wraenking said:
what is the main difference.. I dont mind spending $40 if I have to... need rear brakes.. just wondering what the differences are
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
caddy caliper parts???
- Thread starter RootBreaker
- Start date
what is the main difference.. I dont mind spending $40 if I have to... need rear brakes.. just wondering what the differences are
wraenking
1/2 ton status
from what i understand the new prop valve is set up for disc brakes already. this way you dont have to cut into your line and rely on the dial adjuster. and who knows if it would be right anyway. at least with the prop valve, its pre set.
or is it just better to use this as a core and try and find a new one?????? any info greatly appreciated.. or I may just put d44 calipers on but I dont have a core... thus cheaper to go with caddy ones.....[/QUOTE said:I just checked at Car Quest for Caddy calipers without cores and each one costs $89.95.
dyeager535 said:Only way I'm aware of to increase pressure is to change the master cylinder...the front and rear pistons in the master cylinder are "independent" (even thought they are in the same bore) so I don't think restricting one will increase pressure in the other.
I don't think the fittings are interchangeable, but if they are, put the front on the rear at the master and see what happens.
Aiiiiyiyieeeeee!!!
Front brakes should go to the rear port. This is for a very good reason. The pedal pushes on the rear m/c piston directly. The front m/c piston floats semi-independent of the rear. The way it gets pushed is the column of 'compressed' brake fluid pushing on the rear of the front piston. So output from the rear port is direct from the pedal, but the front output is indirect. If you put the front brakes on the front outlet port there will be a slight delay in front brake application. This could be anywhere from an annoyance to catastrophic depending.
If the seals in the front system fail, then after a short distance the rear piston contacts the front piston and drives it directly. The short distance is there to make sure that you have a firm grip on the seat and won't be needing the seatbelt.
Unless the m/c is real late model, the bore sizes are the same anyway.
So in other words, braking could be interesting.
The amount of fluid moved has to be different though front-rear since disks/drums require different amounts of fluid/pressure to apply. Even if the master cylinder bore is the same, right?
I can understand the reasoning behind "delaying" the rear apply. But if the issue is not enough fluid, is the consensus the problem is the proportioning valve, NOT the MC?
The amount of fluid moved has to be different though front-rear since disks/drums require different amounts of fluid/pressure to apply. Even if the master cylinder bore is the same, right?
I can understand the reasoning behind "delaying" the rear apply. But if the issue is not enough fluid, is the consensus the problem is the proportioning valve, NOT the MC?
P-valve only affects pressure. It is a pressure regulator, but not like the one on your oxy-fuel or MIG welders. It limits the output pressure to a percentage of the input pressure. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the jist of it. A discussion of how and what warrants it's own thread.
By allowing the front m/c piston (rear brakes) to 'float' any difference in take-up volume will be compensated for. Or so is my current thinking. Disc related bits I've got 2 years in designing. Drums I have to refer to Puhn's book.
I suspect that the true take-up volumes do not differ by as much as the difference in bore sizes might lead one to think. My reason for this is that the distance a wheel cyl piston has to travel is, I think, much greater than the air gap btwn the shoe and the drum. This is b/c of the placement and angle of the wheel cyl relative to how the shoe wants to move towards the drum.
By allowing the front m/c piston (rear brakes) to 'float' any difference in take-up volume will be compensated for. Or so is my current thinking. Disc related bits I've got 2 years in designing. Drums I have to refer to Puhn's book.
I suspect that the true take-up volumes do not differ by as much as the difference in bore sizes might lead one to think. My reason for this is that the distance a wheel cyl piston has to travel is, I think, much greater than the air gap btwn the shoe and the drum. This is b/c of the placement and angle of the wheel cyl relative to how the shoe wants to move towards the drum.
I KNOW that the Impala SS guys modified the proportioning valve on the cars that were rear disk equipped. GM built the cars with the disk/drum proportioning valves, the Impala people said removing a spring or something from the prop valve made braking MUCH better.
I think the mod used to be on b-body.org, but last I checked that site was gone.
In other words though, would you *suspect* (not guarantee) with the right modifications to the proportioning valve, proper braking with rear disks could be achieved without any other mods?
I think the mod used to be on b-body.org, but last I checked that site was gone.
In other words though, would you *suspect* (not guarantee) with the right modifications to the proportioning valve, proper braking with rear disks could be achieved without any other mods?
