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 

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.