• Welcome to ClassicBroncos! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all the site features, please take a moment to register. It's fast, simple and absolutely free. So please join our community today!
    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

New brake kits

Speedrdr

Contributor
OLD night owl
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
1,691
Loc.
Paris, MS
DO NOT trust the picture to give you the correct edge code. Many of the pictures are old and the edge code and pad formulation have changed. Here is a great example of that:

SBM50.jpg


I pulled this pic from RockAuto. These pads are for a 77 Bronco. You can see it is an FF. However, you can also see that that the last two digits are "15". That means that this picture was taken way back in 2015 because those two digits represent the year of manufacture. If you search for this edge code on the AMECA site you won't find it because its registration has expired. Likely the formulation of the pad has changed since then, so until you have the pad in your hand you won't really know the edge code.

You can thank California for this. They are passing ever more stringent standards on things like pad composition, trying to drive down the use of components like copper. If California were a country, it would be the fifth largest economy in the world. If a manufacturer can't sell it in California, they won't make it, so the rest of the country gets what California allows. Check out the standards and timeline here: https://dtsc.ca.gov/scp/brake-pad-legislation/.
And yet ANOTHER reason why I’m glad I live in the South. We may have to buy products that have the completely unnecessary warning about possible reproductive hazards and pollution prevention devices but there are no nazis in the DMV to enforce their use…or something like that.

Randy
 

duffymahoney

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
2,643
And yet ANOTHER reason why I’m glad I live in the South. We may have to buy products that have the completely unnecessary warning about possible reproductive hazards and pollution prevention devices but there are no nazis in the DMV to enforce their use…or something like that.

Randy
I believe the brake dust is extremely toxic and cancer causing, if I was a tech, or changed brakes a lot, I would rather not be exposed to it. I am sure humans can make a brake pad that performs well and doesn't kill you.
 

Speedrdr

Contributor
OLD night owl
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
1,691
Loc.
Paris, MS
I believe the brake dust is extremely toxic and cancer causing, if I was a tech, or changed brakes a lot, I would rather not be exposed to it. I am sure humans can make a brake pad that performs well and doesn't kill you.
Fair enough! I had not even considered automotive workers. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that when it gets down to the crux of the matter there’s probably not going to be anything that’s exposed to as much heat and friction as brake shoes/pads that doesn’t cause some respiratory issues (including cancer) unless we go back to the leather wrapped wood to mash against the wheel…or the Fred Flintstone method.
I’ll try to think about my initial statements and how they sound before I hit “post reply” the next time. My apologies if I was out of line. Not my intent.

Randy
 

lars

Contributor
Been here awhile
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
3,195
Loc.
NorCal flatlands
Randy, if you read those CA prop 65 warnings, you will find that they are only directed to California residents. If you don't live in California, the ingredients of concern won't hurt you. LOL...

Seriously, while some of it may have merit, at this point the law has become just another vehicle for ambulance chasers.. er.. product liability lawyers.. to file outrageous lawsuits in front of naive juries. And yes, I have good friends who are attorneys who would agree with that. I'm not tarring all attorneys.
 

Speedrdr

Contributor
OLD night owl
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
1,691
Loc.
Paris, MS
Randy, if you read those CA prop 65 warnings, you will find that they are only directed to California residents. If you don't live in California, the ingredients of concern won't hurt you. LOL...

Seriously, while some of it may have merit, at this point the law has become just another vehicle for ambulance chasers.. er.. product liability lawyers.. to file outrageous lawsuits in front of naive juries. And yes, I have good friends who are attorneys who would agree with that. I'm not tarring all attorneys.
Lars, my wife and I are both nurses and we see the same kind of things generally happening in the healthcare arena, but it’s the health insurance industry that drives things and gears test results to allow them to place healthy people into a high risk category and charge higher $$ for coverage. I could give examples but don’t want to bore everyone and waste any more of their time.

Randy
 

LittleBeefy

Huge Brakes - www.hugebrakes.com
Joined
Aug 1, 2023
Messages
52
Randy, if you read those CA prop 65 warnings, you will find that they are only directed to California residents. If you don't live in California, the ingredients of concern won't hurt you. LOL...

Seriously, while some of it may have merit, at this point the law has become just another vehicle for ambulance chasers.. er.. product liability lawyers.. to file outrageous lawsuits in front of naive juries. And yes, I have good friends who are attorneys who would agree with that. I'm not tarring all attorneys.
The problem with attorneys is that 98% of them give the other 2% a bad name. I say that in jest because I am the son of an attorney, the husband of another and my closest friend is also an attorney. But in every joke there is a kernel of truth!

More to the point, though, California has tremendous say when it comes to automotive and the environment. CARB is essentially as powerful as the EPA in that regards. In many cases, CARB will set a standard for California, and EPA will adopt it for the entire country.
 

duffymahoney

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
2,643
Fair enough! I had not even considered automotive workers. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that when it gets down to the crux of the matter there’s probably not going to be anything that’s exposed to as much heat and friction as brake shoes/pads that doesn’t cause some respiratory issues (including cancer) unless we go back to the leather wrapped wood to mash against the wheel…or the Fred Flintstone method.
I’ll try to think about my initial statements and how they sound before I hit “post reply” the next time. My apologies if I was out of line. Not my intent.

Randy
True, we are exposed to grain dust a lot at work, and it's not good for you. But certain things seem way way worse. I have read that brake pads/ dust are something you should worry about.
 

Speedrdr

Contributor
OLD night owl
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
1,691
Loc.
Paris, MS
True, we are exposed to grain dust a lot at work, and it's not good for you. But certain things seem way way worse. I have read that brake pads/ dust are something you should worry about.
Yes, sir, grain dust is hard on the lungs and under the right conditions can go boom, really big boom! And there’s absolutely nothing good that can result from brake dust of ANY type, particularly metals. Definitely runs toward carcinogenic though.

Randy
 

LittleBeefy

Huge Brakes - www.hugebrakes.com
Joined
Aug 1, 2023
Messages
52
Sort of off topic, but this thread has some awesome info and I feel like there is great advice here.

Is there any way to know what rating a specific pad (brand/model) has without actually seeing the pads in person.

I've looked at some pictures of pads on Rock Auto and a few pics show these codes, but most do not. I can't find this info on the manufacturer's web sites or catalogs either. The AMECA list doesn't tell you what pad uses which materials.

Specifically, I have too much rear bias with a new 1-ton brake set up. It's not terrible, but I'd feel more comfortable with a little more front bias. I'm running 96 F350 fronts, typical Chevy 1-ton disk conversion rears (aka 85 Chevy K5 Blazer front calipers). The 2 pad sets I have do have pictures on Rock Auto (I don't know if they are actual pics of the pads or "representative images"), I haven't disassembled my brakes to look at the actual pads. According to the Rock Auto pics I have a "FF" rated front pads and "GG" rated rear pads. I feel like the pads are causing some of the bias, and could be easily swapped to help pull the bias forward. Is this an acceptable method of pulling bias forward, or am I pissing in the wind? I can swap to the smaller Eldo calipers, but my master is already arguably too big for what I'm running and my pedal is super stiff. I like it as is, but don't want to decrease the caliper size and make the pedal even stiffer. So pads seem to be an easy way to adjust the bias a little bit without a lot of expense and work.

Thanks

Side Note Edit: Neither of the codes I'm seeing on the Rock Auto pictures are in the AMECA list.
Which axle are you running in the rear?
 

gunnibronco

Sr. Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
508
Loc.
Gardnerville, NV
Which axle are you running in the rear?
It's a fabricated 9" with 14 bolt outer hubs and the typical JD6 disk brake conversion calipers and Raybestos Element3 Hybrid pads. Those calipers & pads were originally planned for the front axle (also fab'd 9" with 96 F350 D60 outers) so I bought a better pad than I would have if I knew it was going to be on the rear axle. It's a long story.

I'm out of town for work right now and won't be back for a week so I can't look at my actual pads to get the codes off them. That's why I was looking at the Rock Auto pics, it's all I've got to go from.
 
Last edited:

LittleBeefy

Huge Brakes - www.hugebrakes.com
Joined
Aug 1, 2023
Messages
52
It's a fabricated 9" with 14 bolt outer hubs and the typical JD7 disk brake conversion calipers and Raybestos Element3 Hybrid pads. Those calipers & pads were originally planned for the front axle (also fab'd 9" with 96 F350 D60 outers) so I bought a better pad than I would have if I knew it was going to be on the rear axle. It's a long story.

I'm out of town for work right now and won't be back for a week so I can't look at my actual pads to get the codes off them. That's why I was looking at the Rock Auto pics, it's all I've got to go from.

Front brakes on the rear is rarely a good idea because it leads to exactly the problem you are experiencing.

When you say your brake pedal is “super stiff” do you mean it firms up completely (and stops) before it travels much towards the floor board?
 

gunnibronco

Sr. Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
508
Loc.
Gardnerville, NV
Front brakes on the rear is rarely a good idea because it leads to exactly the problem you are experiencing.

When you say your brake pedal is “super stiff” do you mean it firms up completely (and stops) before it travels much towards the floor board?
This is going to be a long post to do my best to be accurate and give you all the info you might need to make a suggestion. I really didn't want to hi-jack this thread to make it about my brakes. I've posted, and asked questions a lot of different places and am continuing to look for ideas how to improve my brake bias. I'm in relatively uncharted territory because I've cobbled together a brake combo that was based on what I had, and what fits in the EB without reinventing the wheel, too much.

Overall I'm pretty darn happy with my brakes and pedal feel. The pedal is very stiff meaning I get very good braking with very little pedal travel. If I wasn't using hydroboost it probably wouldn't work at all due to pedal effort needed. The pedal doesn't just stop, but it doesn't take much travel to really lock everything up. I know if I decrease the rear caliper size, it's going to get even more stiff, and possibly too stiff/touchy for highway driveability.

The build:
1974 on 37s with 3.5" suspension lift and no body lift, custom fab'd hybrid axles 9"/14b rear and 9"/1996 F350 D60 front. I'm running an 08 Superduty h-booster and MC. It's mostly a trail/rock crawler but I want to be able to drive it to and from most trails, and don't want to have to trailer it everywhere. It's not ever going to be street driven too much at this point.

Front calipers-: 1996 F350 - 2x 2.2" diameter pistons (each caliper)- Raybestos Specialty Truck and Medium Duty Pads- semi metallic (FF rating?- to be confirmed)
Rear calipers- 1x 2.935" diameter piston (each caliper)- Raybestos Element3 Hybrid metallic/ceramic pads (GG rating?- to be confirmed)
MC- 2008 Superduty hydroboost & MC-1.5" bore with Wilwood proportioning valve in rear line turned all the way down:
https://shop.wilwood.com/blogs/news/how-does-a-proportioning-valve-work

My rears will lock up before my fronts, but it's only when I intentionally try to lock up my brakes. I haven't needed to panic stop, but I know that may be necessary some day and don't want to have my truck swap ends on the highway because I get too hard on the brakes. I've received conflicting opinions from knowledgeable people I trust on what kind of front/rear performance I should shoot for. Personally, I'd like my fronts to lock before my rears, it's how my truck has always performed. But honestly, what I have is liveable and driveable I'd just like to "tune" the bias a bit.

I agree that the "front" brakes I'm using on my rear is generally too big in relation to my front brakes. Looking at piston surface area size ratios (front vs rear) of most factory disk/disk set up's my ratio is way off. They are a very common rear disk brake upgrade from drums on 1 ton trucks/axles.

I agree my MC is pretty damn big, but I found a way to fit it. I probably should have chosen an earlier SD MC with a 1-3/8" bore, but the lines come off the other side of the MC and I don't know if there is an easy way to make a reservoir fit under the hood. So swapping isn't exactly straight forward.

I see the following options moving forward, listed in my preferred order:

1. Install less aggressive rear pads. There are cheapo organic pads available for the rear calipers from Oreilly. I could also go to super expensive EBC Yellow Stuff pads for the fronts, and probably a lot more options- any suggestions? This is why I'd like to know the AMECA ratings without buying the pads first. This is cheap and easy and my first choice. But has been suggested this is a band aid and not a real fix. I feel like if it works, it works and isn't a "band aid", it's "fine tuning". LOL

2. Install smaller "Eldorado" rear calipers-these fit my existing rear brackets and will reduce the caliper size to 2.5". But I'm concerned with making my pedal "too firm" due to large MC. I don't want to change the MC if possible, the cost in time and money to redesign everything and replace my lines (custom Crown stainless steel flexible lines) is not attractive unless necessary.

3. Combo of both smaller rear calipers and different pads and possibly MC.

Thanks for reading this far and lending any insight. Sorry for the novel, but any time I ask questions without providing all the details, I get asked for all the details.
 
Last edited:

LittleBeefy

Huge Brakes - www.hugebrakes.com
Joined
Aug 1, 2023
Messages
52
Thank you for the thorough details. You aren't hijacking the thread. Hell, we were just talking about the medical and legal implications of brake dust anyway.

Could new pads with a greater mu delta between front and rear work? Maybe. I wouldn't call it a band aid; I'd say it's a less than optimal solution (assuming it worked at all). Your too-large MC is robbing your front calipers of the potential force that would make them work better and different pads won't change that. Also, if your rear brakes lock up before the fronts, your prop valve isn't doing you any good.

You clearly have been given good advice on potential solutions so I'm not going to harp on about it with more of the same. I'd like to present alternatives to what you have already listed as your options.

Have you considered using a MC out of a 1980's Chevy 1 ton (e.g. RAYBESTOS MC39435)? That would keep the lines on the same side as your current MC, but you would have to use an adapter for the different outlet size. It has an integrated reservoir because it's cast so it would be smaller for hood clearance. It's a 1 5/16" bore, which would then allow you to switch back to the El Dorado rears.

Something like that would cost $50-$60 including adapters. The investment would really be in the time it takes to reinstall the Caddy rears, and bleeding everything to see if it works.
 

gunnibronco

Sr. Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
508
Loc.
Gardnerville, NV
Thank you for the thorough details. You aren't hijacking the thread. Hell, we were just talking about the medical and legal implications of brake dust anyway.

Could new pads with a greater mu delta between front and rear work? Maybe. I wouldn't call it a band aid; I'd say it's a less than optimal solution (assuming it worked at all). Your too-large MC is robbing your front calipers of the potential force that would make them work better and different pads won't change that. Also, if your rear brakes lock up before the fronts, your prop valve isn't doing you any good.

You clearly have been given good advice on potential solutions so I'm not going to harp on about it with more of the same. I'd like to present alternatives to what you have already listed as your options.

Have you considered using a MC out of a 1980's Chevy 1 ton (e.g. RAYBESTOS MC39435)? That would keep the lines on the same side as your current MC, but you would have to use an adapter for the different outlet size. It has an integrated reservoir because it's cast so it would be smaller for hood clearance. It's a 1 5/16" bore, which would then allow you to switch back to the El Dorado rears.

Something like that would cost $50-$60 including adapters. The investment would really be in the time it takes to reinstall the Caddy rears, and bleeding everything to see if it works.

Thanks for the MC option. I'll look into that. I think changing the rear calipers and MC is probably the best answer. But, I'm honestly tired of working on the truck and need to drive it and enjoy it. The axle swap and all the changes that were involved took too long and I don't want to get into any more extensive projects. All the unknowns, money, and time involved with finding a new MC that will work were discouraging me from going that direction. I wasn't finding an easy swap for that and this might just be it.

Can you explain a few things? I seem to like mixing and matching parts on my rigs and want to understand brakes better in general.

1- How is too large a MC preventing my front brakes from working well? I was going on the assumption that my rears were just working too well.
2- Are you saying my prop valve has failed? Or just isn't reducing the rear brakes enough? That prop valve claims to have the most "turn down" available on the market. It's been installed on my truck for abut 10 years with my previous brake & axle combo. Should I replace it and see if the bias improves?
3- If I go with the GM MC and smaller rear calipers do you expect me to need the prop valve? I'd probably default to leaving it and just set it with minimal "turn down" if left to my own choice.

Thanks for the input and really, thanks for the MC info. That's really the direction I need to go to get this right. I was looking for a work around because I'm sick of working on my truck.
 

LittleBeefy

Huge Brakes - www.hugebrakes.com
Joined
Aug 1, 2023
Messages
52
I’m just getting ready to bleed my own MC swap. I can answer all of these questions in a couple of hours when I get back later.
 

LittleBeefy

Huge Brakes - www.hugebrakes.com
Joined
Aug 1, 2023
Messages
52
Thanks for the MC option. I'll look into that. I think changing the rear calipers and MC is probably the best answer. But, I'm honestly tired of working on the truck and need to drive it and enjoy it. The axle swap and all the changes that were involved took too long and I don't want to get into any more extensive projects. All the unknowns, money, and time involved with finding a new MC that will work were discouraging me from going that direction. I wasn't finding an easy swap for that and this might just be it.

Can you explain a few things? I seem to like mixing and matching parts on my rigs and want to understand brakes better in general.

1- How is too large a MC preventing my front brakes from working well? I was going on the assumption that my rears were just working too well.
2- Are you saying my prop valve has failed? Or just isn't reducing the rear brakes enough? That prop valve claims to have the most "turn down" available on the market. It's been installed on my truck for abut 10 years with my previous brake & axle combo. Should I replace it and see if the bias improves?
3- If I go with the GM MC and smaller rear calipers do you expect me to need the prop valve? I'd probably default to leaving it and just set it with minimal "turn down" if left to my own choice.

Thanks for the input and really, thanks for the MC info. That's really the direction I need to go to get this right. I was looking for a work around because I'm sick of working on my truck.
I’ll answer your questions in order.

First, why the too-large MC is negatively impacting your front braking. This is not necessarily intuitive so most people don’t understand this. I will explain it using Newtonian physics instead of fluid mechanics (it’s just easier to understand that way). Start with two facts: Work equals Force multiplied by Distance and the Work at the MC equals the Work at the caliper pistons (ignore the expansion in your brake lines for simplification). Your MC piston travels a longer distance than your caliper pistons do, so the force output at your caliper pistons must be greater than the force input at your MC. The difference in the bores and the distances traveled means that the force from your leg is far less than the force of the caliper pistons on the rotor. I’m excluding the force multiplication from the pedal ratio and the addition of force from the booster but you get the idea because regardless of the size of your MC and caliper pistons, the contribution of those to the force on the MC stays the same. That’s the basics of how brakes work.

So, all other things being equal, let’s look at your situation. You have a super stiff pedal that you don’t need to press very far on to get “full braking”. Let’s call that distance D1. As a result, you get a force at your caliper piston. Let’s call that force F1. Now switch to a smaller bore MC. Your new MC (and your pedal) will travel a longer distance before “full braking”. Let’s call that distance D2 (which is greater than D1). You are using the same pedal ratio and booster in both cases (and your leg doesn’t get any stronger) so the force on the MC stays the same. From the perspective of Work, the Work from the smaller bore MC must be greater than the Work from the larger bore MC because D2>D1 and the Force input to the MC in both cases remains the same. So Work(MC) given D2 must be greater than Work(MC) given D1. Move now to the caliper. Remember that Work(MC)=Work(calipers). Since Work(MC) has increased from a smaller bore MC, than Work(calipers) must have increased the same amount. The distance that the caliper piston travels does not change, therefore the new force at the caliper (let’s call that F2) must have gone up. So F2>F1.

In short, a smaller bore MC will create more force at the caliper than a larger bore MC. All other things equal, if you get more pedal travel you get more brake torque. Of course you don’t want to hit your floorboard, so you have to get a big enough bore to keep that from happening, but you want to get as much pedal travel as possible to get the maximum brake torque you can get. Ergo, your too-large MC is robbing your front calipers of potential force.

I just went through the same thing. I was using T-bird brakes at the front and was very happy with my 1.25” MC. I switched to our Huge Brakes kit up front which has more surface area on the pistons. I erroneously assumed that the larger bore pistons would require at least the same if not more fluid to reach the rotor. I was wrong (I guess modern caliper pistons don’t need to travel as far as 45 year old ones do). I had very little pedal travel AKA a “super stiff” pedal. I just switched to a 1.125” MC. My pedal now travels further but I am getting more brake torque up front as a result.

Now to the points about your prop valve, I’m not suggesting it’s broken, I’m just saying that it’s useless given your current setup. The problem is that the amount of line pressure that locks your rear wheels is less than the point that the prop valve limits to. Once your tires lock up, additional pressure isn’t going to lock them more. Once they are locked, they are locked. Your prop valve isn’t stopping your rear tires from locking so it’s useless to you right now. If you had smaller brakes at the rear that took more pressure to lock the tires, your prop valve would be fine, so you don’t need to toss it or replace, you just need smaller brakes in the back. Then your prop valve will serve its purpose.

If it were my rig, here’s what I would do. I would put the Caddy calipers on the rear and see what happens. Test to see if the prop valve works in that situation and can it keep my rear tires from locking up. Test to see if I like the brake bias in general. If yes, and my pedal is stiff, I’d try out the Chevy MC with some adapters and see how deep into my brake pedal I get. Brakes are a critical safety system and I’d spend the time to test out these basic fixes, at least. That’s just me; it’s your rig and it’s your call.

I know this is long and somewhat confusing. Feel free to hit me up on email: chad@hugebrakes.com. I’m happy to help if I can.
 
OP
OP
toddz69

toddz69

Sponsor/Vendor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
10,571
@gunnibronco - if you're running the regular Chevy disc brake calipers (JB6) now w/o an e-brake, I'm presuming you'd not need any on your replacements? If that's true, don't waste your time with the "Eldorado" disc brake calipers you guys have been discussing. Just get a set of the non-e-brake "metric" calipers and use those instead. Simpler, cheaper, and easier to hook up/bleed.

Todd Z.
 

gunnibronco

Sr. Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
508
Loc.
Gardnerville, NV
I’ll answer your questions in order.

First, why the too-large MC is negatively impacting your front braking. This is not necessarily intuitive so most people don’t understand this. I will explain it using Newtonian physics instead of fluid mechanics (it’s just easier to understand that way). Start with two facts: Work equals Force multiplied by Distance and the Work at the MC equals the Work at the caliper pistons (ignore the expansion in your brake lines for simplification). Your MC piston travels a longer distance than your caliper pistons do, so the force output at your caliper pistons must be greater than the force input at your MC. The difference in the bores and the distances traveled means that the force from your leg is far less than the force of the caliper pistons on the rotor. I’m excluding the force multiplication from the pedal ratio and the addition of force from the booster but you get the idea because regardless of the size of your MC and caliper pistons, the contribution of those to the force on the MC stays the same. That’s the basics of how brakes work.

So, all other things being equal, let’s look at your situation. You have a super stiff pedal that you don’t need to press very far on to get “full braking”. Let’s call that distance D1. As a result, you get a force at your caliper piston. Let’s call that force F1. Now switch to a smaller bore MC. Your new MC (and your pedal) will travel a longer distance before “full braking”. Let’s call that distance D2 (which is greater than D1). You are using the same pedal ratio and booster in both cases (and your leg doesn’t get any stronger) so the force on the MC stays the same. From the perspective of Work, the Work from the smaller bore MC must be greater than the Work from the larger bore MC because D2>D1 and the Force input to the MC in both cases remains the same. So Work(MC) given D2 must be greater than Work(MC) given D1. Move now to the caliper. Remember that Work(MC)=Work(calipers). Since Work(MC) has increased from a smaller bore MC, than Work(calipers) must have increased the same amount. The distance that the caliper piston travels does not change, therefore the new force at the caliper (let’s call that F2) must have gone up. So F2>F1.

In short, a smaller bore MC will create more force at the caliper than a larger bore MC. All other things equal, if you get more pedal travel you get more brake torque. Of course you don’t want to hit your floorboard, so you have to get a big enough bore to keep that from happening, but you want to get as much pedal travel as possible to get the maximum brake torque you can get. Ergo, your too-large MC is robbing your front calipers of potential force.

I just went through the same thing. I was using T-bird brakes at the front and was very happy with my 1.25” MC. I switched to our Huge Brakes kit up front which has more surface area on the pistons. I erroneously assumed that the larger bore pistons would require at least the same if not more fluid to reach the rotor. I was wrong (I guess modern caliper pistons don’t need to travel as far as 45 year old ones do). I had very little pedal travel AKA a “super stiff” pedal. I just switched to a 1.125” MC. My pedal now travels further but I am getting more brake torque up front as a result.

Now to the points about your prop valve, I’m not suggesting it’s broken, I’m just saying that it’s useless given your current setup. The problem is that the amount of line pressure that locks your rear wheels is less than the point that the prop valve limits to. Once your tires lock up, additional pressure isn’t going to lock them more. Once they are locked, they are locked. Your prop valve isn’t stopping your rear tires from locking so it’s useless to you right now. If you had smaller brakes at the rear that took more pressure to lock the tires, your prop valve would be fine, so you don’t need to toss it or replace, you just need smaller brakes in the back. Then your prop valve will serve its purpose.

If it were my rig, here’s what I would do. I would put the Caddy calipers on the rear and see what happens. Test to see if the prop valve works in that situation and can it keep my rear tires from locking up. Test to see if I like the brake bias in general. If yes, and my pedal is stiff, I’d try out the Chevy MC with some adapters and see how deep into my brake pedal I get. Brakes are a critical safety system and I’d spend the time to test out these basic fixes, at least. That’s just me; it’s your rig and it’s your call.

I know this is long and somewhat confusing. Feel free to hit me up on email: chad@hugebrakes.com. I’m happy to help if I can.
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense, even though my physics education ended in highschool in 1991. LOL.

I remember switching from my 78/79 F150 calipers to Tbird calipers about 15 years ago with a 99ish Mustang MC (about 1+"). I didn't love the longer pedal, but it pulled my bias forward. I thought it was the larger caliper, but it probably was as much or more about your Force/Distance/Work equation. My misconception of this principal led me to go overboard when I saw a way to install a 1.5" MC in my EB.

I jumped the gun before your explanation and ordered the MC and fittings, I'm in less than $50 so I'm not even worried about that. Did I mention I'm out of town for work and bored sitting in a hotel room on a Saturday? I'll go ahead and order the Eldorado calipers and try them first. Based on your explanation, the smaller MC will make the fronts work better and that is honestly worth the $50. I thought I was going to get better brakes with a larger MC, but I'm second guessing that now. It will be worth the $50 experiment to give it a try.
 
Top