• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Non Merc specific question on old fashioned brakes!

A post 1998 car?
No it’s a 1988 SE, pre litigation. It’s one of the latest ones before litigation by Caterham forced the changes to the body design in 1988. There were 605 SEs in total, dads is something like 540.
 
No it’s a 1988 SE, pre litigation. It’s one of the latest ones before litigation by Caterham forced the changes to the body design in 1988. There were 605 SEs in total, dads is something like 540.
In that case the only emissions test should have been a visual one - but I get the impression it was more than that?

''PETROL AND GAS POWERED VEHICLESVehicles to be testedIn-use exhaust emissions testing is applied to all petrol and gas-powered vehicleswith four or more wheels.The test does not apply to vehicles fitted with 2-stroke engines.The following types of vehicle will be considered as first used before 1 August 1975(Visual Test):• ****el rotary engined vehicles first used before 1 August 1987.• All kit-cars and amateur built vehicles first used before 1 August 1998.''

 
In that case the only emissions test should have been a visual one - but I get the impression it was more than that?

''PETROL AND GAS POWERED VEHICLESVehicles to be testedIn-use exhaust emissions testing is applied to all petrol and gas-powered vehicleswith four or more wheels.The test does not apply to vehicles fitted with 2-stroke engines.The following types of vehicle will be considered as first used before 1 August 1975(Visual Test):• ****el rotary engined vehicles first used before 1 August 1987.• All kit-cars and amateur built vehicles first used before 1 August 1998.''

Yes strange. It’s thought the car was built by the factory for hill climbing but then is also on a Q plate. Maybe it’s something to do with that, I might ask the garage. Records from Westfield for the early cars is pretty sketchy!
 
Yes strange. It’s thought the car was built by the factory for hill climbing but then is also on a Q plate. Maybe it’s something to do with that, I might ask the garage. Records from Westfield for the early cars is pretty sketchy!
Q plate is read as ''age unknown'' - that's what a guy from the DVLA told me. That was in relation to MOT emissions testing. A visual for excess smoke is all a Q plate car should be subjected to.
 
Hello all. Not a Merc specific question but may also be relevant to older Mercs.

I’m helping my Dad sort out the brakes on his pre-litigation Westfield and the trouble is we can’t remember how bad they were when they were working properly! It’s basically Escort Mk1 front disks and Escort Mk1 RS2000 rear drums with no brake booster on the master cylinder. I’ve changed the rear cylinders as these were both seized and adjusted the shoes.

Even after bleeding all corners using my pressure eezibleed the pedal would go to the floor. So I suspected a duff master, especially as it did have a small amount of black crud in the reservoir.

So, new master fitted and all bled through. Slightly better but pedal still goes to floor, albeit the car does actually stop ok. But I can’t help thinking the pedal should be firm from the start of the press.

I should add that the pedal doesn’t firm up with pumping, it stays just the same.

So could it be there is still some air in the system? In the master or lines? I did bleed through more than a litre in all. Might it need a bigger bore master to move more fluid?

The trouble is we can’t remember what it should be like, but I’m thinking the pedal should be firm from the off.

Any ideas greatly appreciated!
Have you adjusted the shoes so that you aren't taking up slack in them every time you apply the brakes ?

Sometimes there are manual adjusters , sometimes friction washers which stop them retracting too far .

Properly adjusted drum brakes , even non servoed , should be highly effective and you should have a firm pedal .
 
Have you adjusted the shoes so that you aren't taking up slack in them every time you apply the brakes ?

Sometimes there are manual adjusters , sometimes friction washers which stop them retracting too far .

Properly adjusted drum brakes , even non servoed , should be highly effective and you should have a firm pedal .
Yes they have adjusters but I think I can tighten them a bit more. I had it so they were just rubbing slightly but the guys at the garage doing the mot said they could be a bit tighter so I’ll try that. 👍
 
Yes they have adjusters but I think I can tighten them a bit more. I had it so they were just rubbing slightly but the guys at the garage doing the mot said they could be a bit tighter so I’ll try that. 👍
You have a fair degree of latitude as the drum will expand with heat so any initial rubbing will lessen in motion. Just so long as it's not so severe as to cause fade but there's little enough chance of that.
While trying to eliminate lost pedal travel, ensure minimal play in front wheel bearings (in this case) to prevent pad knock-off.
An astoundingly good pedal is on offer here - with the absence of both servo and ABS mush. I'm envious - I drive a GMT400. Enough said!

edit PS: Often overlooked with drum brake maintenance is that the shoes rub against the back plate pulled in by the locating springs. Wear in the backplate at this point can intrude on proper operation and, affect the initial adjustment. With a single wheel cylinder system and single adjuster it's possible to have one shoe rubbing the drum and not notice that the other shoe is hanging up on a worn backplate, hanging up that is only overcome with pedal pressure and the consequent long pedal as that shoe was never properly adjusted. Twin leading shoes are easier from that perspective as each shoe has its own adjuster and thus any hanging up is detectable and can be addressed.
 
Last edited:
You have a fair degree of latitude as the drum will expand with heat so any initial rubbing will lessen in motion. Just so long as it's not so severe as to cause fade but there's little enough chance of that.
While trying to eliminate lost pedal travel, ensure minimal play in front wheel bearings (in this case) to prevent pad knock-off.
An astoundingly good pedal is on offer here - with the absence of both servo and ABS mush. I'm envious - I drive a GMT400. Enough said!

edit PS: Often overlooked with drum brake maintenance is that the shoes rub against the back plate pulled in by the locating springs. Wear in the backplate at this point can intrude on proper operation and, affect the initial adjustment. With a single wheel cylinder system and single adjuster it's possible to have one shoe rubbing the drum and not notice that the other shoe is hanging up on a worn backplate, hanging up that is only overcome with pedal pressure and the consequent long pedal as that shoe was never properly adjusted. Twin leading shoes are easier from that perspective as each shoe has its own adjuster and thus any hanging up is detectable and can be addressed.
Good advice, thanks! I’m looking forward to having a play tomorrow. I did research whether it would be worth adding a servo (remote) and on the Westfield/Caterham forums there were cries of nooooo! On account of losing that direct feel T the pedal.
 
Good advice, thanks! I’m looking forward to having a play tomorrow. I did research whether it would be worth adding a servo (remote) and on the Westfield/Caterham forums there were cries of nooooo! On account of losing that direct feel T the pedal.
From memory of a very similar set-up the pedal force required is more than usual - but only really a downside if routinely jumping between different cars. That said, jumping into a Seven type is so different from anything else the mental adjustment comes easily.
One more thing to keep an eye out for is that there are no leaks at the various pipe unions due to chassis flex. I had to loop the pipes from the master cylinder to cure that.
 
Pure coincidence, but the photo below just appeared on another forum I frequent. Shows where and how the shoes bear on the backlate.

1750441338393.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom