Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
> Jensen Healey & Jensen GT Tech > Brakes > Noise from Brake Pedal

 Moderated by: Greg Fletcher Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Noise from Brake Pedal  Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: 09-14-2014 01:53 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
UKJames
Member
 

Joined: 04-24-2014
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 42
Status: 
Offline
Hi

Slowly working my way around the JH and have replaced calipers, flexi's, master cylinder and lines, and put in a set of green stuff pads for good measure. Brakes are now useable and progressive, but still do not bite down as much as I would have hoped. Bled the brakes thoroughly. Good pedal pressure.
So looking at my booster I've done a vacuum test, it holds vacuum. I've replaced the non-return valve, the hose to the manifold (and fitted an in-line non return valve as well).
However two things I have noticed that may or may not be related (or maybe my brakes are as good as they are going to get):

1) When I depress the brake pedal, and keep my foot down, there is a constant 'chuff chuff' sound that sound like air leaking somewhere. Diaphragm? but if the diaphragm's gone wouldn't the booster not be able to hold vacuum?

2) Manifold vacuum low- I know that long duration cams can cause this (and I believe the stock JH cams are) but surely this would affect the vacuum to the booster? My readings at idle are around 10in.

Any thoughts on this appreciated

Jim

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: 09-14-2014 05:31 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
subwoofer
Member
 

Joined: 04-01-2008
Location: Sandefjord, Norway
Posts: 582
Status: 
Offline
Don't know about the sound, but as far as stopping power goes: I think the brakes were described as "adequate" back in the 70's. Ring HiSpec if you need more stopping power.

--
Joachim

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: 09-14-2014 09:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Jim Ketcham
Member
 

Joined: 03-13-2005
Location: Salt Point, New York USA
Posts: 192
Status: 
Offline
What master cylinder did you use. There is a Landrover master that looks just like the original JH master, but has too big a piston resulting in considerable increased pedal effort.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: 09-15-2014 10:13 am
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
UKJames
Member
 

Joined: 04-24-2014
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 42
Status: 
Offline
Yes it is a SWB LR Master Cylinder. When I checked it, it looked like a 3/4" bore. It was certainly comparable to the one that came off. I might double check as I heard some talk that they split the difference between the 3/4" and 1" MC's and started making 7/8" ones.
I am still erring on the booster not boosting as efficiently as it could. Might try capping the hose off and trying unassisted to see if there is any discernible difference

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: 09-15-2014 05:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
gmgiltd
Member
 

Joined: 07-10-2012
Location: Whitehills , United Kingdom
Posts: 142
Status: 
Offline
I believe that if it was a SWB pre 89 it should be the same as the JH one - Padock Landrover has them.
The more you drive modern cars the more you realise that the brakes on the JH are marginal at best - Joachim and I have both gone for the four wheel disk kits from HiSpec but I imagine that the front kit would make the biggest improvement.
Gordon

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: 09-15-2014 06:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
UKJames
Member
 

Joined: 04-24-2014
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 42
Status: 
Offline
Yes Paddock are the people I got it from. The brakes are OK, but my daily driver is a newish BMW so it is probably more 'perception' than anything else. If I stamp on them hard I can just about lock them up. But they are nice and progressive.

The HiSpec kit sounds interesting- I might look into that. It seems a shame that the brakes are not as good as the engine....

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: 09-15-2014 06:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
gmgiltd
Member
 

Joined: 07-10-2012
Location: Whitehills , United Kingdom
Posts: 142
Status: 
Offline
Take it in context - in the early seventies you had roads infested with Ford Cortinas, Moris Itals, Austin Alegros, Vauxhall Victors all of which gained momentum - they could not be called accelerative nor were the brakes particularly good. Compare that with now with VW/Audi, BMW, Merc or Jaguar. Even Fiat 500s, small Citrons, Pugs and Skodas have four wheel discs with ABS. The Jensen was good in its time but in modern conditions it's scary sometimes.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: 09-15-2014 07:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
UKJames
Member
 

Joined: 04-24-2014
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 42
Status: 
Offline
Nothing like seventies brakes to sharpen the senses when you are in traffic...
But there is an appeal in improving on the original design with more modern brakes. I'll add it to the to-do list..

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: 09-16-2014 01:00 am
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Screenplay
Member
 

Joined: 07-12-2013
Location: San Francisco, California USA
Posts: 121
Status: 
Offline
I can't say I'm familiar with the "chuff' sound you're experiencing, but I did want to comment on the choice of master cylinder. I was looking to replace mine and didn't want to use the TR6 unit-with the 3/4" bore-as I'm attempting a restoration and it just doesn't look right. I had also heard that the Land Rover dual cylinder for the SWB (pre-June '80) is a good substitute but that suppliers had increased the bore to 7/8" (to split the difference between the SWB and LWB). To make matters worse, not a single supplier I contacted in the US could confirm the actual bore diameter of what they were selling! The most authoritative voice I found on the matter was Paul Hunt at PowerTrack Ltd. in the UK, who specialize in obsolete brake parts. They are well acquainted with the JH master cylinder and confirmed that the original bore size is actually 13/16." Paul warned against fitting LR or other masters as there are internal variables beyond just bore diameter. Not to say that what you've found won't work well, but just a word of caution. PowerTrack has the proper seal kits for the originals and I know Martin Robey also sells a professionally rebuilt original on an exchange basis. Best of Luck

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: 09-16-2014 01:31 am
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Screenplay
Member
 

Joined: 07-12-2013
Location: San Francisco, California USA
Posts: 121
Status: 
Offline
I forgot to add that I read in an online Land Rover forum that, depending on year and wheelbase, there are master cylinders that look exactly like the ones we are discussing that actually reverse the front/rear reservoirs. Is it possible that a greater proportion of of fluid and effort is going toward the rear brakes? As is said, online chatter so take it with a grain of salt but food for thought. Can anybody comment?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: 09-16-2014 07:57 am
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
UKJames
Member
 

Joined: 04-24-2014
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 42
Status: 
Offline
Interesting points as I have my doubts on the master cylinder. To put it into perspective I would say the brakes are 'borderline OK' and maybe a different MC would give it the extra say 10% that would raise the confidence level. The different bore size or setup could easily account for this.
I don't feel there is any problem with brake force distribution though, it seems absolutely fine.
Has anyone any thoughts on low manifold vacuum affecting the boost at all?
 
 
 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: 09-16-2014 11:55 am
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
gmgiltd
Member
 

Joined: 07-10-2012
Location: Whitehills , United Kingdom
Posts: 142
Status: 
Offline
I had similar feelings when the original fully reconditioned / new braking system. On top of that my servo was on its way out and was replaced by JH one which is smaller than the GT one and this firmed the pedal but not the confidence. The OEM brakes worked - just not powerfully - the HiSpec ones are very progressive and powerful.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: 09-16-2014 02:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
Jim Ketcham
Member
 

Joined: 03-13-2005
Location: Salt Point, New York USA
Posts: 192
Status: 
Offline
I do not see how the booster can be partially faulty. If it holds vacuum it should be fine. If it is faulty pedal effort is very noticeable.
Low vacuum to the booster means either an external leak or an internal one. External is easy to check. Internal, unfortunately, means worn engine. If engine is running fine that is improbable.
It does not take much difference in master cylinder piston size to make a big difference in pedal effort. If my math is correct, the difference in area between a 3/4" and 7/8" diameter piston is >35%. That would significantly affect pedal effort.
Having tried a pre-89 SWB LR master I noticed increased pedal effort. I was able to correct it somewhat with high performance pads. I eventually pulled the LR master and measured the piston. It was slightly less than 7/8" in diameter. The original JH master measured a hair over 3/4". I switched to a TR6 master and pedal effort was marked improved to the point that I no longer have any concerns about braking.
My bet is if there is no vac leak it's the master cylinder.
Good luck,
Jim

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: 09-16-2014 08:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
UKJames
Member
 

Joined: 04-24-2014
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 42
Status: 
Offline
I will pull the master cylinder and verify the size when I get a moment.
The car had a Girling type MC on it unusually with Metric threads. It might have been an old Ford Cortina one.
I had to change the unions to 3/8-20UNF and 7/16-24UNF to fit the Landrover MC.
Can anyone confirm what threads the TR6 master cylinder has? Would be nice if I didn't have to change the pipes...again.

Thanks for all the replies so far

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: 09-17-2014 12:18 am
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Jim Ketcham
Member
 

Joined: 03-13-2005
Location: Salt Point, New York USA
Posts: 192
Status: 
Offline
The fitting sizes and positions are the same. That is 3/8-24 and 7/16-20 as you stated. The TR6 master should drop right in.
Jim

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: 09-17-2014 08:57 am
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
UKJames
Member
 

Joined: 04-24-2014
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 42
Status: 
Offline
Jim Ketcham wrote: The fitting sizes and positions are the same. That is 3/8-24 and 7/16-20 as you stated. The TR6 master should drop right in.




Jim


Thanks Jim I'll order up a TR6 master and hopefully that will improve the feel a bit.

-Jim

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: 09-17-2014 10:59 am
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
UKJames
Member
 

Joined: 04-24-2014
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 42
Status: 
Offline
I've got a GMC234 (TR6) Master Cylinder on order. Using the math it looks like:

 

Original stock master cylinder (two possible sizes):

3/4 (19.05)... area 285mm2

13/16 (20.6)... area 333.3mm2   16% greater effort (nominal)

 

TR6 Master cylinder GMC234 (need to clarify if 3/4 or 7/16)

13/16 (20.6)... area 333.3mm2   16% greater effort (nominal)

 

Landrover SWB Pre '80 569671

7/8 (22.2)... area 387.1mm2   35% greater effort (heck of a lot)

 

So I am hoping this will crack it... I will let you all know....

 

Jim

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: 09-17-2014 03:30 pm
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
Screenplay
Member
 

Joined: 07-12-2013
Location: San Francisco, California USA
Posts: 121
Status: 
Offline
You've certainly done your homework. Please do keep us posted; I'm very interested to hear how this works out. Best of luck with the project.
Clinton

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: 09-19-2014 06:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
UKJames
Member
 

Joined: 04-24-2014
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 42
Status: 
Offline
The new 'TR6' master cylinder arrived this afternoon so I have installed it. I can confirm the Land Rover master cylinder I just removed had a circa 22mm bore, the new one is smaller at between 19-20mm.
Will give them a proper test tomorrow but my initial thoughts at low speeds is that it has made a significant difference, possibly even a third less force required for the same level of braking. Much nicer.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: 09-19-2014 07:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
Screenplay
Member
 

Joined: 07-12-2013
Location: San Francisco, California USA
Posts: 121
Status: 
Offline
James,
Great to hear; it will be good to read about your thoughts after a little more time with it. Thanks for posting this-I believe it is the first direct comparison I've seen.
Clinton

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 10:32 pm Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
> Jensen Healey & Jensen GT Tech > Brakes > Noise from Brake Pedal Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2011 Data 1 Systems