Couple brake issues with the '69.

Ok, with my "perfect" english I will try to explane why, in my opinion, that spring have nothing to do with the soft pedal under boost.

The spring is before the diaphragm.... in other words the free stroke of the pedal is the same with or whitout vacuum.

In my modest opinion the weak area is the case..... the master cylinder is attached to the booster case.....and if the case moves forward (balloning is the word ??) the stroke of the pedal can be very long !

IMHO
 
Ok, with my "perfect" english I will try to explane why, in my opinion, that spring have nothing to do with the soft pedal under boost.

The spring is before the diaphragm.... in other words the free stroke of the pedal is the same with or whitout vacuum.

In my modest opinion the weak area is the case..... the master cylinder is attached to the booster case.....and if the case moves forward (balloning is the word ??) the stroke of the pedal can be very long !

IMHO

MAY well be the shituation, I have NO clue, all I know is that I went to HB and got a nice HARD pedal, finally, not ASSuming a design flaw on the git go, it was not in my thought process, but over some ~20 years of this car and on the .net over it, the thought process ran outta ideas.....all I know is I fixed MY car for the last ~8 year or better....there are other issues with the brakes, but not related to booster/pedal travel one bit....calipers suck though....oh well.....:nuts:
 
Well, I've been out of town for a bit, and way behind on answering questions. I apologize.

Because I couldn't figure out (at the time) an easy way to check out/isolate the booster operation without pulling it out, I swapped out the booster for an '84 unit that I had planned on eventually installing (to take several pounds off the car). I haven't driven the car yet, but with the engine running (and hence vacuum to the booster) the pedal does feel reasonably firm, with just a little additional pedal movement compared to the movement prior to starting the engine. This agrees with what sky65 said, and what I experienced often through the years with this car. I'm hoping to be able to take the car out for a test drive tomorrow to see what the brakes feel like when the car is actually moving (although there shouldn't be a great deal of difference).

I'll confess my lack of total understanding of the workings of the booster. I (believe I) mentioned earlier that the internal reaction disc was missing, possibly from when I originally swapped out the original m/c for the present C5 m/c. I had to remove and shorten the m/c pushrod to work with this m/c, and perhaps it was then that I lost the disc. I just don't ever remember seeing that part. Did that cause a long term problem? I don't know.

And obviously, the '69 booster is 46 years old. I don't know all the failure modes of a booster. In hindsight I'm curious if removing the m/c and bolting a dummy resistance to the front of the booster, and then monitoring the pedal travel with and without vacuum assist would have given me some useful information.

The "new" '84 booster is a single diaphragm unit. Hopefully that makes it easier to diagnose any future problems.

That's where I'm at, at the moment.
 
Took the car out for a test drive around the country block, and things went well. The pedal feel is firm, and the travel is reasonably short. I may see if I need to adjust the m/c input pushrod length just a touch again. I'm trying to get ready for a track day next week, and then I'll be able to see how the pedal feels when pressing down on it a bit heavier.
 
why do you run a booster? you shouldn`t need one with a 1" MC

Well, several reasons. Nobody "needs" a booster, but I like the light pedal feel while driving on the street, and the C5 m/c piston rear surface isn't drilled deep enough to reliably capture the brake pedal pushrod (without additional hardware help) if used in a manual application. And, given that the firewall has the big hole and is drilled for the booster bolt pattern I would have had to put an adapter in anyway to conform to the master cylinder bolt pattern.
Regarding m/c piston size, the '84 booster I'm using was originally used with a m/c bore smaller than 1" (about .85" IIRC).
 
Top