Brake Questions

[Matt Wilson]

Hello all,

 

I'm planning the dual master cylinder upgrade for my '49 Power Wagon, and after doing a LOT of reading, I've learned a lot, but still have a few questions.

 

First, a little background info.  I plan to use the factory drum setup at all four wheels (at least for now), and I plan to install a Toyota master cylinder (for a 1992 - 94 Camry), which has the common three-bolt mounting pattern used on many Toyotas, which is very similar to the original Power Wagon mount pattern.  In other words, the new master cylinder will be in the same location as the original, which is down low (not high, like the firewall-mounted types going on later vehicles).

 

1)  I've read a number of sources, including the forums on this website, that say four-wheel drum setups on other vehicles do not require proportioning valves.  Mostly, no explanation for this is offered, but in a few instances, the explanation is that the wheel cylinders were sized from the factory so that the rear brakes would produce less braking force than the front brakes (i.e., smaller wheel cylinder bores in the rear than in the front), thereby eliminating the risk of rear wheel lockup doing hard stops.  In the case of the Power Wagon, however, the wheel cylinders are the same in the rear and on the front, so do you all agree that a proportioning valve is appropriate?

 

2)  Based on what I've read, it seems it would be best to use residual pressure valves, and as I understand it, the factory master cylinder had such a valve.  Use of valves rated for 10 psi seems to be the general consensus for drum brakes, at least as a starting point.  When I look into the two outlet ports of the new master, I see conical brass pieces.  Are these the residual pressure valves?  If so, I suspect I should remove at least one of them, if not both, before installing my own, but how do I do this?  The Camry of that era has disc brakes at least in the front, and some have discs in the rear too, but they all seem to use the same master cylinder (it appears that the only time a different master is needed is when the car is equipped with four wheel ABS).  With all this on mind, I know I'll need a higher pressure residual valve at least in the front (disc) outlet port, since valves for discs are set up for only about 2 psi, and I might possibly need one at the other port too (if it's set up for discs).  If I can't determine whether the new master has residual pressure valves, or if I can't remove them, is there any issue with going ahead and adding my valves anyway?

 

3)  I can't tell which port of the new master goes to the front brakes and which one goes to the rears.  I would normally assume that the front outlet goes to the front and the rear to the rear, but the guy at O'Reilly said something about the ports being the opposite of this.  I don't know if he was right or not, but I figured I should find out.  How do I tell?  Does it really matter, if both use the same bore size and I'm going to install my own residual pressure valves anyway?

 

4)  The bore of the new master is 1", whereas the factory master cylinder bore is 1-1/4".  This means braking will require less pedal effort for a given amount of braking force at the wheels, but will it also mean more pedal travel than the original?  It seems that it shouldn't, since there are now two pistons pushing fluid out to the wheels, instead of just one, even though they are each smaller pistons that the original one.  In other words, the two 1" pistons are each supplying two wheels, rather than the single 1-1/4" piston supplying all four wheels.

 

5)  I've read that some vehicles have split the brake circuits not into front and rear, but into LH-FWD/RH-AFT and RH-FWD/LH-AFT.  Is this something I should consider doing, since I have the opportunity?  I can see some advantages, meaning you'd always have at least one front brake working, but there must be some reason most manufacturers don't do that.

 

Any info and insight is appreciated.  Thanks in advance!

Edited January 9, 2023 by Matt Wilson

[Los_Control]

Hello Matt, curious if you have found any answers to your questions?

I just ran across your post while searching for a answer to the residual pressure valves.

 

I also plan to use drum brakes. And am wondering what to do about the built in valves on the Toyota master cylinder?

If nothing else bring your question back to the top for more views.

[Dave72dt]

Those brass pieces may be valves or they may be simply the seat for the brake lines.  Years ago those seats were replaced when rebuilding the master and came with the rebuild kit, sometimes with a couple of sheet metal screws used to pull the old ones out.  Maybe a call to the Toyota dealer's service tech is in order.  I suspect non ABS cars use a combination residual/proportioning valve and ABS vehicles can be had in 2 or 4 wheel.  The front brakes are usually fed by the rear chamber of the reservoir. Some research of dual master hydraulic functioning may give you a better understanding of how it applies to drum/drum, disc/drum and disc/disc combinations.

[Los_Control]

I found with my chebby truck, the larger rear reservoir feeds the front disk brakes ..... guessing the calipers require more fluid then the rear wheel cylinders.

 

Where I'm lost at is .... I know nothing about the proportioning valves or how to choose correct one for my application .... Drums front & rear.

 

I see what @lostvikingdid, and it looks great .... I think they were using disk brakes up front.

 

 

Then another reported that after talking to scarebird this was not needed, using their disk brake swap .... the master cylinder would take care of it?

The Toyota master is setup for disk/drums for the 1991 Camry ....

 

So this is where I'm lost .... what happens if I just install the master cylinder without any mods or aftermarket proportioning valve? For my Drum brakes.

 

Just trying to understand the system so can order correct parts.

 

[kencombs]

5 hours ago, Los_Control said:

I found with my chebby truck, the larger rear reservoir feeds the front disk brakes ..... guessing the calipers require more fluid then the rear wheel cylinders.

 

Where I'm lost at is .... I know nothing about the proportioning valves or how to choose correct one for my application .... Drums front & rear.

 

I see what @lostvikingdid, and it looks great .... I think they were using disk brakes up front.

 

 

Then another reported that after talking to scarebird this was not needed, using their disk brake swap .... the master cylinder would take care of it?

The Toyota master is setup for disk/drums for the 1991 Camry ....

 

So this is where I'm lost .... what happens if I just install the master cylinder without any mods or aftermarket proportioning valve? For my Drum brakes.

 

Just trying to understand the system so can order correct parts.

 

I think you'll be fine.  Don't recall ever seeing a factory drum/drum setup with a proportioning valve.   The only question I have is the possible lack of a residual pressure valve in both ports of the Toyota.  Maybe locate an exploded view of the one you're using?

[kencombs]

On 1/8/2023 at 9:02 PM, Matt Wilson said:

Hello all,

 

I'm planning the dual master cylinder upgrade for my '49 Power Wagon, and after doing a LOT of reading, I've learned a lot, but still have a few questions.

 

First, a little background info.  I plan to use the factory drum setup at all four wheels (at least for now), and I plan to install a Toyota master cylinder (for a 1992 - 94 Camry), which has the common three-bolt mounting pattern used on many Toyotas, which is very similar to the original Power Wagon mount pattern.  In other words, the new master cylinder will be in the same location as the original, which is down low (not high, like the firewall-mounted types going on later vehicles).

 

1)  I've read a number of sources, including the forums on this website, that say four-wheel drum setups on other vehicles do not require proportioning valves.  Mostly, no explanation for this is offered, but in a few instances, the explanation is that the wheel cylinders were sized from the factory so that the rear brakes would produce less braking force than the front brakes (i.e., smaller wheel cylinder bores in the rear than in the front), thereby eliminating the risk of rear wheel lockup doing hard stops.  In the case of the Power Wagon, however, the wheel cylinders are the same in the rear and on the front, so do you all agree that a proportioning valve is appropriate?  Well it's not really the cylinders as much as it drum and lining size.  In the vast majority of drum systems the rear will be smaller diameter or narrower shoes than the front.

 

2)  Based on what I've read, it seems it would be best to use residual pressure valves, and as I understand it, the factory master cylinder had such a valve.  Use of valves rated for 10 psi seems to be the general consensus for drum brakes, at least as a starting point.  When I look into the two outlet ports of the new master, I see conical brass pieces.  Are these the residual pressure valves?  If so, I suspect I should remove at least one of them, if not both, before installing my own, but how do I do this?  The Camry of that era has disc brakes at least in the front, and some have discs in the rear too, but they all seem to use the same master cylinder (it appears that the only time a different master is needed is when the car is equipped with four wheel ABS).  With all this on mind, I know I'll need a higher pressure residual valve at least in the front (disc) outlet port, since valves for discs are set up for only about 2 psi, and I might possibly need one at the other port too (if it's set up for discs).  If I can't determine whether the new master has residual pressure valves, or if I can't remove them, is there any issue with going ahead and adding my valves anyway?

 eSee if you can find an exploded view of that master,  That should show what is there from the factory.

3)  I can't tell which port of the new master goes to the front brakes and which one goes to the rears.  I would normally assume that the front outlet goes to the front and the rear to the rear, but the guy at O'Reilly said something about the ports being the opposite of this.  I don't know if he was right or not, but I figured I should find out.  How do I tell?  Does it really matter, if both use the same bore size and I'm going to install my own residual pressure valves anyway?   No experience with the Toy, but on most disk/drum factory setups the larger reservoir serves the front and it is usually the rear port.  The one I'm installing is a new one for a 70s Dodge PU, disk/drum with a larger port and line for the fronts, in the rear of the master.  Using that as I'm installing hanging pedals from a 60 Dodge.

 

4)  The bore of the new master is 1", whereas the factory master cylinder bore is 1-1/4".  This means braking will require less pedal effort for a given amount of braking force at the wheels, but will it also mean more pedal travel than the original?  It seems that it shouldn't, since there are now two pistons pushing fluid out to the wheels, instead of just one, even though they are each smaller pistons that the original one.  In other words, the two 1" pistons are each supplying two wheels, rather than the single 1-1/4" piston supplying all four wheels.  That is correct as the relative area of the wheel and master cylinders determines the total force, volume is immaterial.

 

5)  I've read that some vehicles have split the brake circuits not into front and rear, but into LH-FWD/RH-AFT and RH-FWD/LH-AFT.  Is this something I should consider doing, since I have the opportunity?  I can see some advantages, meaning you'd always have at least one front brake working, but there must be some reason most manufacturers don't do that.  I can think of no good reason to do that. 

 

Any info and insight is appreciated.  Thanks in advance!

 

[Los_Control]

8 hours ago, kencombs said:

I think you'll be fine.  Don't recall ever seeing a factory drum/drum setup with a proportioning valve.  

Thanks Ken, gives me a direction to look.

What I have found from Toyotanation.com, rebuild instructions for a 1991-1994 Camry master cylinder ...... The images show a 2 bolt mounting .... they are 3 bolt though.

Top image without ABS is what I would use.

 

 

Here is a rebuild kit. Nowhere does it say residual valve .... thinking they may be built in .... comparing to our original master cylinder.

 

 

One other thing, they talk about is the distribution block .... 3 way W/O ABS .... 2 way with ABS.

Really throws a monkey wrench in the works .... without it you have 2 lines front/rear .... easy peasy.

 

Seems to be part of the brake lines, would this be the proportioning valve for the disk brakes and not needed?

 

 

[Los_Control]

I just wanted to add my experience to wrap up my questions.

Fitting the master cylinder was very easy. .... some say you wobble out 1 hole .... I wobbled out all 3 holes a little bit. Room for adjustment.

 

I did shorten my brake pedal rod as short as it would go .... I still needed to cut off aprox 3/4" .... then it fit comfortably.

Then I ground the end to replicate the original bullet shaped end ..... Now it fits inside the dimple on the master cylinder & needs to be adjusted 1/4" to take up the slop.

To me that is perfect .... plenty of adjustment available on the rod.

 

The real trick to the conversion is the metric sized lines for the MC.

I found some bushings that are American thread, they are a little sloppy threading them in to the metric MC.

But when the seal in the center hits, they tighten right up fine. .... I used teflon tape on the threads to tighten it up when installing .... once seated I gave 3/4 of a turn to cinch them down tight .... no issues. ..... They are now converted to 1/4" NPT threads for standard brake lines.

 

Again I'm running drum brakes all 4 corners. No proportioning valve. ..... I suspect disk brakes you would need to add the valve.

As is, my pedal is rock solid & locks up the brakes when wanted ...... still not highway driving though for a more accurate report.

I'm very pleased how simple & easy it was to add a dual stage MC to our old trucks.

[Jim Roach]

How did you determine the amount to be taken off the length of the brake pedal rod?

[lostviking]

Los_Control mimics what I did also, just that I have disks up front. You don't need the prop valve with all drums. It keeps the rears from locking up before the fronts. I've heard from 3/4 to 1 inch for the rod. I just cut off 1/2 tested and then had to cut a bit more off...easier than welding it back on.

 

For the metric/ASE brake line fittings, I bought the correct fittings (ASE in my case) and epoxied them into the master cylinder. That's the brown looking material you see right by the alum/brass edge. I used Armstrong A12, because I trust it for just about anything.

 

I didn't need residual valves because of my PV2 proportioning valve. I believe you will need them on your setup.

[Los_Control]

Welll this old hillbilly ....

 

What I did is adjust the rod as short as it would go.

Once the MC was mounted .... was obvious the rod was too long ..... The brakes would be applied if you ever got it installed.

 

So I cut a 1/4" off the rod ... still too long ... I cut another 1/4" off ... nope .... another 1/4" I was able to slide the rod in position.

It was tight, but able to fit it.

 

Satisfied I then took the rod to my bench grinder and created the original bullet shaped tip on it. .... The rod is wider then the hole on the MC.

So when I created the bullet shape point on the rod, it now fits into the MC & I have 3/8" of slop .... 2" of adjustment.

Just saying I snuck up on it and a little at a time. ....

 

Just a informal guide on installing the master cylinder .... If you are going to use disk brakes and require a proportioning valve.

You still need a MC, the lines and proportioning valves are out of my scope here.

[Matt Wilson]

Hello All,

 

I’m finally getting back to this thread.  Life has gotten in the way and I have not been on the forums here much in the past couple of months.  I did get on for a few weeks after my initial post, but didn’t get any replies for a while at first, and then life got busy and I hardly checked in for quite some time.  Now I’m back, and I see quite a few responses, and I appreciate all of you who have provided input.

 

In the last couple of weeks, I’ve done a few things related to this brake project, including doing some more reading online.

 

As I said before, I’m using a 1992 – 1994 Toyota Camry master cylinder with a 1” bore.  The p/n is NMC-11328, from O’Reilly Auto Parts (see photo).  As mentioned by others, the mounting bolt pattern for this era of Toyota master cylinders is very close to the original Dodge factory bolt pattern.  It only required a little wallowing or whittling out of the holes to make it a good match to the factory pattern (master cylinder with my mods to the bolt pattern is shown in one of the photos).  All three holes had to be extended toward the center of the master cylinder by something like 1/16” (I don’t recall the exact amount), but that still leaves plenty of meat for strength.  My modification isn’t the prettiest but will work just fine.

 

I never found anything definitive regarding the brake line routing of the early 90’s Camry, to answer my question about whether the rear reservoir supplies the front brakes and vice-versa, but I’ve seen enough posts by people on various forums to give me confidence that this is a fairly common practice across different makes, so I decided to proceed with that assumption.  Then after learning some more about brake systems, I don’t think it matters anyway for my situation.  It seems that there are two main reasons it would matter for cars originally set up with dual M/C and a disc/drum combination.  One is that the larger reservoir (whether front or rear) needs to supply the disc brakes because discs require more fluid volume than drums.  My ’49 Power Wagon has drums all the way around, so that’s not an issue.  Second reason relates to residual pressure valves that could be different from front to rear (or non-existent) for the Toyota system.  I plan to install externally mounted residual pressure valves (external to the M/C), so I don’t think this is an issue either.  (For some background, what I’ve learned through reading various sources is that residual pressure can be a necessity for either disc brakes (in some situations) or drum brakes (in many situations).  For discs, it’s needed when the M/C is mounted below the level of the calipers, to prevent fluid in the caliper from flowing back into the M/C when the brakes are not in use, which would result in excessive pedal travel the next time the brakes are needed.  A 2-psi valve is all that's usually in those instances.  The M/C is mounted higher than the calipers on the Camry, and on most production vehicles, so residual pressure is probably not considered an issue and this M/C probably does not contain a residual pressure valve for the disc brake circuit.  This is more often a concern for custom-built/street rod/race cars that have their M/C mounted low in the car.  On the other hand, a residual pressure valve is usually needed for drum brakes, regardless of M/C placement on the car, to prevent air from seeping into the system past the wheel cylinder cups when the brakes are not in use.  A 10-psi valve is commonly used for drum brakes).

 

That brings me to the residual pressure valve specifics for my system.  As mentioned above, all my brakes are drums, so I plan to use a 10-psi residual pressure valve mounted externally to the M/C.  I purchased two residual pressure valves from Wilwood, both being p/n 260-13784 (see photo).  Each valve comes with the brass fittings shown, which I’ve screwed into the valves at this point.  Based on what I said above, there’s a reasonable likelihood that the Toyota M/C has a residual pressure valve for the outlet going to the drums, but I don’t know for sure.  I had a hard time finding anything to tell me whether it’s ok to install these externally mounted valves when there may already be an internal valve in one outlet of the M/C, but I did eventually run across a forum post (different website, not here) by someone who seems knowledgeable, and he said there’s no issue with this, as the effect of the valves is not cumulative.  That is what I would expect as well.  Nonetheless, I will call Wilwood next week to confirm.

 

Another decision I had to make (referring to a question from my original post) was the configuration of the split system (i.e., front/rear split or diagonal split).  I’ve decided to split it front vs. rear.  I didn’t get much response about this when I asked in my initial post, except from one respondent who didn’t see the value in it.  The value, as I understand it, is that a failure in either circuit will still always leave you with one operating front brake (plus one rear brake, of course), unlike the front-rear split systems that can leave you with only two rear brakes if the front system goes out.  As we know, rear brakes are not as effective at stopping a vehicle as front brakes, so I can see the appeal of a diagonally split system.  I have read that some manufacturers do the diagonal split, but I don’t think it’s common, so maybe that’s an indication that it’s not substantially better, or that there are other issues with it.  A potential downside is that it may result in a hard steering pull to the left or the right when braking with only one working circuit.  I read about this on one or two forums, and I don’t know if that was speculation or known fact, but it seems to make sense that this could happen.  Even when both front brakes are working properly but are slightly out of adjustment relative to each other, the steering will pull to one side or the other.  So I can imagine that it would be much worse when one of your front brakes is completely gone.  Finally, splitting the system diagonally makes things more complicated, and even much more so if I were ever to decide to add proportioning valves for the rear brakes.

 

Which brings me to the proportioning valve.  For now, I’ve decided to forgo that, given that most factory four-wheel drum systems never had them.  At some point, I will take the truck to a gravel road or a large, open, wet parking lot and see if the rears lock up sooner than the fronts.  That will help guide me on whether to add a proportioning valve or not.

 

The next photo shows the M/C input rod that I fabricated, sitting next to the stock (factory) piece.  The front of this rod goes into the back of the M/C piston, and at the opposite end, it threads onto the clevis rod that connects to the brake pedal.  It is what allows adjustment of pedal free play.  As you can see, the fabricated piece is about 7/8” shorter than the factory parts (similar to the ¾” shorter length mentioned by a couple of you guys), and it’s also smaller in diameter (~0.395” vs. ~0.435” for the factory part) to allow it to fit properly into the back of the Toyota M/C piston.  I decided to make my own rod, rather than modifying the factory part, as I tend to shy away from permanently modifying factory parts that may be hard to find (more about that below).  I bought a ½” fine thread Grade 8 bolt, cut the head off, threaded it into a coupling nut of the same thread size and pitch, and welded the two together.  This thread is required to fit it to the factory clevis rod coming off the brake pedal.  The amount I threaded the bolt into the coupling nut was such that the clevis coming of the brake pedal would thread into the other end of the coupling nut the same amount that it goes into the factory input rod before bottoming out.  This also ensured that quite a few threads were engaged between the bolt and the coupling nut.  Once welded, I chucked the assembly in my lathe and turned down the outside diameter of the bolt and then used a fairly coarse flat file to round off the nose where it does into the M/C.  I also used a half-round file to smooth up most of the weld material, and a rat-tail file (round file) to create a groove toward the rear of the nut portion, like the groove in the factory rod, so that the rubber dust boot (see photo) can be secured to it.  All of this was followed up with sand paper (220 grit?) to give it a decent finish.  The nice thing is that the boot is the one that came off the single circuit factory M/C that was previously used on this truck.  It fits quite well on the new rod and it also fits very nicely onto the lip at the back of the Toyota M/C.  The rod is not 100% pretty, but I’m very pleased with the way it turned out.  Of course, the way things go, I found out shortly afterward that Vintage Power Wagons sells newly made input rods (they call it a brake master cylinder piston push rod), so I could have modified my original part after all (or a newly purchased one), and not worried about depleting the world’s supply of rods, LOL.  Oh, well, it was fun to fab my own piece.

 

I should note that I checked the stroke of the new M/C vs. the full throw of the input rod (with all proper pedal adjustments made), and they are nearly identical, both being about 1.5”.  There was actually about 1/16” difference between the two, but it seems like that should be good.  You don’t want the pedal to bottom out before it reaches the full stroke of the new M/C.

 

Next post discusses the hard line installation for the new M/C.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Matt Wilson

[Matt Wilson]

As I mentioned in my above novela, I am at the point of bending and flaring my brake tubing.  I decided to use nickel-copper tubing, as it is easier to bend and flare than steel tubing.  Also, its corrosion resistant properties are a big plus, and I could use the double flaring tool that I already had in my toolbox, which is only rated for metals softer than steel.  So I started flaring some tubing to make one of my lines that comes out of the Toyota master cylinder (3/16" tubing with 10mm x 1.0 fittings).  The flaring tool made lovely inverted double flares, but left a terrible finish on the outside of the tubing, as shown in the photo.  This is not even the worst one.  I did some polishing on the worst one without getting a pic of it.  You can see the tool in the photo.  It's the typical clamp type that has threads in each hole to grip the tubing.  I tried lessening the amount of clamp-up on the wing nuts, but that didn't help much.  I also tried masking tape and then, later, duct tape wrapped around tube.  I tried a single, then later a double, then later a triple wrap of these tapes.  None of those worked.  I don't want to use the tubing in that condition.  I think those marks could be sources for cracks at some point, so not a good "feature" for a brake system.  So I'm at the point where I need to find a better tool. 

 

I found some contenders on Amazon, but I'd like to hear what you guys recommend.  Do you guys know of a double flaring tool that will NOT leave any marks, gouges, distortions, etc., on the tubing, even if it's nickel-copper tubing?  It needs to handle 3/16" tubing with metric and SAE (3/8" x 24) fittings, and also 1/4" tubing with 7/16" x 24 thread fittings.

 

Thanks!

[Lingle]

great work!  I have not found a flare tool that doesn't leave some sort of marking, specifically on ni-cop tubing since it is fairly soft material.  I have a older snap-on brand flare tool for English sized tubing and it leaves some marks on ni-cop but none on other tube material types

[Matt Wilson]

On 4/17/2023 at 7:38 AM, Lingle said:

great work!  I have not found a flare tool that doesn't leave some sort of marking, specifically on ni-cop tubing since it is fairly soft material.  I have a older snap-on brand flare tool for English sized tubing and it leaves some marks on ni-cop but none on other tube material types

 

Thanks!  I know my post is exceptionally lengthy, but I wanted to document and detail everything I'm doing as a reference for others who might want to do the same conversion to their vehicles.

 

I have an update on the residual pressure valves.  I spoke to a tech rep at Wilwood this afternoon, who said there's no issue with "piggybacking" the valves (i.e., installing an external valve, even if there is already an internal valve on the Toyota M/C).  I suppose that's the case as long as I'm not trying to install a lower pressure external valve when there is already a higher pressure internal valve, but that's not the case on my situation.

 

Thanks also for the reply on the flaring tool.  There's a tool on Amazon that looks promising, but it would be nice to get suggestions from folks who have successfully used a flaring tool on nickel-copper tubing without chewing up the outside of the tube.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Matt Wilson

[bkahler]

Matt, this is the first Flaring Tool that I've owned that actually works well and is easy to use.  I thought the price was reasonable for a decent flaring tool.

 

Brad

[Matt Wilson]

On 4/18/2023 at 10:57 AM, bkahler said:

Matt, this is the first Flaring Tool that I've owned that actually works well and is easy to use.  I thought the price was reasonable for a decent flaring tool.

 

Brad

Thanks, Brad.  I decided to order the one you recommended, instead of the much more expensive one I was eyeballing.  It mostly got good reviews.  There were a couple of reviews that said they had difficulty flaring 1/4" nickel/copper tubing, which is one of the sizes and types I'm using.   However, there were a couple of other reviews that said it worked great on 1/4" nickel/copper tubing.  That's kind of the same for the more expensive one, though, too.  I figured I'd go ahead and give this one a try.  I'll update this thread as I make more progress.

[TFC]

My two cents:  This is a bit late as you have ordered a tool.  I have used/tried various flaring tools over the years with mixed results.  When I got my 52 B3B a few years back and realized I need to replace all the brake and fuel lines I went for a good tool, one that worked quickly and easily, it was a good choice and so worth the money.

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/kti-70081?seid=srese1&ppckw=pmax-tools&gclid=Cj0KCQjwxYOiBhC9ARIsANiEIfZPUzPl2EWosXE200qeB7ZxNF9Vn3dvsoYX3weYiEUtxcFfGJsjj8AaAqn6EALw_wcB

[Matt Wilson]

3 hours ago, TFC said:

My two cents:  This is a bit late as you have ordered a tool.  I have used/tried various flaring tools over the years with mixed results.  When I got my 52 B3B a few years back and realized I need to replace all the brake and fuel lines I went for a good tool, one that worked quickly and easily, it was a good choice and so worth the money.

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/kti-70081?seid=srese1&ppckw=pmax-tools&gclid=Cj0KCQjwxYOiBhC9ARIsANiEIfZPUzPl2EWosXE200qeB7ZxNF9Vn3dvsoYX3weYiEUtxcFfGJsjj8AaAqn6EALw_wcB

Thanks, TFC.  I had been considering this one, or one like it, on Amazon, but decided to try the one I ordered.  We'll see how it works out.  The upsides to the one I ordered are that it's less expensive and at least in some cases, it should be usable on the vehicle.  The main downside that I know of so far is that it only works for two tubing sizes, as opposed to the one you bought, which can be used for more sizes.  Anyway, we'll see how it goes.  If it doesn't work out, I'm pretty sure I can return it.  Thanks!

Edited April 20, 2023 by Matt Wilson

[bkahler]

Matt, previously I used one of the flaring tools like you showed previously and it was a struggle, for every joint.  I did several vehicles that way.  I thought I was done with my B3 and then I had to change a couple of brake line pipes and I finally just said screw it and bought the one I mentioned.  I saw a Youtuber, I think it was Watch Wes Work, who used one of them and gave it a reasonable review.  I found it extremely easy and fast to use.  I didn't want to remove one of the lines from the truck and this new flaring tool made that a simple job.  I think you'll be please with it.

 

Brad