Thread: Brake Booster riddle - can you solve it?

Tweet

Since Faith actually double posted, this was my response from the other thread:

"To further Don's comments above as far as adjustment, Ford used in their passenger cars, 1939 to 1948, a Lockheed design brake. It was not one of ol' Hank's better ideas. These brakes were marginal without some regular maintenance and only fair with on the cars they were designd for - on a 2500 pound street rod, plenty good . Not only did the star wheel adjuster need regular attention, they needed to be centered on the drum surface. If they were't centered, your effective brake surface would be limited, often to just a very small patch, top or bottom. There is an eccentric that allows you to center the linings. Another thing or two to look at is whether the shoes are on correctly. With the Lockheed design, the LONG shoe goes on the front rather than the opposite with the later self-energizing Bendix design. Lockheeds are rigidly fastened to the anchor and then to the backing plate while Bendix are floating on pins and springs. Another item to consider is whether those 50 plus year old Buick drums have been turned to the point that standard thickness brake shoes don't have almost full contact. Then if you have the pickup backing plates, then my guess is that they are Bendix style - another bag of worms. But even these have adjustable eccentrics and drum wear and brake lining thickness and installation have to be considered. Whatever, drum brake linings need to be "arced" (ground)to the drums OD." Note = S/B ID not OD, (corrected in other thread as well)

My preference is discs, but then my project car is being built new"

A big advantage to discs is the reduction of unsprung weight, making for better handling and reducing wear and tear a bit. The $o-Cal with only minimally reduce the unsprung weight. My biggest criticism with the $o-Cal setup is the enormous price penalty you have to pay just to use their product/name.

With the price of real Buick drums and the associated early Ford hubs, etc getting so high these days, the SoCal setup isn't as outrageous as it once was, but it is still up there. I really like the Wilson Welding setup too. My kid just bought one, he bought the whole shooting match.........backing plates, hubs, adaptors, etc. They are comparable in cost to the early Ford/Buick setup, but really are a nice piece. I actually think I will use a set of these when I redo my '27, now that I have "borrowed" the front brakes and stuff for the T.

Nice thing about the Wilsons is that they use readily available components, and feature modern, self energizing design. Plus, I like the look of the finned backing plate. Bob P has a set featured in his gallery in case anyone hasn't seen these. I hope he doesn't mind, but I am including that picture here. (Bob, the check is in the mail )

Don

Don,
You're probably correct about the pricing on this particular $o-Cal item. My biggest complaint is when I walk from the $o-Cal booth to Yearwood, Yogi's or Parr and find exactly the same item. Take a small buck ferinstance - I wanted a diff vent - $o-Cal's was $16 for a Sun Spec, but packaged in their package. Exactly the same piece at Yearwood was $10. (And yes, I was too lazy to make my own for a buck or two). Some of the $o-Cal stuff is unique, but so is their pricing stucture

I really like that Wilson Welding backing plate - maybe someday they'll have a disc brake setup as well. They also link to Knecht Equipment that also has some engine turned neat stuff.

You realise that the Buick brakes can be easily adapted to the Ford spindles? Then you have great looking, and great working brakes.

Yeah, I have seen that spacer/adapter ring they sell to do that. Trouble is, you rarely see the Buick backing plates and all for sale, even on EBAY. Somehow they always get left on the car, and people just sell the drums. I guess they figure that is the only part people want. But you are right, these would probably be a great brake system , and certainly up to the job.

Don

Gosh darn it, i am such a newbie and the more I learn teh more I realize I know NOTHING (sigh), but I guess all goods things come in time, and for now my job is to pick you guys' brains and try to digest the massive amount of technical information dispensed without having a

1- aneurysm
2- panic attack
3- indigestion



Thank God I have about 163 IQ so I might be OK. Notice I said "might"

Anywhoo, measured the vacuum at intake manifold while idling we are at 14 not enough to use booster but:

1- Rod specialist said he usually use the vaccuum at carburator to fire up booster / power breaks so we need to measure what we got there before giving up... We also need to find out why vacuum is whimpy...

In fact just as whimpy as me and yes you guys are right, females do not have the same strength as males and I sure could use a nice hairy, fat leg right now (let's change the proverbial "can you lend me a hand" to a newer, more "a propos" CAN YOU LEND ME A LEG?" )

BUT I do NOT (and I repeat DO NOT) own a God darn SUV - Pssht as if! I own a pick up truck guys, the kind that towes trailers and the kind you can throw 3 motorcycles on the bed and go offroading for the week-end...

having said that my truck has disc and when I drive it now I have to be VERY CAREFUL because when I switch between the roadster and, the next morning the truck I almost go through the windshield - Ask my dog, Kaya, cause she actually DID . Nonetheless, i think the brakes on my roadster are a bit lazy, and could use some TLC.

"PS: Jaleous, jaleous of what? The website? The roadster? Or my great legs ??"

YES

Not doubting you, but if you have an IQ of 163 you should be engineering your own stuff, like new space shuttles

2- Yes my IQ is 163, but I don't think 163 is that high. Is it? At some point long ago I did have the highest score in my entire school. But that was long ago and I got dummer as I got older . I did IQ test about 6 years ago though, so that 163 figure is pretty accurate.

Girlie, 140 is genious, albert einstein`s was like 170, so yes that is that high, that probably puts you in the top 2% in the world

Average: 85 - 115
Above average: 115 - 125
Gifted Borderline Genius: 125 - 135
Highly gifted and appearing to be a Genius to most others: 135 - 145
Genius: 145 - 165
High genius: 166 - 180
Highest genius: 181 - 200
Beyond being measurable genius: Over 200



so i was a little off

I used to be 167, and eidetic, but fortunately many years of booze and several concussions got rid of that. It's a bitch to not ever forget anything!

This thread has degenerated into "I'm smarter than....."

Phew

No its not like that,its just the fact that not everyday does one come across a human that has an iq that high, in no way was i implying im smarter

Originally Posted by hotroddaddy

No its not like that,its just the fact that not everyday does one come across a human that has an iq that high, in no way was i implying im smarter

Actually, I wasn't referring to your earlier comments

And, C9, I'm also in the same situation

Denny - its probably a Wagner(-Lockheed), like most of the "old" pre '49 Ford brake parts were.

So, if I fall into the IQ measurement somewhere between the upper and lower extremes, how come everybody thinks I'm stupid?