ser 2a brake upgrade

[Landygirl]

I currently have a ser2a 88in that has a 173 holden engine standard brakes all round, standard brake master cylinder and a VH40 booster.

I have been told by a friend who has a 2a 109 that the brakes should be upgraded to a ser 3. Being a 12" drum with ser 3 brakes and twin wheel cylinders, as well as a ser 3 booster and master cylinder. However he didnt explain which ser 3 model to use, i want to assume a 6cyl 109" but im not sure.

The shoes and cylinders need to be replaced as its been sitting for the last 6 years so i thought if i was going to replace them i might as well start the upgrade.

I dont have a large amount of money but have good prices on most things and right now i just want to get it through to rego and after that gradually get it to what i want it to be (super charger and muddies :)

I also have to decide whether to put stainless steel or just gal steel brake pipes through the car as the ones it had where all seized and rusted.

Any help in this area would be greatly appreciated as this is my first landy and my biggest project.

Thanks

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Some information is wrong.

88" had 10: drum brakes all round.

109" had 11" x 2 1/2" drums all round.

Six cylinder SIIa and SIII six cylinder had 11" drum brakes 2 1/2" wide on the rear 3" wide on the front.

These brakes were also fitted to the SIII Stage 1 V8 and Isuzu.

Series LR never had 12" brakes.

The six cylinder from about 1970 also had a mastervac (master cylinder with booster on the pedal), this is the preferred upgrade but you will need to modify the hole in the footwell for the pedal box.

From about 1978 SIII also had dual circuit brakes, which allow you to have one circuit fail and still have some braking.

you can upgrade to the 11" brakes with ease, but if you use SIII the holes for the studs are 16mm where you have smaller 9/16" so you should order new drums for a SIIa which will have the correct stud holes.

[Landygirl]

Some information is wrong.

Six cylinder SIIa from about 1970 and SIII six cylinder had 11" drum brakes 2 1/2" wide on the rear 3" wide on the front.

These brakes were also fitted to the SIII Stage 1 V8 and Isuzu.

Never had 12"


Thanks for the quick response

Its possible i heard wrong. Am going to find out tomorrow what he meant.

So any ser 6cyl 11" brake shoes etc would work?
What about the master cylinder and booster?
twin or single wheel cylinders?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Thanks for the quick response

Its possible i heard wrong. Am going to find out tomorrow what he meant.

So any ser 6cyl 11" brake shoes etc would work?
What about the master cylinder and booster?
twin or single wheel cylinders?I had posted a partial post.

For an 88" 11" brakes are very adequate but the 3" fronts allow you that little extra.

All 11" brakes have double leading shoes on the front and leading trailing on the back.

You need to acquire the entire brake backing plates, and springs etc. correct for your desired conversion. I would advise getting new shoes and cylinders all round when you do the conversion.

The best option would be the dual circuit but you will need a brake place to make up the extra pipes. You should also fit a brake balance switch which will do the circuit splitting and also allow you to have a brake fail warning lamp on the dash.

[JDNSW]

Couple of additions to the above.

The 11" two leading shoe front brakes are a worthwhile improvement to the 88, and braking balance is probably best with the 11" rear brakes as well, although this is probably not strictly necessary since the weight on the back axle is less on the 88.

The wider brakes are an improvement again, but probably not necessary on the 88, and parts are possibly harder to find. In any case, you should use the 109 master cylinder. If you retain the VH44, the boosted master cylinder will offer no advantages except easier bleeding.

While fitting the dual braking system out of a late Series 3 is an advantage in that it retains braking in the event of a single failure, you need to be aware that it entails not only a new pedal box, master cylinder, booster, equaliser, pipes, but also on the 2a will require body modifications to the inner mudguard and probably the mudguard itself. Strictly speaking, dual braking systems should have a circuit failure warning light fitted, as otherwise you could drive for ages under the false impression that all is good. This is an additional complication. Single circuit brakes rarely fail suddenly unless badly neglected.

John

[Landygirl]

Thanks guys. Its all so confusing so many different opinions with the people i have around me its gets a little over whelming.

Didnt know you would have to do so much to switch it to dual cylinders!

What about the clutch slave and master is there anything i need to change there?

[chazza]

right now i just want to get it through to rego and after that gradually get it to what i want it to be (super charger and muddies :)

I also have to decide whether to put stainless steel or just gal steel brake pipes through the car as the ones it had where all seized and rusted.



I agree with John - stick with the single circuit brakes in good order.

For brake pipe use bundy-tube available from any motor spares store. I have never heard of stainless brake tube but bundy-tube has a zinc-looking finish and is very easy to bend by hand.

I have made a complete set of pipes for my single-circuit S3 - it is very easy to do but you need to borrow or buy a double flaring tool and a small tube bender (search the net) for tight bends, such as on the front backing-plates. Doing this would be significantly cheaper than buying ready-made pipes,

Cheers Charlie

[Warb]

For brake pipe use bundy-tube available from any motor spares store. I have never heard of stainless brake tube but bundy-tube has a zinc-looking finish and is very easy to bend by hand.

It is also possible to buy copper plated brake pipe, which I think looks very neat with brass fittings. But I might be biased because they're what I'm used to - in the UK we always used to use solid copper brake pipes, though these are apparently illegal in Australia, which is something to be aware of if you import a set from a UK supplier!



The 11" two leading shoe front brakes are a worthwhile improvement to the 88, and braking balance is probably best with the 11" rear brakes as well, although this is probably not strictly necessary since the weight on the back axle is less on the 88.

While fitting the dual braking system out of a late Series 3 is an advantage in that it retains braking in the event of a single failure, you need to be aware that it entails not only a new pedal box, master cylinder, booster, equaliser, pipes, but also on the 2a will require body modifications to the inner mudguard and probably the mudguard itself.

Is the booster type pedal box on the 6 cylinder 109" 2A the same as the Series 3 dual circuit version?

I have also read about a further upgrade to improve braking when travelling backwards (after a failed hill ascent or launching a boat, for example). The theory is that with the twin leading shoe brakes up front there is reduced braking in reverse (effectively twin trailing shoe), so in reverse only the "trailing" shoe on the rear is acting as a leading shoe. To counter this it was suggested to fit TLS (109" front) brakes to the rear, but swapped so as to normally act as twin trailing shoes, but become twin leading shoes when going backwards. The suggestion was that this does not massively reduce the braking when travelling forwards (11" twin trailing vs. 10" single leading) but gives a big improvement in reverse. Does anyone have any thoughts or experience of this modification?

Finally, if the decision is to leave 10" drums on the back, is there any significant advantage to using the Series 2 adjustable backplate as opposed to the 2A fixed one?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It is also possible to buy copper plated brake pipe, which I think looks very neat with brass fittings. But I might be biased because they're what I'm used to - in the UK we always used to use solid copper brake pipes, though these are apparently illegal in Australia, which is something to be aware of if you import a set from a UK supplier!...There is actually thick walled copper brake pipe available in Australia. This is branded as brake pipe and perfectly legal. What isn't legal is thin walled copper tubing used as brake pipe.
...Finally, if the decision is to leave 10" drums on the back, is there any significant advantage to using the Series 2 adjustable backplate as opposed to the 2A fixed one?I think you are getting confused about the difference between S1/SII 11" rear brakes with the bottom adjuster. The 10" backing plates are the same in the SII/SIIa/SIII

[Warb]

I think you are getting confused about the difference between S1/SII 11" rear brakes with the bottom adjuster. The 10" backing plates are the same in the SII/SIIa/SIII

Indeed, not only a typo but also badly phrased... Insufficient caffeine in the blood!

I meant to ask:

If the decision is to leave the 11" single leading shoe drums on the back (as opposed to reversed TLS as mentioned), is there any advantage/disadvantage to using the Series 2 plate with the adjustable bottom mount as opposed to the Series 2A with the fixed mount (and snail cams)?

It's good to know that copper brake pipe is legal. I never understood why it shouldn't be, I found it far easier to work with (and to me it looks nicer) than steel, and doesn't rust even on the salted UK roads. But everyone I've talked to over here has been convinced it's illegal.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

... If the decision is to leave the 11" single leading shoe drums on the back (as opposed to reversed TLS as mentioned), is there any advantage/disadvantage to using the Series 2 plate with the adjustable bottom mount as opposed to the Series 2A with the fixed mount (and snail cams)? ... the reason to use the reversed double leading (front) brake assemblies on the rear is that you end up with double leading shoes in the direction of travel whether you are travelling forward or in reverse.

If you have 11" assemblies on the front, it doesn't make much difference if you use bottom adjuster or snail cam or even 10" brakes on the rear, when travelling in reverse you have only one leading shoe (and 3 trailing shoes).

The benefit of the bottom adjuster, is that you get better friction material life with the bottom adjusters, but may have longer pedal travel before braking. Some people collect the bottom adjuster mechanisms, because you can use them to install a park brake operating on the wheels, which can also be adapted as a manual form of traction control.

[Warb]

So the optimum braking system, without moving to discs, would be the wide TLS 11" drums on the front, and reversed TLS 11" drums - wide or narrow - on the rear, mated to either a dual circuit + PDWS or single circuit (depending on personal preference) master cylinder on a suitable (Series III or 6 cylinder IIA?) vacuum boosted pedal box.......?

[JDNSW]

........

Is the booster type pedal box on the 6 cylinder 109" 2A the same as the Series 3 dual circuit version?
.....

Yes. But I am pretty certain the single circuit system will fit without body modifications - it is the length of the dual circuit master cylinder plus the booster that needs these.

Copper pipe is not approved for brake pipes because of the ease with which it work hardens and breaks, especially on corrugated roads. As Diana points out, there is copper alloy tubing formulated to avoid this and specified for brake use that is OK.

As to fitting rear brakes with two trailing shoes, I am not too sure how necessary this is, certainly with an 88. I have never found it a problem with my 2a 109 with unboosted brakes, so I'm not too sure why it would be needed with boosted brakes on an 88!

John

[Warb]

As to fitting rear brakes with two trailing shoes, I am not too sure how necessary this is, certainly with an 88. I have never found it a problem with my 2a 109 with unboosted brakes, so I'm not too sure why it would be needed with boosted brakes on an 88!

Probably not needed at all! However I seem to have acquired a large number of Land Rovers, some of which are suitable only as part donors. Given that I have the backplates available, and also intend to fit all new moving parts, the increase in cost and effort between keeping the standard brakes and upgrading them is really quite minimal. On that basis alone, given that this is not a "restoration to factory specification" project, it seems like an easy decision!

[JDNSW]

Probably not needed at all! However I seem to have acquired a large number of Land Rovers, some of which are suitable only as part donors. Given that I have the backplates available, and also intend to fit all new moving parts, the increase in cost and effort between keeping the standard brakes and upgrading them is really quite minimal. On that basis alone, given that this is not a "restoration to factory specification" project, it seems like an easy decision!

OK, but two leading shoes on the front and two trailing on the back means that effectively you only have two wheel brakes when going forward - certainly it is the front two, which do most of the braking going forward, but are you sure that you really want to be in that situation? Bearing in mind that in a swb virtually all the load in the back is on the back wheels only.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

John

I think you will find that the boosted pedal box requires the modified front mudguards, irrespective of whether it is single or dual circuit.

Diana

[JDNSW]

John

I think you will find that the boosted pedal box requires the modified front mudguards, irrespective of whether it is single or dual circuit.

Diana

You may well be right - I must admit I have never actually seen one, believe it or not! But there does not seem to be anything about it being needed in the optional equipment parts book.

For those not familiar with the setup, the unboosted pedal box is the same as the clutch one, with the pedal pivot below the master cylinder and the m/c back towards the driver. The boosted pedal box has the pivot above the m/c, and the m/c pointing forward. Add the thickness of the booster to the length of the m/c, and at least with the dual circuit one, you run into sheet metal! Series 3 has a modified inner guard which has a bend in it to provide room, where the 2/2a has a flat sheet (with a bent over edge to add stiffness).

John

[Warb]

OK, but two leading shoes on the front and two trailing on the back means that effectively you only have two wheel brakes when going forward - certainly it is the front two, which do most of the braking going forward, but are you sure that you really want to be in that situation? Bearing in mind that in a swb virtually all the load in the back is on the back wheels only.

A valid point. From a braking perspective, the "leading shoe" generates a self servo effect which acts to push the shoe against the drum, where a trailing shoe is pushed away from the drum. So in the original brakes there was a 10" drum with a single leading shoe and only "pedal effort" fluid pressure. This is being replaced with no leading shoes (going forwards), but on an 11" drum and with boosted fluid pressure - though the fluid pressure is the same for all wheels - so the rear braking is still reduced in comparison to the front, but by how much?

The other factor is that the 88" has minimal weight on the rear axle at rest - two of us can scoot the rear of a 88" sideways relatively easily, the front is another matter! Even with a load the weight is transferred to the front axle under braking, so the rear brakes are possibly not adding much. The harder the braking, the more the weight transfer unloads the rear axle, and the more likely the rear brakes are to lock up.

If the front brakes are upgraded to allow harder braking, and therefore more weight transfer to the front, and there is no rear brake limiter to offset the weight transfer effect, is a slight reduction in rear braking necessarily a bad thing?

Another point of interest is that moving from a single slave cylinder (SLS) to two slave cylinders (TLS) means that more fluid is required to apply the brakes. With a single circuit system that means more pedal travel to move 8 slave cylinders instead of 6. With dual circuits, the SIII 88" master cylinder has equally sized front and rear pistons (all wheels are single slave cylinder?), but the 109" has a larger "front" piston to move more fluid to the twin slave cylinders on the front wheels. So potentially with a 109" dual circuit master cylinder the extra pedal travel will be further increased?

More to think about! Lucky I'm still sandblasting the chassis and not yet ready to fit the brakes!

[JDNSW]

A valid point. From a braking perspective, the "leading shoe" generates a self servo effect which acts to push the shoe against the drum, where a trailing shoe is pushed away from the drum. So in the original brakes there was a 10" drum with a single leading shoe and only "pedal effort" fluid pressure. This is being replaced with no leading shoes (going forwards), but on an 11" drum and with boosted fluid pressure - though the fluid pressure is the same for all wheels - so the rear braking is still reduced in comparison to the front, but by how much?

There is very little braking effort resulting from a trailing shoe. In the one leading/one trailing brake, almost all the braking effort is from the leading shoe.

The other factor is that the 88" has minimal weight on the rear axle at rest - two of us can scoot the rear of a 88" sideways relatively easily, the front is another matter! Even with a load the weight is transferred to the front axle under braking, so the rear brakes are possibly not adding much. The harder the braking, the more the weight transfer unloads the rear axle, and the more likely the rear brakes are to lock up.

Front braking will be limited by tyre adhesion. Once the front tyres break loose deceleration does not increase, so neither does weight transfer.

If the front brakes are upgraded to allow harder braking, and therefore more weight transfer to the front, and there is no rear brake limiter to offset the weight transfer effect, is a slight reduction in rear braking necessarily a bad thing?

Problem is, it is not a slight reduction. As you suggest, it is a good idea to not have the rear wheels lock before the front ones. This is arranged on the original 10" drums by having smaller diameter wheel cylinders on the back, and on the 11" brakes by having two leading at the front and one leading/one trailing at the back (with appropriate cylinder diameter). To further reduce this by having no leading shoes at the back will mean even less braking effort at the back.

Another point of interest is that moving from a single slave cylinder (SLS) to two slave cylinders (TLS) means that more fluid is required to apply the brakes. With a single circuit system that means more pedal travel to move 8 slave cylinders instead of 6. With dual circuits, the SIII 88" master cylinder has equally sized front and rear pistons (all wheels are single slave cylinder?), but the 109" has a larger "front" piston to move more fluid to the twin slave cylinders on the front wheels. So potentially with a 109" dual circuit master cylinder the extra pedal travel will be further increased?

More to think about! Lucky I'm still sandblasting the chassis and not yet ready to fit the brakes!

If you want two trailing shoes at the back, you will also have to change the master cylinder. For a dual circuit one, you will need the same diameter piston for both circuits, and for the single circuit, a larger than standard one to move the additional fluid. Avoiding this sort of design problem is a good reason for sticking to a standard setup - OK to put 109 brakes on an 88, but an entirely new design becomes a whole new ball game.

You need to think about what you mean by "improving" the brakes. There are three separate considerations:-

1. Pedal pressure. This is what most people think of.This depends on what proportion of the shoes are leading, the lining composition, the overall leverage (for this exercise, cylinder diameters) and the power assistance. Just fitting a booster to an 88 is a major improvement. Problem with increasing the leverage is that it increases pedal movement.

2. Resistance to fade. This depends mainly on drum surface area - 10" vs 11" and wide vs narrow.

3. Braking effectiveness. Once pedal pressure is light enough that the driver is not limited by this, it mainly depends on getting the appropriate proportion of braking between front and rear. Ideally the front should lock just before the rear. Without load proportioned braking this is virtually impossible, so cars such as the Series Landrover are invariably designed to be a bit underbraked on the back. Since most of the braking is required on the front, this is not as big a problem as it sounds, although it gets more so as disposable load becomes a bigger proportion of maximum load on any one axle.

There are other factors, but for this installation they are pretty much the same regardless of what you change.

Hope this helps,

John

[chazza]

Copper pipe is not approved for brake pipes because of the ease with which it work hardens and breaks, especially on corrugated roads. As Diana points out, there is copper alloy tubing formulated to avoid this and specified for brake use that is OK.

John

I disagree with two of your points on copper brake pipe:
1. Diana didn't mention copper alloy, she correctly posted that copper brake pipe is heavy-walled.
2. Copper is no easier than steel to work-harden, especially when it has been annealed after bending and flaring. For that reason I submit that it is no worse than bundy tube when used on a vehicle.
3. Copper brake pipe is legal in WA but I believe not so in Vic.

I have used it on my cars for years but lately it seems to be impossible to buy it,

Cheers Charlie

[Landygirl]

Yes. But I am pretty certain the single circuit system will fit without body modifications - it is the length of the dual circuit master cylinder plus the booster that needs these.

Copper pipe is not approved for brake pipes because of the ease with which it work hardens and breaks, especially on corrugated roads. As Diana points out, there is copper alloy tubing formulated to avoid this and specified for brake use that is OK.

As to fitting rear brakes with two trailing shoes, I am not too sure how necessary this is, certainly with an 88. I have never found it a problem with my 2a 109 with unboosted brakes, so I'm not too sure why it would be needed with boosted brakes on an 88!

John


It needs a booster because it has a larger holden engine in it and takes more effort to brake. As with all drum brake they arent the best at braking so adding the booster helps with that.

[Landygirl]

OK, but two leading shoes on the front and two trailing on the back means that effectively you only have two wheel brakes when going forward - certainly it is the front two, which do most of the braking going forward, but are you sure that you really want to be in that situation? Bearing in mind that in a swb virtually all the load in the back is on the back wheels only.

John


Ok with this swb all the load is on the front wheels as thats where the engine is and theres nothing in the back so theres no weight there.

The brakes are leading leading on the front and leading trailing on the back otherwise it wil take a large amount of effort to stop it in reverse

[Landygirl]

Ok so what is actually happening is
the front brakes will have 3in shoes with i believe 11in drums that look flat from the front and 2 wheel cylinders on the front, leading leading

the back will have 2.5in shoes with 10in drum which have a slight rounding on the outside of the drum and will be leading trailing with one wheel cylinder

the dual system is not needed, its more of a convenience that if you do break a brake line you lose all brakes where as with the dual system you only lose 2 which is why if you are going to do the dual it is better to do this diagonally

one line from front right to rear left and front left to rear right, this is mainly because your rear brakes only to about 30% of the braking so at least with diagonal you have one front and one back to stop the vehicle with more ease.

As i said this is more of a preference rather than a necessity.

Personally i will probably go with the dual system just for the added safety

[Warb]

If you want two trailing shoes at the back, you will also have to change the master cylinder. For a dual circuit one, you will need the same diameter piston for both circuits, and for the single circuit, a larger than standard one to move the additional fluid. Avoiding this sort of design problem is a good reason for sticking to a standard setup - OK to put 109 brakes on an 88, but an entirely new design becomes a whole new ball game.

The master cylinder issue was what I was talking about in my previous post.

Are the brakes on any Series Land Rover good enough to lock the front wheels (given tyres that have not hardened!) on a dry road? If so, then as you say it is only a matter of pedal pressure reduction and front/rear balance. But I'd guess (and it's only a guess) that standard 88" brakes would struggle to lock the front, and I'd also guess that a short wheel base with an aluminium tub would to a large degree unweight the rear before the front locked up. Under those conditions the rear brakes are doing very little useful work, just limiting how much pedal pressure and hence front brake can be applied!

However, this brings us back to the optimum set up being wide 11" TLS on the front, and 11" SLS on the rear, with a 109" master cylinder (larger front piston if dual circuit) and the 109" 6 cylinder boosted pedal box....

Brakes are always interesting - my bike has an 8 leading shoe front brake, and it's a swine of a thing to adjust!!

[JDNSW]

I disagree with two of your points on copper brake pipe:
1. Diana didn't mention copper alloy, she correctly posted that copper brake pipe is heavy-walled.
2. Copper is no easier than steel to work-harden, especially when it has been annealed after bending and flaring. For that reason I submit that it is no worse than bundy tube when used on a vehicle.
3. Copper brake pipe is legal in WA but I believe not so in Vic.

I have used it on my cars for years but lately it seems to be impossible to buy it,

Cheers Charlie

I know Diana did not specify copper alloy but I believe that this "approved" pipe is designed to be resistant to work hardening.

Copper most definitely work hardens a lot more readily than does steel (although bear in mind this depends on the grade of steel, but this is the case for the sort of tubing that you would consider using - it has to be malleable enough to flare). Annealing it after bending and flaring simply brings it back to where it was before you did that. Further working will still harden it, and the problem is that vibration will do this - just takes longer if you have removed the hardening you put there in working the pipe.

And I would agree that copper is, at least in most cases, no worse than bundy tubing provided you take precautions to stop it vibrating. But that does not change the simple fact that the work hardening behaviour of copper is why it is not legal to use in most states, regardless of whether it is a serious problem.

While on this subject it should be pointed out that all brake pipes should be secured at relatively short intervals to prevent vibration and hence fatigue failures. A common problem is the brake pipe from the T on the rear axle on Series Landrovers, which must be secured, not just attached at the ends.

John

[JDNSW]

It needs a booster because it has a larger holden engine in it and takes more effort to brake. As with all drum brake they arent the best at braking so adding the booster helps with that.

I am not suggesting you should not fit a booster, but bear in mind that if you fit lwb brakes to a swb, the braking will already be a lot better and lighter. Drum brakes are not necessarily worse than discs - they have two problems relative to discs; they require regular adjustment, and they are much more affected by wading. Drum brakes that use leading shoes also fade more rapidly when overheated.

For the record, I fitted a booster to my Series 2 in 1964!

John

[JDNSW]

The master cylinder issue was what I was talking about in my previous post.

Are the brakes on any Series Land Rover good enough to lock the front wheels (given tyres that have not hardened!) on a dry road?

It would depend on tyres, road surface and condition of brakes. I know that on at least one occasion in my Series 2 I was able to lock all four wheels on bitumen - standard 88" brakes but with a booster. (long story, but a car appeared going the wrong way on a freeway entrance overpass when I was overtaking a truck)


If so, then as you say it is only a matter of pedal pressure reduction and front/rear balance. But I'd guess (and it's only a guess) that standard 88" brakes would struggle to lock the front, and I'd also guess that a short wheel base with an aluminium tub would to a large degree unweight the rear before the front locked up. Under those conditions the rear brakes are doing very little useful work, just limiting how much pedal pressure and hence front brake can be applied!

This highlights a problem with this sort of vehicle without load proportioning brakes - you instance the unloaded situation, but how about the situation of a vehicle with a maximum load in the back, all over the rear axle, or, perhaps even more so, towing a maximum 1.8T single axle trailer which, although braked, transfers a lot of its weight onto the towbar on braking.


However, this brings us back to the optimum set up being wide 11" TLS on the front, and 11" SLS on the rear, with a 109" master cylinder (larger front piston if dual circuit) and the 109" 6 cylinder boosted pedal box....

Brakes are always interesting - my bike has an 8 leading shoe front brake, and it's a swine of a thing to adjust!!

Yes, brakes are interesting, and get quite complex once you start changing the original specifications. One thing we have not looked at is the lining composition. Unfortunately, there is virtually no choice of linings for Series brakes today - you get what is available.

John

[Landygirl]

I am not suggesting you should not fit a booster, but bear in mind that if you fit lwb brakes to a swb, the braking will already be a lot better and lighter. Drum brakes are not necessarily worse than discs - they have two problems relative to discs; they require regular adjustment, and they are much more affected by wading. Drum brakes that use leading shoes also fade more rapidly when overheated.

For the record, I fitted a booster to my Series 2 in 1964!

John


I actually know someone who has an old landcruiser with drum brakes all round and went through a creek crossing, didnt know to dry off the brakes and unfortunately came round a corner rather fast and had no brakes writing off the car so that is a bit of an issue but as long as ur aware of it it shouldnt be a problem.

[Landygirl]

Yes, brakes are interesting, and get quite complex once you start changing the original specifications. One thing we have not looked at is the lining composition. Unfortunately, there is virtually no choice of linings for Series brakes today - you get what is available.

John

Luckily i have access to a large number of land rover specific companies and can get virtually anything i need as well as having friends in the UK. The only thing i have had trouble getting is the original glass lights for the brake, park and indicator.

I basically rang up one of them said im doing a brake upgrade this is what i need and can u give me a quote and add on anything else i might need, which is awesome.

[Warb]

Yes, brakes are interesting, and get quite complex once you start changing the original specifications. One thing we have not looked at is the lining composition. Unfortunately, there is virtually no choice of linings for Series brakes today - you get what is available.

This highlights a problem with this sort of vehicle without load proportioning brakes - you instance the unloaded situation, but how about the situation of a vehicle with a maximum load in the back, all over the rear axle, or, perhaps even more so, towing a maximum 1.8T single axle trailer which, although braked, transfers a lot of its weight onto the towbar on braking.

In this case the vehicle is a '59 Series II which I'm doing for my wife. It will only ever be a "high days and holidays" car, unlikely ever to tow anything, carry a load (other than the shopping) or stray far from home. But your point is valid. Unfortunately it highlights the problem with attempting to drive 50+ year old technology on todays roads. We have an 18km stretch of 100kph rural road between home and town, and are considering driving a vehicle with a top speed of 80something kph along it, with red-mist affected B-doubles and Falcodores trying to overtake on blind bends in their fury at having to drop 20kph from "cruising speed".

Without a total redesign these vehicles will always be questionable given todays driving habits. My aim is to give it at least a fighting chance!!

[JDNSW]

I see your point. I have a 109, and have about 60km into town, about 30 of which is 100kph major highway. Fortunately it is not very hilly, and the 109 has no problem maintaining 100kph most of the way.

Mind you, on Tuesday I was going in in the 110, and was passed on a double line by a semi while driving at 100kph. Ten kilometres further on he was stopped for no apparent reason, possibly related to the fact that it was where you come into sight of the checking station at Brocklehurst.

John

[Landygirl]

this is why i plan to do the full brake upgrade, it already has an overdrive and wack on a supercharger!!! hoping that at some point in a quiet place for the first time in history an 88 becomes a blur :D

Until then im quite happy for the idiots to pass me on blind bends or where ever they decide to do it mainly because when they crash i will stop, point and laugh :twisted:

Brings you back to an old fable really tortoise and the hare! If you know what i mean

[Warb]

There is actually thick walled copper brake pipe available in Australia. This is branded as brake pipe and perfectly legal.

Having grown up using "copper" (alloy) pipe for brakes, without ever having a drama, I'd prefer to use it. After various discussions, including Diana's comment above, I could reach no solid conclusion on it's legality in Australia.

After checking the government standards, I suspect that it just comes down to interpretation. The NCOP for Light Vehicle Modifications says, in section 2.4 "Component standards":

"Hydraulic pipes must be made from steel bundy tube complying with SAE J1047 or equivalent."

Does "or equivalent" mean a steel pipe to an equivalent specification, or does it mean an equivalent product to the stated steel pipe? If the former, then any pipe except steel is illegal (this includes copper/nickel alloy), but if the later then any material can be used providing the pipe is to SAE J1407. Hmmm.....

[Blknight.aus]

yes and no. By the letter what that means is any other standard that meets the same specification so you could use brake bunding as detailed in ISO spec for brakes providing it listed better stuff.

However under ADR's you can use anything that's approved and compliant for brakes. This includes the copper nickle alloy stuff provided its purchased from a supplier that is authorised to deliver it as a pipe suitable for use in braking applications. The true Irony of this is that you could walk into a brake shop thats situated right next door to a hydraulics shop and watch both the counter attendants cut a length from the same reel of piping and it would only be legal to use for brakes if supplied from the brakes guy.

You can still use the thick wall copper on a vehicle providing that it was what was fitted to the vehicle originally (or you can prove that it was available from factory in australia in that configuration) and that you havent raised the pressure thats being applied to the system (as in fitted a booster when it didnt have one to start)

The site that I normally goto thats got the ADRS ISO's and SAE's on it is no longer available so I cant get to it to provide the definative answer.

[NiteMare]

a very simple upgrade and easy to maintain is to use 11"drums/backplates from a rear axle on your front axle coupled with a servo, i've done this on my 88" bitsa

i used the backplates off a lateish salibury axle which meant the slaves had to position at 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock respectively due to the bolt holes positioning, the 11" rear drums use the same size slaves as 10" front drums

i then fitted a late dual circuit servo pedal box that came off a 10" braked 88" but didn't bother with the "shuttle valve" switch thing, i just piped straight to each axle

i left the standard 10" drums on the rear axle

my stopping limitations are now dictated by tyre adhesion to the road surface

just be aware that an 88" gets very light on the back end when stopping in a rush from speed and can require you to drop the brakes and reapply to keep it in a straight line, 60mph plus and heavy braking on Deestones in a truck cabbed 88" can get interesting to say the least

i do enjoy the ease with which you can experiment with the old series

p.s.
i run 3.54 diffs, 7.50 tyres and a 200tdi so those speeds are easy (85-90mph with an overdrive)