1953 Chrysler Brakes Rebuild Thread

[DJ194950]

Also just to mention-small bore= more pressure but longer stroke for the brake pedal

larger bore = opposite

 

DJ

[keithb7]

Getting into the weeds on the pedal linkage now.

 

I am supposed to have 2 of these lift springs on my clutch pedal rod. I only have one. I do not have a parts book. If anyone happens to have a Chrysler part number for this part please post it. Of if you know where I might buy one, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Spring circled in red. Also photo of the one that I have.

 

 

[keithb7]

21 hours ago, classiccarjack said:

Did your sleeved bore measure out good?  Perhaps you can clean it up and reuse it?  Just curious...

 

Looking though a couple of Chrysler shop manuals here, I don't see a spec on master cylinder wear. They do state that you can clean up scratches by boring .004".

I took several measurements with a internal telescopic snap T-gauge. Then measured the gauge with a 0-1" micrometer.  This is a 1" bore cylinder.  At various bore depth locations I got:

 

0.9965

0.9966

0.9974

0.9976

0.9984

0.9987

 

Thinking my cylinder is ok ok to clean up and re-use?

Edited February 7, 2018 by keithb7

[B-Watson]

 

In the Canadian parts book it is labelled as a "Pedal Rod Spring".   You need two and the part number is 1329 486 and is used on all 1953-1954 DeSoto and Chrysler models, both US and Canadian that has a manual clutch.   That spring appears only on 1953 and 1954 models. 

 

As for your shop manuals, the Canadian versions covered Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto and Chrysler and were published by Chrysler Corporation of Canada, Windsor, Ontario.   Also, the publication number starts with "WM-".     The U.S. versions generally covered only one make, were published by the Chrysler Corporation, Detroit, and the publication number starts with "D-" on the editions printed prior to computerization.

 

And brake fluid, which started out as a variation of gas line antifreeze (methylhydrate), absorbs water and holds water in suspension.   It does not combine with water molecules.   And as water is heavier than brake fluid, the water would probably sink to the lowest level of the car if it sat for a long period of time. 

 

[keithb7]

Thank you @B-Watson. It appears I have a Canadian WM-4298 1953-1954 C-D-P-D Manual. As well as a D-14929 covering C56, C58, C-59 and C60 manual.

Do you happen to be a member of VCC Collectable Chrysler chapter?

Edited February 7, 2018 by keithb7

[classiccarjack]

On 2/6/2018 at 6:27 PM, keithb7 said:

 

Looking though a couple of Chrysler shop manuals here, I don't see a spec on master cylinder wear. They do state that you can clean up scratches by boring .004".

I took several measurements with a internal telescopic snap T-gauge. Then measured the gauge with a 0-1" micrometer.  This is a 1" bore cylinder.  At various bore depth locations I got:

 

0.9965

0.9966

0.9974

0.9976

0.9984

0.9987

 

Thinking my cylinder is ok ok to clean up and re-use?

I think so, I am seeing only a taper of .0022". A light hone and it will most likely be perfectly serviceable.

[keithb7]

Thank you @classiccarjack. A cylinder hone was ordered along with a new (correct) MC rebuild kit. More waiting for parts to arrive. Off to Mexico for 10 days in the sun. When I get back I will have spring fever and be all over this job again. 

 

New Coker W/W radial tires were ordered this week. Back to the original equivalent stock tire size. Stock bias tires on my Windsor were 7.60x15. The tires on my car when i bought it were L78-15. A little taller and a little wider. I believe these were Imperial and NY'r sized tires.The previous owner had installed an extra washer on the steering knuckle arms to pull them away from the tire inner sidewall. The knuckles were making contact with the tire. To make the washers fit in place, the castle nut could not seat fully, so no cotter pin could be fit in place.The nuts were loctite'd in place. I checked them regularly. The owner did disclose the info at the time of sale. I knew I'd be replacing the tires soon enough, back to stock size. Makes little sense to me why someone would jeopardize safety in this case,  to save a few bucks by using incorrect sized tires.

[Bigtwin]

On 11/5/2017 at 9:39 PM, keithb7 said:

I have a question about proper measurement of the cylinder bore.

My 1953 Chrysler Shop Manual tells me the cylinder bore is 1 1/8". Then it reads that the piston to cylinder bore clearance is to be .003 to .0065". Should I remove the piston seal and place the piston in the bore, then try and measure this clearance with feeler gauges? Or maybe its better if I use an expanding t-gauge in the cylinder bore then measure it with a micrometer. Then measure the piston outer diameter with micrometer too. Then figure out the clearance?

The instructions go on to say that crocus cloth should clean up light corrosion. Black stains on the cylinder walls are caused by piston cups and will do no harm...Cool. Any scoring, heavy corrosion or scratches will need to be honed. However the cylinder bore should not be increased by .004".

This is my first time going this far into wheel pistons. Usually I just replace them. Your experience here, tells me to rebuild or resleeve my original cylinders instead of buying cheap import new ones. I agree. As always comments from your experience are appreciated. Thanks, Keith 

Keith,

 

I see that new wheel cylinders can be ordered, AC Delco brand.  Is the AC Delco brand a chinese manufactured?  BTW, I did get the 2 manuals you mentioned to me.  I need to check and see if my master cylinder bore is 1" or 1 1/8"...Rock auto lists both for my 53 New Yorker...Now that I look at it again, it has the 1 1/8 for the "8" passenger which I don't think the New Yorker is.

 

[keithb7]

If you go to your Blue manual. Page 58. Brakes, Data and Specifications it reads:

2nd column C-56 (your car NY'r) Master Cylinder Bore 1 1/8"

 

3rd column to right of page. For C60-2 (my car) and C-58 it reads:

1" Bore for C60-2 Windsor Deluxe

1 1/8" master cylinder bore for C-58 (Imperial)

 

This info supports what I found,  a 1" bore in my car.  I did not see this spec before I ordered my rebuild kit. You "Should" have the 1 1/8" as specified.

 

I ended up going with 2 modern built wheel cylinders. I went with the Chinese ones. I figure I probably won't be around to see the next set to wear out. LOL.

They are easy to change if needed. I rolled the dice on these I suppose. Time will tell.

 

Why don't I ship you my 1 1/8" master cylinder rebuild kit that I ordered in error?

Edited February 10, 2018 by keithb7

[ebruns1]

Hey Fellas,

I'm undertaking a complete overhaul of my D24 brakes as well and this thread has been very timely.  One thing I have heard is the superiority of the DOT5 brake fluid over the DOT3 as far as rust prevention for the future.  Have any of you guys used the DOT5 and have you found the claims to be true?  Would the DOT5 also keep the cylinders and pistons from pitting and scoring since it is silicon based and would not absorb water like the DOT3 fluid?  Since I have ripped out all lines, master and wheel cylinders I'm hoping to never have to re-do this again.  Maybe the DOT5 would also help with the cheap Chinese repop cylinders too?

 

PS - sorry for my ignorance as I'm still learning a lot (from you experts) but how does water get into the brake lines in the first place?  Isn't it a sealed system?

[keithb7]

I too have learned a few things along the way here. 

 

Brake fluid attracts water. Its in the air. Known as humidity. There is air in the brake system. We take the cap off the master cylinder to check it. There’s air in there.

 

My understanding is the moisture collects over the years and settles at the lowest point of a braking system. I found this to be true where the lower front wheel cylinder in my ‘53 appeared to have the most rusty water in it. See pic earlier in this thread. 

 

DOT5 is a great question. I’d like to know the answer here too. 

 

Brake fluid maintenance is a part of my regular routine while looking after all the vehicles in my family. My wife, sons, and my daily drivers. I monitor brake fluid color and flush it all out when it starts to turn a hint darker. I plan to do the same with my ‘53. However these old cars often sit for the winter. Mine does. The idle time, is a killer when there’s moisture in your brake system. It sits. It corrodes. Rust and pitting develop. Perhaps I shall flush out and change my brake fluid every 2-3 years as a precaution? I have been using DOT3. Maybe that’s too often?  

 

@ebruns1 did you pull out both of your front wheel brake lines? Were they under the rad and woven through various car parts and pieces? I am contemplating pulling mine. They appear to possibly be difficult to replace with engine in and car fully assembled. - Keith

Edited February 20, 2018 by keithb7

[Jerry Roberts]

1 hour ago, ebruns1 said:

... how does water get into the brake lines in the first place?  Isn't it a sealed system?

No it is not a sealed system . When you step on the brake pedal some brake fluid is pushed down to the wheel cylinders . That fluid is replaced by outside air as your master cylinder cap is vented for this purpose . The vent hole in your master cylinder cap and VERY small so you might not have noticed it . It is  located in the side of the very top of the fill cap . Newer master cylinders have a diaphram under the cap that is designed to colapse downward and to help prevent this problem of drawing in outside air . Because there is a vent hole in your fill cap , you don't want to completely fill your master cylinder as the fluid will splash out . 

[austinsailor]

1 hour ago, keithb7 said:

 

DOT5 is a great question. I’d like to know the answer here too. 

 

Brake fluid maintenance is a part of my regular routine while looking after all the vehicles in my family. My wife, sons, and my daily drivers. I monitor brake fluid color and flush it all out when it starts to turn a hint darker. I plan to do the same with my ‘53. However these old cars often sit for the winter. Mine does. The idle time, is a killer when there’s moisture in your brake system. It sits. It corrodes. Rust and pitting develop. Perhaps I shall flush out and change my brake fluid every 2-3 years as a precaution? I have been using DOT3. Maybe that’s too often?  

 

@ebruns1

 

I'm not an expert on this subject, but Whitepost is, so when I redid my 40 Dodge brakes (they've  sleeved all my cylinders on 3 vehicles) I asked them these questions. This may start a war, but what they told me was that dot 3 absorbs water, dot 5 does not. Absolutely do not use dot 5, as the water collects separately and causes corrosion. Dot 3 absorbs the water and keeps it from causing corrosion. There is a limit to the water it can absorb, so you must flush it occasionally. I don't recall them giving a time limit, but I do mine about every 3 years.

 

the advantage of dot 5 is it withstands much higher temperatures. So, i'd say if you are road racing your vintage Mopar and are anticipating the brake fluid boiling from heat, dot 5 is your answer.  But flush it often. 

 

I have a motorcycle that had dot 5 from the factory, it's intended for hard use. When I got it, as a normal maintenance thing, I flushed the brakes. I got fluid and water and a little trash. Very seperated. I have never seen that when flushing my Mopars which had dot 3.

 

if you have questions, call Whitepost and chat with them. I'm happy with my results, I'll stay out of any ensuing war.

[RobertKB]

I have also used Whitepost who sleeved all wheel cylinders and master cylinders on three of my cars over the last 15 years or so. I had replaced all steel and rubber lines as well. I used DOT 3 in all cars and never had a problem. Very happy with the results. Personally never been a fan of DOT 5 but I know people who are. No need for a war here as everyone has their beliefs and what works for them. Just got to respect that.

[keithb7]

Part of my brake job includes new Coker radials. Seen here beside my old bias tires. Decided on a little narrower W/W for the trial. I am interested to see how they work out. 

 

 

 

 

[Dodgeb4ya]

DOT 5 all the way for me.

Tired of brake cylinder corrosion and pitting with DOT 3 on my old cars. Every day drivers I still use DOT 3 or 4.

 Cunifer copper nickel brake line is corrosion resistant and used with DOT 5 a win win in my book.

If I lived in the arid desert I'd stick with DOT 3....4 and 4.5.

[laynrubber]

Great little job to do Keith. You will notice a big difference with braking after its back together. Even just a fresh fluid flush I noticed a firmer feel. Brake fluid is hydroscopic.....absorbs moisture. I would bet your current brake system is many years old, 2 to 3 years is a short interval but if you have the time it wouldn't hurt.

[Dartgame]

Been using DOT5 in my hobby cars for 20 years. The only issue with DOT 5 is it will tend to weep around imperfect seals, like copper washered banjo nuts - when you first assemble and bleed the system. Once you get fasteners tight enough, I’ve found the weeping fades and stops. An advantage to using DOT 3 or 4 in this case is that it picks moisture up at these imperfections and corrodes the sealing surfaces in place. If you don’t mind flushing the system periodically then DOT 3 or 4 is good. I choose not to, so DOT 5 for me. DOT 5 is also silicone oil which is hydrophobic (does not absorb moisture) and will not damage paint unlike DOT 3 or 4.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Dartgame

[ebruns1]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 10:23 AM, keithb7 said:

I too have learned a few things along the way here. 

 

Brake fluid attracts water. Its in the air. Known as humidity. There is air in the brake system. We take the cap off the master cylinder to check it. There’s air in there.

 

My understanding is the moisture collects over the years and settles at the lowest point of a braking system. I found this to be true where the lower front wheel cylinder in my ‘53 appeared to have the most rusty water in it. See pic earlier in this thread. 

 

DOT5 is a great question. I’d like to know the answer here too. 

 

Brake fluid maintenance is a part of my regular routine while looking after all the vehicles in my family. My wife, sons, and my daily drivers. I monitor brake fluid color and flush it all out when it starts to turn a hint darker. I plan to do the same with my ‘53. However these old cars often sit for the winter. Mine does. The idle time, is a killer when there’s moisture in your brake system. It sits. It corrodes. Rust and pitting develop. Perhaps I shall flush out and change my brake fluid every 2-3 years as a precaution? I have been using DOT3. Maybe that’s too often?  

 

@ebruns1 did you pull out both of your front wheel brake lines? Were they under the rad and woven through various car parts and pieces? I am contemplating pulling mine. They appear to possibly be difficult to replace with engine in and car fully assembled. - Keith

Keith,

All brake lines were pulled and trashed.  Someone even installed a copper tube as a replacement somewhere along the line!  Very dangerous...could have split at any time and might have led to disaster!  As this is a non-running new project for me I am replacing the entire brake system from top to bottom.  The car sat for at least 20 yrs. according to the previous owner who sold it to me so everything will need to be gone through completely.  My buddy is doing all the brake work so I don't know exactly how the lines are routed, only that mine were all trashed and will be 100% new when he is done.  PS - the car is fully assembled but I don't think the radiator and engine will impede replacement, but he has a lift so access could be easier than working from a creeper.

[keithb7]

Alright, I finally have time to get back at these brakes. Next question:

 

Cup that came out of MC is the one on the left. Brass washer seems to be part of the cup. New cup has no brass washer. Seen on right.

 

 

Washer is shown in diagram. Seen here with arrow I drew in.

 

 

I was able to peel brass washer off old cup. Shall I just place it between new cup and piston?

 

 

Next question. The following odd shaped washer was in my kit. I see no need for it. For another car model maybe? Anyone recognize it? Do I have a need for it?

 

 

Thanks in advance. - Keith

Edited February 23, 2018 by keithb7

[Dodgeb4ya]

The odd shaped washer fits in the  the M/cyl boot... supports it under the M/cyl boot retainer.

[keithb7]

Dang it. I put it all back together without that odd shaped washer. Pedals & linkage are all hooked back up. The odd washer was not used in the MC I took off. Nor could I find it shown it in any Chrysler diagram I viewed. Should I pull the rubber boot off again and install it?

 

I determined that the brass washer, from years of use, was darn near glued to the cup. It appeared to be part of the cup. It is not. I cleaned it up and re-used it. I assume it spaces the rubber cup from the piston relief holes. To allow brake fluid to seep through the holes as needed?

Edited February 24, 2018 by keithb7

[keithb7]

I got my new Coker radials mounted on my rims today. Back to stock size tires. There's just something about new tires on an old car.  They seem to help instantly transform the car to the showroom when it was new. I am happy with the look. The car is on axle stands here. Suspension and tires are hanging. The fenders will drop considerably I suspect, when the tire is on the ground, holding the car up.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by keithb7

[keithb7]

Exciting day. Wanted to share it here with folks who get it. I had to back my car out of the garage, and turn it around and then back it in. In order to gain access to the brakes on the other side of the car. (which was up tight against the wall)

Car is running great. Was nice to get it out of the garage and get a look at the new radials. I like 'em.

As you can tell by the pic, spring is a-ways-away around these parts. More brake work to go anyway. Left side now.  Come on Sun! Lets get this snow dealt with...

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by keithb7

[RobertKB]

Looks great! The tires are perfect. We have the same kind of wintry background here as well. Spring can not come soon enough.