Bogus

What are you doing wrong is my question?

The whole reason i bought the car was because mechanical brakes.
And i don't use a board to adjust anything. Sure, i don't know what i'm doing, i just set them up the way i do any other brakes. Doesn't seem too mysterious or difficult.
 
slammin said:
I find all the concern about failing hydraulic brakes amusing! I've been driving for 53 years. My 29 is the first car that didn't have juice brakes. With the exception of a failed ABS system on an 86 Pontiac 6000 STE, I have never had a catastrophic brake failure. Some of the cars I drove were real crap wagons! I thought I would need to convert my As brakes to hydraulics until I discovered the cost to do so. Being "thrifty" 2 grand and several days of skinned knuckles convinced me the old mechanicals would do the job. I do plan to buy a set of Randy's cast iron drums.
Click to expand...

someone doesn't live where salt is :P in my 14 years driving Ive had to replace 3 brake lines due to rust and them blowing out on a 95 s10 and 02 blazer. Also have gone through 2 master cyl and 4 rear wheel cyl on my 80 chevette due to leaks.

Both s10 and blazer have had to get the fuel lines replaced for same salty rusty reasons.
 
If we were all designing the Model A from scratch as a committee, the argument between using mechanical or hydraulic brakes would be a valid one. But since the car came from the factory 90 years ago with mechanical brakes and we are a site dedicated to preserving the Model A, it's a moot point. Of course, hydraulic brakes are superior to mechanical ones in modern cars. After all, how many new car manufacturers still use mechanical brakes? But for our light-weight antique cars, properly rebuilt mechanical brakes are more than adequate, if not desirable. Simply slapping in newly relined brake shoes and relying upon original 90 year-old steel brake drums that have seen more than their share of truing and then expecting the braking system to function as designed is hardly fair to the car or the mechanical brakes as a class. A Model A with brakes rebuilt to factory spec's will send you towards the windshield in a panic stop. What more can you want?
I am prejudiced against hydraulic brakes in Model A's because in my 50+ years of messing around with these cars, I have seen unbelievably poor and stupid hydraulic brake conversions that some low grade moron cobbled together, making the car a rolling death trap. If you have been in this hobby long enough, you've seen that, too. On the other hand, well-designed systems - such as what Dennis Cling offers - that are properly installed and maintained should be as reliable as modern car braking systems. Although I am not a purist in the classic sense because I like a little extra umph in my engines, I do draw the line at making modifications that are visible and above all, irreversible. Once a Model A has been converted to hydraulic brakes, it is an expensive and frustrating experience going back to the original mechanical braking system. Of the many Model A's I have bought over the years, some had hydraulic brakes and each one of them either failed me at the wrong time (is there ever a "right time"?) or were unreliable and poor stoppers because of the lousy installation job. The only time a mechanical brake system failed me was my own fault because of a forgotten cotter pin.
This will always be a sore subject among our group. Those who have hydraulic systems in their cars and trust them are not likely to be changing their opinion. And those who restore the mechanical brakes and rely upon them will defend their use, especially since that is the original equipment. So, the two opposing camps will not convince the other to change their opinions. Where the problem arises is with the new guys coming on-board seeking advice whether they should convert their cars to hydraulics because a previous owner did not rebuild the mechanical brakes properly. The predictable pro and con arguments invariably flare up by the same folks. I, for one, would like to see the newbie at least TRY to restore his original brakes before converting to hydraulics. Quite frankly, if the guy isn't mechanically up to rebuilding the mechanical brake system in a Model A, I fear for his ability to make the tricky conversion to hydraulics! Would YOU trust a car thus converted by a newbie incapable of fixing his mechanical brakes?
I think we have to chalk this topic up as one that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction and agree among ourselves to disagree.
Marshall
 
Excellent points Marshall.....now lets move on to Float-A-Motor installations and beat another dead horse!
 
SeaSlugs said:
someone doesn't live where salt is :P in my 14 years driving Ive had to replace 3 brake lines due to rust and them blowing out on a 95 s10 and 02 blazer. Also have gone through 2 master cyl and 4 rear wheel cyl on my 80 chevette due to leaks.

Both s10 and blazer have had to get the fuel lines replaced for same salty rusty reasons.
Click to expand...

Seaslugs, I hope you're replacing your lines with Ni-Copp tubing. It does not corrode like steel lines do.

As for mechanical vs hydraulic brakes I do not see an advantage of one over the other when using stock profile tires. Once the tire skids it all over. Hydraulics may have an advantage on a modified car with fatter tires.:p

And yes maintenance on BOTH systems is a big factor. I wonder how many of us ever thought about changing our brake fluid. Moisture from the atmosphere is absorbed by brake fluid (Dot 3 and 4) and ends up in your wheel cylinders, causing corrosion and lowering the boiling point of the brake fluid.
 
seaslugs,
Prior to moving to paradise in late 98, I lived all my life in Dayton, Ohio. Believe me, I know all about rust! And having mechanical problems with an 80 Chevette? Well duh!
 
slammin said:
seaslugs,
Prior to moving to paradise in late 98, I lived all my life in Dayton, Ohio. Believe me, I know all about rust! And having mechanical problems with an 80 Chevette? Well duh!
Click to expand...

yea haha "chevette" and "brake problems" ALWAYS belong in the same sentence...:mad: i really dont know why its such a bad system as theres nothing weird about it vs anything else at that time to present even.

Heh funniest time my dad blew a brake line was just turning into our maybe 1* grade driveway - turned hit the brakes and nothing - before he could react and stop the car he already hit the garage door and bumped the other car inside. Thankfully everything involved was made of steel and was able to bend the door back out and no damage to the cars due to actual steel/chrome bumpers!

Seemed every year or at least every other year we were replacing a brake line on one car or another.
 
Marshall,

Wish you'd posted that at the beginning of this thread! Or did everybody post their comments while you were typing? �� (Just kidding, apologies in advance. Just my weird attempts at humor. I really do value your well thought out posts and contributions.)
 
slammin said:
seaslugs,
Prior to moving to paradise in late 98, I lived all my life in Dayton, Ohio. Believe me, I know all about rust! And having mechanical problems with an 80 Chevette? Well duh!
Click to expand...

I like my 91 and 99 Oldsmobiles, but on a quiet night you can hear the fuel lines and brake lines rusting away. GM must have used the poorest quality steel they could find for two of the most important safety features.
 
An after thought here, if Ford would have used the cast Iron drums when new, instead of those heat collecting, easy warping steel drums that are imposable to recut with a 100% accuracy, that made the brakes fade once hot, there would have been a whole lot less complaints.

Herm.
 
I agree !!! Ford didn't even recommend turning the steel drums at all . Sometime in 31 Ford started using cast iron drums. The late model A cast iron front brake drums and hubs were made in one piece .
 
Tom Wesenberg said:
I like my 91 and 99 Oldsmobiles, but on a quiet night you can hear the fuel lines and brake lines rusting away. GM must have used the poorest quality steel they could find for two of the most important safety features.
Click to expand...

dont forget you can hear the fuel gauge sway and cups tipping over in thier holders as well:D
 
denis4x4 said:
I find the debate on the use of mechanical brakes vs. hydraulics rather disingenuous. First off, as pointed out by many on this board, the proper restoration to factory specifications of a mechanical brake system is the answer to good braking. I concur. On the other hand, the naysayers of hydraulic systems point out to failures without noting the condition of the hydraulic system.

My choice of hydraulic brakes on my A's is based on the fact that I drive them almost on a daily basis. Both of my A's have been on the chassis dyno and produced 59 and 60 horsepower at the rear wheels. Like those people pointing out failures in hydraulic systems, I had a failure with a mechanical system and blew through a stop light due to severe brake fade with a car that had a properly adjusted system.

Like any braking system, maintaining a hydraulic system is just as important. In the interest of safety, I'm also using a clip to retain the drum in the event of a broken axle.

In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get a long"
Click to expand...

In post #60..
In your photo,...is it upside down ( I don't think so ), where's the rear spring? Or,..are you running the backing plates upside down?

If the plates are upside down, how do you bleed the air out of the cylinders?
You need to flip the cylinders, and YES, I know about the staggered cylinder
diameter..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top