Brake repair story

[Johnnywiffer]

[N8N]

The *rear* brake shoes for a 54-up should be a FLAPS part, it's the fronts that you have to buy from the vendors. No reason you can't try it again tomorrow if you call the right store.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[gordr]

Well, measure them, and then find a brake manufacturer's application guide, and see if you can match them up. There aren't THAT MANY different styles of brake shoe webs in North American cars.

If the shoes are too big, diameter-wise, to fit the Land Cruiser's 10-inch rear drum, they might be 11-inch shoes for the front, that got boxed wrong. If they are too big, width-wise, they might be front shoes for a Champion.

Another thing to look for: see if there is a 3-digit number stamped into the web of any of the shoes. Like 154 or 177 or whatever. Those numbers can be related to applications, too.

If they are good shoes, and you can determine what vehicle(s) they fit, you should be able to find a buyer for them.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

[Johnnywiffer]

Didn't measure them but they look to be maybe a half inch narrower than the fronts I also got on Ebay. The rears are just all trailing shoes. The trailing shoe has a tang that the spring fits onto. The leading shoe has a hole and you fit the spring inside it. These didn't have that hole, so I drilled one. The spring fit in the hole OK but the set-up itself was too big. The picture in the manual shows the Champion which has the tang on both shoes, so you can imagine it was confusing trying to look at the picture but see the set-up I had, which was different.

I'd think that having 4 trailing shoes wouldn't make a difference, diameter-wise. But it did. When I put the new shoes (metal part) against the old ones, the shoes themselves (not the lining) were a smaller diameter. About a half inch or so (didn't measure them, just put them side by side).

Even putting the adjuster all the way small made no difference. I can look for the PN and might know more then. As I said, I have the PN from the vendor/rebuilder on the box. Thot I'd call them tomorrow and get the story. Certainly was a drag going thru the rigamarole of removing the drum then finding out the shoes didn't fit.

Did anyone ever tell ya, "life ain't fair"?

John

[Johnnywiffer]

I've finally decided what was SUPPOSED to be for the rear of a Commander seems to be actually for the front of a Champion. Either way, I went to O'Reilly and within 2 hours, had the correct shoes and no core charge either (SI wants $100!) Installed (on at least ONE side).

However, it seems it's gonna take Gargantua to get the drum off the OTHER side. Took overnite for the 1st side. I tried the "loosen-the-axle-nut-and-drive-around-the-block" but it's more stubborn than that. Oh well, keeps me outta bars!

John

[N8N]

I thought commander rear/champion front were the same? or was it different in '54? (the only hard info I have is 55-up)

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Johnnywiffer]

I really don't know. But I do know that according to the shop manual, the Champions have a "tang" on each shoe and these do. As far as I remember, the Commander only has a "tang" on the secondary shoe.

The spring on the secondary shoe fits into the tang and stretches over to the post. The spring on the primary shoe goes into a hole in the shoe, then stretches to the post. Plus, these appear to both be secondary shoes. Dunno what that means but they sure didn't fit the rear of my LC.

John

[Tom Bredehoft]

The Chassis parts catalog, 51 thru 54, page 208 shows the 5H rear brakes. The primary shoe has a tang for the return spring. I've just done the rear brakes on my 55 President and the brakes seem to be exactly like the picture in the parts catalog.

My rear brakes are 10 in diameter and the front are 11, standard Commander brakes. The primary and secondary shoes are exactly alike except for the longer shoe on the secondary.

[img=left]http://www.alink.com/personal/tbredehoft/Bothcars4.jpg[/img=left]
Tom Bredehoft
'53 Commander Coupe
'55 President State Sedan
(Under Construction) 136 hrs.
'05 Legacy Ltd Wagon
All Indiana built cars

[Johnnywiffer]

[leyrret]

I have no knowledge of 54 brakes, but I assumed they were same as later.
That extra hole you speak of is used for self- adjustment lever mounting
on later axles with self adjusting brakes. According to the parts book
in 54 there was a change to equal length shoes(used 4-535148 secondary shoes, riveted linings on commander) which seems to have carried through to at least 58 on some heavy duty applications. Springs for both primary
and secondary shoes are same Number.

[Johnnywiffer]

Dunno what it's gonna take to explain this but I thot putting the pix would make everyone understand.

The set-up on MY brakes is DIFFERENT from the picture in the manual. That is because:

The return spring on the primary shoe IN MY SET-UP is NOT the same LENGTH as the return spring on the secondary shoe.

On MY primary shoe, the spring does NOT go from the tang to the post. It goes from the HOLE to the post. Did someone change it in the past? Dunno why they would. But the springs ON MY SET-UP could NOT possibly have the same # because they are NOT the same. Maybe mine is the ONLY car in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE with this set-up. DUNNO!

I'm not gonna take my brakes apart AGAIN to take a pic and show the difference, but when I do the other side, I WILL.

I AM NOT CRAZY (I hope) and many people have told me I'm NOT as stupid as I look! But the rear brake set-up on my 1954 Land Cruiser is not the same as the one shown in the manual. That picture DOES seem to show the return springs are the same. On MY car, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!

The point of this whole post was that the original shoes I had bought on Ebay DID NOT FIT the setup on my car, primarily, I thot, because there was no hole in the shoes, AS THERE WAS in the shoes originally on the car.

AND there are holes (AND TANGS) in the shoes I got from O'Reilly. So SOMEONE thot the holes are necessary BECAUSE THEY ARE THERE. Whether for the self-adjusting parts OR ONLY MY CAR, dunno. Maybe MY car is unique and there is no other set-up like mine and they put the holes in there because ONLY MINE needed them. DUNNO!

But when I put the new brakes from O'Reilly on my car, using the springs I have, WHICH ARE NOT THE SAME, in the original locations, THEY WORK.

All this jazz about parts and parts #s makes NO DIFFERENCE to MY brakes. They know what they are and ON MY BRAKES the return springs ARE NOT THE SAME AND COULD NOT HAVE THE SAME #.

Merry Christmas and good nite!

John

[Johnnywiffer]

[Johnnywiffer]

It appears, after reading everything I could find on the subject, that the brakes for the rear of the '54 Comander are ALSO used for Jeeps, Ramblers, even some models of VW.

I'm assuming that somewhere during the life of this car, someone used at least ONE part (the primary shoe return spring) that fit one OTHER of these models, to install the brakes on mine. Which MIGHT explain why the return spring for the primary shoe is different ON MINE. Some time in the future, I will buy the CORRECT (according to the shop and parts books) spring for that shoe and install it. Not this time. This time I'm using what I have.

I thank the people who attempted to help me. And if I seemed slightly miffed over the lack of understanding, it was probably MY understanding BEFORE I did my researech. I apologize. After all, my '54 LC DOES have a '64 engine and trans, a '56 air conditioner and Toshiba radio. Why not a VW spring?

John

[DilloCrafter]

No problem, John. The previous owner of my truck had put in a VW horn, a VW wiper knob, and VW seatbelts. They're all gone now, but I have put some non-stock parts into it myself.

[img=left]http://simps.us/studebaker/misc/images/Avacar-hcsdc.gif[/img=left]
Paul Simpson
"DilloCrafter"

1955 1/2 Ton Pickup
The Red-Headed Amazon
Deep in the heart of Texas