ser 2a brake upgrade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chazza

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landygirl

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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!!