but it will require more pedal pressure than the 1 1/8" when I receive the dual MC I will check for the residual valves.
Quote from: gasman826 on 2021-01-02 07:39
Also, many Ford masters had larger fitting for front brake circuit.
I picked up a 61 Starliner a few years ago where the PO had installed power brakes with a dual master cylinder. Don't know what master cylinder he used but he ended up using a larger size brake line coming out of the master cylinder then an adapter to fit the lines on the car. Car stopped "ok" but I didn't like all extra plumbing so I decided to install a master cylinder with the correct lines. After I finished it and took it for a ride I couldn't believe how much better it stopped. That was just one of the many things I've had to redo on this car. Another never ending project.
i'v been reading all the post on and about the brakes, On my 57 RHT the breaks are as original. Sure swift power assist, everything is new , lines , cylinders. I have adjusted and bled the brakes 4 or 5 times and am still having trouble getting it to stop. Now this morning I read that the front wheel cylinders should be 1 1/8 and the rear 15/16. Is this true where I do not have a dual master cylinder. This is about ready to drive me nuts.
Is it not the general rule that a larger diameter mc bore will always require more pedal force exerted upon it than a smaller bore mc - but with less travel; and a smaller bore mc will require less pedal force exerted upon it than a larger bore mc - but requires greater travel to displace an equal amount of fluid?
And the force exerted by your foot is amplified by the further distance of the brake rod pin from the pedal pivot point on a manual brake pedal, or by the booster assist on a power brake system?
But since there are actually two mc pistons in series in a dual reservoir mc, doesn't that mean you are asking your booster to do a bigger job ( x 2 ), than a single piston in the original single reservoir mc? Seems to me like that would tend to give a hard pedal without a larger booster and it seems this has been proven repeatedly by people using 6 and 7 inch firewall mounted boosters. The KH booster is only 5" in diameter, so that is even less boost it would seem.
But, I am also planning to utilize my KH booster (though with front disks), so I am interested in seeing how this works out before I order a new mc. The limited brake pedal arm travel of the 57-59 Swift Sure system as originally designed would seem to be a factor in dropping the bore size down, but so would the boost power of the KH booster when pushing essentially two 1 1/8" mc pistons.
Any incorrect assumptions I have laid out there?
Quote from: alvin stadel on 2021-01-03 10:18
i'v been reading all the post on and about the brakes, On my 57 RHT the breaks are as original. Sure swift power assist, everything is new , lines , cylinders. I have adjusted and bled the brakes 4 or 5 times and am still having trouble getting it to stop. Now this morning I read that the front wheel cylinders should be 1 1/8 and the rear 15/16. Is this true where I do not have a dual master cylinder. This is about ready to drive me nuts.
The rear size is 15/16" for retractable where it is 7/8" on most other models. Not sure about the front wheel cylinders but sounds right.
What type of failure to stop? Pedal going nearly to floor? Requires obscene pedal pressure but works otherwise? Possible booster pinhole leak?
Quote from: brushwolf on 2021-01-03 10:46
But since there are actually two mc pistons in series in a dual reservoir mc, doesn't that mean you are asking your booster to do a bigger job ( x 2 ), than a single piston in the original single reservoir mc? Seems to me like that would tend to give a hard pedal without a larger booster and it seems this has been proven repeatedly by people using 6 and 7 inch firewall mounted boosters. The KH booster is only 5" in diameter, so that is even less boost it would seem.
But, I am also planning to utilize my KH booster (though with front disks), so I am interested in seeing how this works out before I order a new mc. The limited brake pedal arm travel of the 57-59 Swift Sure system as originally designed would seem to be a factor in dropping the bore size down, but so would the boost power of the KH booster when pushing essentially two 1 1/8" mc pistons.
Any incorrect assumptions I have laid out there?
I can tell you there was no difference in the pedal effort going from a single master to a duel master on the sure swift system. It works great with disc brakes not over boosted but not as hard as say a manual system. This is a small booster . A smaller bore master will give you a soft sponge pedal and it will not stop the car safely.
Quote from: dgasman on 2021-01-03 12:12
I can tell you there was no difference in the pedal effort going from a single master to a duel master on the sure swift system. It works great with disc brakes not over boosted but not as hard as say a manual system. This is a small booster . A smaller bore master will give you a soft sponge pedal and it will not stop the car safely.
That is good, nothing like proven combinations. That median brake effort is what I want too. You are running 1 1/8 bore mc, right?
I wonder why so many insist the small 6 and 7 inch firewall boosters are inadequate when the KH is only 5 inch. Possible the accordion design of the KH combined with the separate vacuum tank actually creates more boost than those small aftermarket firewall boosters?
Quote from: brushwolf on 2021-01-03 14:59
I wonder why so many insist the small 6 and 7 inch firewall boosters are inadequate when the KH is only 5 inch. Possible the accordion design of the KH combined with the separate vacuum tank actually creates more boost than those small aftermarket firewall boosters?
It is because most of those complaints pertain to a disc/drum or disc/disc braking system. Much more diaphragm area is need to initiate calipers correctly. And, more with these type of swaps are running a big cam with inadequate manifold vacuum to operate the booster correctly.
It is all an equation to figure out as to type of brake, correct MC and booster size, pedal ratio and even brake line size. It all comes down to adequate line pressure at the caliper and/or wheel cylinder.
The KH unit is adequate for this period drum brake system with or without a dual reservoir MC. It will give some boost to a disc system but will not produce the needed line pressure to feel as a modern car.
CLICK HERE - https://techtalk.mpbrakes.com/booster-master-cylinder-combos/selecting-the-right-boostermaster-cylinder-combo-for-your-classic-car
All 1957 FORD had 11 x 2 1/4" front brake size with a wheel cylinder size of 1 1/8" and a MC bore size of 1" (STD). Power brakes used a 1 1/8" bore MC. I would show the chart but when I try to upload here, everything goes bananas.
1957 CAR SHOP MANUAL SEP 1956 Printing (1st Quarter).
The PB MC size is derived from the 1949-59 MASTER PARTS CATALOG
Quote from: alvin stadel on 2021-01-03 10:18
i'v been reading all the post on and about the brakes, On my 57 RHT the breaks are as original. Sure swift power assist, everything is new , lines , cylinders. I have adjusted and bled the brakes 4 or 5 times and am still having trouble getting it to stop. Now this morning I read that the front wheel cylinders should be 1 1/8 and the rear 15/16. Is this true where I do not have a dual master cylinder. This is about ready to drive me nuts.
1) Are you running the single reservoir MC and if replaced did it have a PRESSURE RESIDUAL VALVE in it?
2) Have you measured MANIFOLD VACUUM?
3) Quality of linings used?
4) Were the linings arc ground to fit the drums? If not it will take some miles before they make full contact and grab correctly.
5) Describe how you adjust your brake shoes.
6) There is a DIAGNOSTIC SEQUENCE in the 57 SHOP MANUAL.
Like I said everything is replaced as factory, 1 1/8 bore on master, I never measured wheel cylinders as I ordered replacements for a retractable. [ my fault for not double checking when they sent me the parts]. AS far as adjustment I turned the star adjuster until wheel would not move then backed them off 4 clicks. There are no leaks, and when bleeding there are no more air bubbles. Petal is hard, I'm begaing to think it is in the booster that I had rebuilt. I plan to check lb's of vacume in the morning. I'm about ready to take this SOB into Billings and get it tested for covid-19.
This system gives plenty of pressure for a disc brake system. I can lock up all four wheels if I wanted to. I was going to do a 4 wheel disc on my Ranchero with this system just to make it easier to install the rear wheels but haven?t had the time or want to do and I have all the parts to do it including a Granada 4 wheel disc proportioning valve . Yes this system needs a car that makes vacuum. If you have a cam and less than 18 inches of vacuum even with its vacuum can it will not work . We need to remember this is 1950s technology.
Alvin have you done the adjustments to the booster at the pedal assembly? This is very important on this system.
Yes in the good old days we arc the shoes to fit the drums but I don?t know any one who does that and until the shoes break in you will get a odd pedal feel almost like there is a little air in the system and this is on a four wheel drum system.
Quote from: brushwolf on 2021-01-03 14:59
That is good, nothing like proven combinations. That median brake effort is what I want too. You are running 1 1/8 bore mc, right?
Yes I am using a 1 1/8 bore master from a SVO mustang and it is a 4wheel disc master . The residual pressure valve is in the proportioning valve disc / drum from a Granada
Quote from: alvin stadel on 2021-01-03 18:41
Like I said everything is replaced as factory, 1 1/8 bore on master, I never measured wheel cylinders as I ordered replacements for a retractable. [ my fault for not double checking when they sent me the parts].
Just to satisfy my curiosity, exactly which type MC is on the car now and if an aftermarket replacement, who was the manufacturer?
As mentioned, the pedal/booster assy has an adjustment along with checking all bushings for wear, info in SHOP MANUAL.
Alvin, how many miles and stops have you done? I went through this last year with my F100. Without the shoes being arced and the drums being turned to a larger diameter the shoes were only hitting in the center. After several hundred miles of local driving and stopping it finally started stopping normally after the shoes seated fully. Also some brake shoe materials used these days are crap, must be made from recycled cardboard :005:
I got the MC from Kanters, didnt keep the box, so not sure what brand it is. As far as miles, I'v only drove it about 4 miles.
when you are born under the wrong star you learn not to take any unnecessary chances. I am suppose to be getting some professional help this week,[for the car] Will let you know how that goes.
Quote from: dgasman on 2021-01-03 12:12
I can tell you there was no difference in the pedal effort going from a single master to a duel master on the sure swift system. It works great with disc brakes not over boosted but not as hard as say a manual system. This is a small booster . A smaller bore master will give you a soft sponge pedal and it will not stop the car safely.
I can`t speak for every system, but my 59 has a 7/8" bore manual brake master cylinder ,the original manual brake pedal, and it does NOT have a soft pedal. Yes, it does have a bit more travel than a modern power brake equipped vehicle, and definately requires more pressure, but it absolutely stops the car just fine. I have the Wilwood 4 piston front brakes, and replaced the factory 11" rear drum brakes, with 10" Explorer drum brakes, to make swapping the rear tires easier. Although the Explorer drums are 1" smaller diameter, they are 2 1/2" wide, compared to the 1 3/4" factory shoe, so the actually swept area is larger with the 10" brakes.
Quote... my 59 has a 7/8" bore manual brake master cylinder ,the original manual brake pedal, and it does NOT have a soft pedal
Did your 59 METEOR (CA) come through originally with a six, FYB or FE?
Quote from: 59meteor on 2021-01-04 09:55
I can`t speak for every system, but my 59 has a 7/8" bore manual brake master cylinder ,the original manual brake pedal, and it does NOT have a soft pedal. Yes, it does have a bit more travel than a modern power brake equipped vehicle, and definately requires more pressure, but it absolutely stops the car just fine. I have the Wilwood 4 piston front brakes, and replaced the factory 11" rear drum brakes, with 10" Explorer drum brakes, to make swapping the rear tires easier. Although the Explorer drums are 1" smaller diameter, they are 2 1/2" wide, compared to the 1 3/4" factory shoe, so the actually swept area is larger with the 10" brakes.
I ordered a MC from CJ Pony Parts with attached adjustable valve for mine in 1 1/8" bore although they have a 1" bore similar combo as well. I like the bias adjustability since I have a mish-mash of parts and my front disks are 71 Lincoln. With all drum brakes I wonder if this mc would also work with a residual pressure valve added in the line to the front drums? Not sure why it wouldn't...
With my Swift Sure pedal, the pedal travel is an issue for me as well, so I went with the larger bore. They also have some Mustang drum/drum mc, but no bore specs given. Suspect it is less than the 1 1/8 mc bore for retractables with power brakes, so maybe the truck mc will work. I have seen some GM mc used on Fords with all drum brakes too, so being the brake system is being modified to dual chamber mc anyway, does it really have to be a Ford part? IDT so, but maybe a little sketchy to put on a retractable.
I am going to stick with the original 11" drums in rear along with the 56 Wagon rear shocks first and if that does not work out for tire width, I will probably steal the Explorer 10" brake idea. I have an Explorer/Mountaineer chassis out back with an 8.8 posi, but 4.11 ratio is too low without OD and it has disk brakes, not drums.
Looked at some rear disk conversion kit setups, but the hats are actually much thicker than the drum face surfaces, so short of narrowing the axle it actually ends up a wider axle with disk brakes. So, I think I will stick with rear drums.
If I bother narrowing an axle, I might as well just narrow the Mountaineer, or a 61 Galaxie, or a 63 Galaxie or a 76 Torino axle sitting out back of the pole building . Trying to avoid that, though I have the axle shortening bars and fixtures to do it with and I am a fairly decent welder having done it 5 years for a living in a previous lifetime. Would rather start putting parts back on the car than keep modifying stuff to put on it.
QuoteI ordered a MC from CJ Pony Parts with attached adjustable valve for mine in 1 1/8" bore although they have a 1" bore similar combo as well. I like the bias adjustability since I have a mish-mash of parts ...
Thank you for not calling that a PROPORTIONING VALVE. It is not. It is an adjustable bias valve that is meant for use on race cars and is not DOT approved for the a street car (you will usually see this DISCLAIMER on a site hidden).
You have (had) the perfect setup (
IMO) using the LINC FRT disc and present rear drum brakes using the origional OEM LINC MC. Why the aftermarket unit?
The following best sums it up IMO -
QuoteThe Internet is a wonderful source of information; unfortunately, in many cases the authors credentials are unknown. The same can be said of Internet parts suppliers? are the parts offered for racing purposes or are they for street applications? If you are driving a car with a modified braking system, will it perform under a panic stop in poor traction situations (rain)? Adjustable proportioning valves are readily available. This is installed on the rear brake circuit and the pressure is adjusted to attempt to balance the front to rear braking. If close attention was given to the description of the function of metering, proportion and check valves in a braking system it should be understood that randomly turning a dial to balance front to rear brake pressure is risky at bes
SOURCE - http://blog.macsautoparts.com/brake-plumbing/
Quote from: KULTULZ on 2021-01-04 18:57
Did your 59 METEOR (CA) come through originally with a six, FYB or FE?
It was a factory 332FE, FordOMatic, 2.91 rear axle car, with manual steering and brakes. I retained the original manual brake pedal, but I had always assumed that the same brake pedal would have been used with all the engine choices. Is that in correct? I also have a SSB adjustable brake valve on my car, but it is currently wide open, as there has been no lock up issues front to rear, so although it`s still plumbed into the rear brake line, it isn`t really doing anything.
Why not just use the Lincoln master cylinder and Lincoln combination valve? Several reasons...
I was concerned that the limited pedal travel of the Swift Sure pedal arm might present a problem when combined with the greater pedal travel required using the smaller 1 inch bore Lincoln master, while all of the KH setups apparently used a 1 1/8" bore master. The Lincoln 1" master might work with the available KH type brake pedal travel, then again it also might not.
Since others have used a 1 1/8" dual mc on their KH power brake setup it appears to work for them no matter what front brakes they have. Also have not noticed anyone using anything smaller than the 1 1/8" bore mc on any KH power setup. Only on manual brakes is the 1 inch or 7/8 inch bore master being used as far as I know.
There is supposedly a metering valve in that assembly which nominally delays pressure to the front disk brakes and initializes the rear brakes first, just like with a combination valve. At some unknown line pressure being reached in the rear brake line, the pressure overcomes the metering valve function and sends fluid to the front brakes.
We also do not know if the brake return spring resistance to the rear line pressure in the 71 Lincoln and the 57 Ford are the same It is possible the larger brake assemblies in the Lincoln required stronger springs, but the Lincoln is gone so I can't check that.
But if that is the case, then that would seem to indicate that it is possible with less resistance in the 57 springs, the rear brakes could lock up prematurely IF the Lincoln brakes required more line pressure to overcome the metering valve. Either a factory combination valve or adjustable valve would resolve that.
The Lincoln rear drums were also a much larger swept area than the factory rear drums on the Ford too. IDK if those things combined (greater brake return spring force in the Lincoln and larger assembly/swept area) could induce any excess rear bias if used with a Lincoln combination valve. But, I think it is possible and it wouldn't hurt to be able to adjust that.
As far as safety warnings goes, that reminds me of a college class where there was a discussion of a company in Europe producing chain saws. They were to begin marketing these chain saws in America and discovered that with our sue-happy culture, they needed to put a warning in their product literature not to put your hand or any body part on the moving chain.
Either we are incredibly dumb compared to Europeans, or we have such a litigious environment that all manner of warnings must be expressed to limit lawsuits. When the average auto owner today might be mystified if told to change a spark plug, I would put every kind of disclaimer and warning I could think of on products too. Brake components would certainly warrant that degree of caution, but I think I can handle adjusting the valve. My kids? Maybe one or two out of the four I would not be worried about doing the install, but I am not them. Besides we will all be dead from Covid 19 or Covid 20 soon anyway, won't we? :burnout:
Quote from: 59meteor on 2021-01-05 09:08
It was a factory 332FE, FordOMatic, 2.91 rear axle car, with manual steering and brakes. I retained the original manual brake pedal, but I had always assumed that the same brake pedal would have been used with all the engine choices. Is that in correct? I also have a SSB adjustable brake valve on my car, but it is currently wide open, as there has been no lock up issues front to rear, so although it`s still plumbed into the rear brake line, it isn`t really doing anything.
I was wondering as you said a 7/8" MC bore as where the SHOP MANUAL (57 and 58) state 1" MANUAL and 1 1/8" POWER. Both systems use the same pedal assy but the PB application mounts the pedal assy lower (more leverage?).
The 59 FORD lists three different MC and I was wondering if this was the case as the MPC (US) does not give bore size but only a PN. I do not have a 59 SHOP MANUAL so am just trying to learn here.
And yours being CAN, they are in a CANADIAN FORD MPC which of course I do not have.
THANX for the get back.
OH! Is yours a SINGLE RANGE FOM and not a DUAL RANGE COM?
Interesting stuff.
Quote from: brushwolf on 2021-01-05 11:27
As far as safety warnings goes, that reminds me of a college class where there was a discussion of a company in Europe producing chain saws. They were to begin marketing these chain saws in America and discovered that with our sue-happy culture, they needed to put a warning in their product literature not to put your hand or any body part on the moving chain.
Either we are incredibly dumb compared to Europeans, or we have such a litigious environment that all manner of warnings must be expressed to limit lawsuits. When the average auto owner today might be mystified if told to change a spark plug, I would put every kind of disclaimer and warning I could think of on products too. Brake components would certainly warrant that degree of caution, but I think I can handle adjusting the valve. My kids? Maybe one or two out of the four I would not be worried about doing the install, but I am not them. Besides we will all be dead from Covid 19 or Covid 20 soon anyway, won't we? :burnout:
Well, no. Vendors are selling things meant for track only to those who do not know the difference or do not care.
If you want to destroy your car or injure yourself, that is one thing and of course that is your choice. If you cause injury to another it is not your choice.
OK, I am out of here as I see where these discussions are going and I have my good clothes on.
Quote from: KULTULZ on 2021-01-05 13:50
Both systems use the same pedal assy but the PB application mounts the pedal assy lower (more leverage?).
The pedal assembly?s are different .
The PB assembly is two pieces and a way different shape than the manual pedal assembly.
Upper picture is of a power brake pedal
Lower picture is a manual brake pedal
Here are a couple of pics of the power brake pedal...
manual brake pedal
Quote from: dgasman on 2021-01-05 16:04
The pedal assembly?s are different .
The PB assembly is two pieces and a way different shape than the manual pedal assembly.
Look closely at the PARTS ILL you showed. The actual brake pedal is PN 2455. The bracket it attaches into is marked with a solid triangle and if you drop down to the key, indicates it is only serviced in the BOOSTER ASSY - PN 2005 Your photo(s) shows that bracket removed from the BOOSTER ASSY and still attached to the pedal arm.
The below ILL is from the 58 SHOP MANUAL -
You are correct, there are two different pedals.
Let me cipher on this and I will be back with an explanation and apology.
It seems there were some design changes over the 1957-1960 production run.
... I just cannot understand it. I thought I was wrong once but was mistaken ...
I have both a factory manual brake pedal assembly and a factory power brake pedal assembly and after reading all of this discussion on pedal travel, effort etc. .......... I have a question.
I've set my Ranchero up to use a '03 Mustang HydroBoost and the '57 manual pedal. The front disc brakes are dual piston calipers from Drop M Stop. The rear discs are '01 Ford Explorer.
With this set up, should I use the manual pedal or the power brake pedal? What difference would the different pedals make?
Thanks
John
The manual pedal certainly has more travel available, probably more mechanical leverage also. But with hydroboost you may not need a lot of travel or leverage anyway...
I would have used the manual pedal as you did in any instance where you were NOT using the Kelsey Hays booster. If there is an advantage to the funky power brake pedal, I don't know what it would be aside from fitting up with the stock booster...
I've used manual brake pedal, arm and hole on two hydraulic booster installations with great braking responses.
Quote from: KYBlueOval on 2021-01-06 06:28
I have both a factory manual brake pedal assembly and a factory power brake pedal assembly and after reading all of this discussion on pedal travel, effort etc. .......... I have a question.
I've set my Ranchero up to use a '03 Mustang HydroBoost and the '57 manual pedal. The front disc brakes are dual piston calipers from Drop M Stop. The rear discs are '01 Ford Explorer.
With this set up, should I use the manual pedal or the power brake pedal? What difference would the different pedals make?
Thanks
John
What you are referring to is
BRAKE PEDAL RATIO (GOOGLE). You need to know the ratio from the donor car as to proper ratio and application (desired final line pressure) (determined with gauge).
It would be helpful also to know kit caliper piston size and swept volume to compare with donor car caliper spec.
Well, I guess sometimes ignorance is bliss. Way back when I fitted my Mustang hydroboost I had no clue about pedal ratios. I changed to an automatic arm/pedal from a '61 Ford just because the shape/size of the auto pedal is better than the smaller manual's brake pedal. Lucked out I guess.
I am using a PB pedal from a 68 ish Ltd on my mustang hydro boost . I don?t remember why I didn?t use my sure swift pedal on it . So I guess I am not much help on this part of the equation.
Listen guys,
The unique KH SWIFT-SURE brake pedal is intended for that specific application only (1957-1959 KH booster). If you go to an aftermarket or HYDRO-BOOST SYSTEM, it will be most likely be best to use the STD brake pedal (or close facsimile) for the conversion, modified of course for proper pedal ratio if needed.
Quote from: KULTULZ on 2021-01-05 13:50
I was wondering as you said a 7/8" MC bore as where the SHOP MANUAL (57 and 58) state 1" MANUAL and 1 1/8" POWER. Both systems use the same pedal assy but the PB application mounts the pedal assy lower (more leverage?).
The 59 FORD lists three different MC and I was wondering if this was the case as the MPC (US) does not give bore size but only a PN. I do not have a 59 SHOP MANUAL so am just trying to learn here.
And yours being CAN, they are in a CANADIAN FORD MPC which of course I do not have.
THANX for the get back.
OH! Is yours a SINGLE RANGE FOM and not a DUAL RANGE COM?
Interesting stuff.
I guess I was mistaken about the Maverick master cylinder, it is 15/16", not 7/8" as I originally thought. And according to my 59 Canadian Ford/Meteor service manual, the original master cylinder bore sizes were 1.0" for manual brakes, and 1.125" for power. And my 59s original automatic was the all aluminum 2 speed FordOMatic, that was new for 59. It has the bellhousing cast integral to the main case. The optional "Dual Range" 3 speed auto had a cast iron case with a bolted on aluminum bellhousing.
Quote... my 59s original automatic was the all aluminum 2 speed FordOMatic, that was new for 59. It has the bellhousing cast integral to the main case.
THANX for that correction. So you have the F/M/2 which was the economy option.
Think FMX... :006:
Quote from: dgasman on 2021-01-03 20:53
Yes I am using a 1 1/8 bore master from a SVO mustang and it is a 4wheel disc master . The residual pressure valve is in the proportioning valve disc / drum from a Granada.
What year GRANADA did the COMBINATION VALVE come off or is it from an aftermarket/specialty supplier?
If I remember correctly the combination valve is from a late seventies Granada . Removed from a car at the local pick a part just cleaned it up and flush it out with clean brake fluid and installed.
Quote from: dgasman on 2021-01-09 13:25
If I remember correctly the combination valve is from a late seventies Granada . Removed from a car at the local pick a part just cleaned it up and flush it out with clean brake fluid and installed.
THANX! for getting back.
I am trying to narrow down when FORD dropped the RESIDUAL VALVE and went instead to wheel cylinder cup ex-panders. I have a 73 MANUAL that shows them being used and a 79 MANUAL without. Once I get my 73/79 FORD MPC back I will be able to zero in on the production year.
Always learning something ...