Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1964 GT Hawk R2 Brake Issue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    One of the two '64 GT's I bought was one of the 7 original "show circuit" cars built for the auto show season in '63. It was a sister car to this one, identically built. It had a plug in the gas tank also, so that the fuel could be removed from the tank while at the shows. In the condition it was when I bought it, there was no hydrovac or brake parts on the car. That is the car I sold to Brian Greenall in Australia so that I could concentrate on the other car, which is still a long way from being done. Bill

    Comment


    • #17
      OK, I'm back. Thank you for the continued interest. Really great forum to all of your credit.

      So, got to the car and determined that the hydrovac is completely disconnected, therefore no brake lights.
      Also confirmed that the dual MC is mounted in the original spot and connected to the pedal and serves the front discs and rear drums.
      I have lots of pictures that I will post here below.
      .
      Discs are ventilated, so per my new and pristine shop manual, the original discs appeared to be solid. I am guessing it is aftermarket.
      Here are the brake pedal dimensions: pedal is 2 3/4" x 4 1/2" and the base of the pedal is 7 1/2" from the carpet. Pedal is not suspended, but goes down through floor.
      One picture is of a brake proportioning valve that is in the line going to the rear of the car. Obviously not stock.

      As to a couple of the posts: There was no paperwork that came with he car. That line item was lined through by Mecum, so nothing was provided. I have found re-printed owners manuals and ordered one. Have the shop manual now.

      I am very interested in accumulating any history on the car. The place that sent the car to Mecum was Timeless Horsepower under Brett Watson's name. I have called him once and left a message. I am interested to see what I can find out. I will check out the info in the links after I get this posted. Thx for info on how to get the production order.

      As to pics:

      I have pics of the Brake fluid reservoir, MC, Bendix HV system with 2 bleeders and a couple of pics of the front discs and the cowl tag for fun.

      I am interested in the best way to proceed. If it was a 4-drum system, I would like to leave the discs there, just need to figure a way to make them work well-enough so I don't feel like I need to open the door and use my heel to stop the Hawk : ). So, if going to stock is not really going to improve stopping much, I will concede and move towards getting the best parts to make the disc/drum system work. Might be a challenge with the hydrovac unit that likely cannot be used with an aftermarket system.

      I'll see what your recommendations are. Thanks as always.

      Art

      Comment


      • #18
        If you click on the link in post #13 here, you can scroll through lots of pix, including the Product Sheet. Can you confirm whether the pix at that link are of your car?

        UPDATE: Never mind the link is to your car, since your car's serial number (64V1085) is clearly shown in the Production Sheet there. Also, looks like it was shipped new to Devon PA, on 09/04/63.
        Last edited by JoeHall; 03-25-2020, 04:31 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          In addition to the shop manual, you should order the chassis parts catalog and the body parts catalog. They show almost every part on the car, its proper name, and the Studebaker part number.

          All the Studebaker parts dealers have these catalogs.

          All the Studebaker parts dealers use these part numbers to supply parts.

          RadioRoy, specializing in AM/FM conversions with auxiliary inputs for iPod/satellite/CD player. In the old car radio business since 1985.

          17A-S2 - 50 Commander convertible
          10G-C1 - 51 Champion starlight coupe
          10G-Q4 - 51 Champion business coupe
          4H-K5 - 53 Commander starliner hardtop
          5H-D5 - 54 Commander Conestoga wagon
          56B-D4 - 56 Commander station wagon
          60V-L6 - 60 Lark convertible

          Comment


          • #20
            Looking at all pix, it appears your brakes are a hodge podge today, but likely came with non-power drums, front and rear. I see a Turner front disc kit and tandem MC kit. The pedal linkage is set for taller pedal height, consistent with standard brakes, yet has a power brake pad. There's no mention of power brakes (drum or disc) in the Production Sheet, yet there's a fluid reservoir on the firewall, which was ONLY used on 63-64 GTs with PDBs. Yet the HV is the model for power drum brakes, not power discs.

            Since your priority is on brakes that work well, and the Turner kits are already in place, consider yourself lucky if your GT came with front drums (power or standard). The reason is, it will have 10" rear drums with self energizing shoes. If it came with front PDBs, it will have 11" non-energizing rears. The 11" are the worst balance match with front discs and tandem MC, with rear brakes plumbed to bypass the HV. Easiest way to know whether your car has 10" or 11" rears is to remove a rear wheel and measure. I will attach pix of 10" and 11" drums for comparison, so you can figure out which you have. With either 10" or 11" rear drums you can still have good brakes, but let's hope yours are 10"!
            Last edited by JoeHall; 03-25-2020, 10:33 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Yours will still have the hubs in place, but just measure across the drum face, as I did: Click image for larger version

Name:	20200325_185135.jpg
Views:	154
Size:	166.2 KB
ID:	1826741Click image for larger version

Name:	20200325_185153.jpg
Views:	192
Size:	154.5 KB
ID:	1826742Click image for larger version

Name:	20200325_185214.jpg
Views:	160
Size:	133.5 KB
ID:	1826743

              Comment


              • #22
                OK, Thx Joe. I will pull a wheel and look. I will take the recommendation on getting the other manuals. Thx

                Not that I would know, but the HV unit looks like it has been there for a long time and the brake lines that extend from it, looked properly aged as well. I just wouldn't know if it was for drums or discs.

                I will be reaching out to Daniel/Schmidt to speak with them. In reviewing their pictures in detail, I noticed that the car had just about 200 miles less on the OD in those pics than it does now. I have the name of the person/dealer that sent the car to Mecum. Somewhere in there all that lovely documentation has been separated from the car. I will investigate.

                I'll post back up when I get the measurement.

                Thank you for help. The picture of what I have is clearer now. While the car is drivable on surface streets, I still have no brake lights. Not sure how long that has been the case. Seems curious that someone would go to all of that effort to change things over and just not do anything about brake lights...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Something I noticed in the pic's provided that adds some suspicion to me is that the serial # plate is pop riveted onto the door post instead of spot welded as it was done in the factory. Another thing that I noticed is that the car was claimed to be the first '64 GT produced and has a delivery date of 9/4 63. The "show car" that I sold to Brian was built very early in August of '63 and shipped around the 20th to San Francisco. Not trying to put a damper on this car, but things aren't adding up to me. Bill

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    OK, I need to edit my last comment as I found a picture of the production order for the car I had. My car was built on August 13 '63, shipped on 8/23/'63 and the only difference between the 2 cars was that mine had the am/fm radio and this one was built with the am radio only. I also looked at the production order for this car and it was indeed built the day before mine was, that being 8/12/'63. the body #'s were off a bit as this car has body #108 and mine has body #105. By the way my car was serial # 64V1205, so apologies are sent for my question about this car being the first '64 GT built. I know James Bell also has one of the "show cars", but I don't know any of the specifics. Quite interesting, Bill.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Item #37...R2 high performance package....That would automatically include Disc brakes, red line tachometer,160 speedometer, radius rod (traction bars) return fuel line and 3/8 fuel line, power shift OR 4 speed. n a Lark, it would also include bucket seats. It looks like the booster has never been upgraded to the type "F" higher pressure booster. (if it is the Daniel Schmidt car).
                      Bez Auto Alchemy
                      573-318-8948
                      http://bezautoalchemy.com


                      "Don't believe every internet quote" Abe Lincoln

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        An easier way to tall what breaks are on the back of the car. Is to look at the backside of the brakes backing plate. No need to remove a wheel or brake drum to measure it. If it has a rubber plug (about 1 inch by 3/8) the brakes are 10 inch self energizing.
                        If the backing plate does not have the plug but has 2 bolt-nut adjustments about midway on each side of the backing plate; it has the non self energizing 11 inch brakes. As used on disk brake cars.
                        My GT (long gone) had non disk manual brakes and for the time (1970.s) stopped fine.
                        Ron

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Colgate Studebaker View Post
                          OK, I need to edit my last comment as I found a picture of the production order for the car I had. My car was built on August 13 '63, shipped on 8/23/'63 and the only difference between the 2 cars was that mine had the am/fm radio and this one was built with the am radio only. I also looked at the production order for this car and it was indeed built the day before mine was, that being 8/12/'63. the body #'s were off a bit as this car has body #108 and mine has body #105. By the way my car was serial # 64V1205, so apologies are sent for my question about this car being the first '64 GT built. I know James Bell also has one of the "show cars", but I don't know any of the specifics. Quite interesting, Bill.
                          Also interesting, this car didn't come with an AM/FM radio, yet has one now. I also noticed the drum brake HV has had the vacuum line, 1-way check valve reversed, at some point between the pix on the link and those the PO took yesterday. To me, that indicates the HV may have failed, and someone was smart enough to bypass it, and reverse the check valve, but did not bother to re-locate the brake light switch so the brake lights would work. Lotta mysteries. OTOH, the presence of the gas tank drain strongly indicates it was one of the show cars.
                          Last edited by JoeHall; 03-26-2020, 09:22 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bezhawk View Post
                            Item #37...R2 high performance package....That would automatically include Disc brakes, red line tachometer,160 speedometer, radius rod (traction bars) return fuel line and 3/8 fuel line, power shift OR 4 speed. n a Lark, it would also include bucket seats. It looks like the booster has never been upgraded to the type "F" higher pressure booster. (if it is the Daniel Schmidt car).
                            Thanks, I thought I'd read that elsewhere, but wasn't sure. Now you've said it, I believe it, and that settles it. I see the 160 speedo, and red line tach. But despite what the original brakes were, they are clearly a hodge-podge now. So the simplest way to determine what is actually on rear of the car now seems to remove a wheel and measure a drum (no need to remove the drum). In retrospect, I coulda took pix of the two type backing plates though. But all things considered, I'd still prefer a measuring tape.

                            The OP mainly wants good brakes, and that won't be difficult, but a key issue is to determine what is on the rear now. Based on the answer, there will be some choices to make for good, better and betterer outcome. LOL

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by bezhawk View Post
                              If it is an R2, then it would most likely also have been equipped with factory disc brakes (Dunlop/Bendix). It also would have the type "F" Bendix Hydro-Vac brake booster. There would have been a remote filler reservoir mounted on the passenger side of the firewall. Also the brake pedal leverage would be set up for the power brakes, and is far less mechanical advantage over non power brakes. That is probably the biggest issue with needing so much pedal pressure to stop it after the booster being disconnected. Yes, the original system was a single circuit, and there is only one line in, and one line out of the booster. The easiest way to get where it stops safely and well, would be to purchase a new disc brake type booster from Studebaker vendors like SI. and hook up the front circuit to it. It is ok to have the rear non power assist, since the rears only contribute 30% of the stopping power.
                              The 2nd route to go would be to find a non power brake pedal with more leverage and see if that makes it good enough for your satisfaction. Also a higher coefficient of friction brake pad will also contribute to it stopping better than the stock friction materials.
                              Just read your post carefully, checked the 59-64 Parts Manual, inspected both of my GTs (62 & 63), and looked up a pic online. I mostly agree, except: 59-64 Hawks used the same pedal for non-powered drums as 63-64 GTs with PDBs. A different pedal was used on 59-64 with PB drums, and it is easy to tell the differences. Put another way, the OP's car has the correct pedal for his car, whether it came with PDBs, or non-powered drums; as such, his pedal already has the most mechanical advantage available.

                              Considering the car now has Turner front discs, and likely needs a HV anyway (current one inop), it is a no-brainer to get the correct HV for PDBs. Since his current HV will not serve as a core, and cores for the PDB type are near unobtainium, I suggest SI's repro (part #80201). I am on my 2nd one, and got 4-5 years out of the first. At over $400 each, I wish they'd last longer, and maybe this one will. But having ran the wrong HV (as this one is) with PDBs before finally installing the correct one, I can say there's a world of difference in required pedal pressure. So SI's #80201 is what I recommend, no matter which rear brakes are now on his GT.

                              As for plumbing his rear brakes, if he has 11" drums, I advise an OEM type MC and plumbing the rears through the HV, as original. The factory PDBs were engineered for a near perfect front/rear balance. When the rears are re-plumbed to bypass the HV, that balance is all but destroyed. Without power assist, the 11" rears are little more than what you can get from the hand brake. Been there, done that. OTOH, if he has 10" rear drums, I advise to keep the tandem MC and by-pass the rears around the HV. That produces a very good balance also, since self energizing 10" rears provide about 50-75 percent more stopping power than the non-self energizing 11", with 3/4" wheel cylinders. So plumbing and MC choices are why I am waiting on the OP to tell us which rear drums he has.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JoeHall View Post
                                Since your priority is on brakes that work well, and the Turner kits are already in place, consider yourself lucky if your GT came with front drums (power or standard). The reason is, it will have 10" rear drums with self energizing shoes. If it came with front PDBs, it will have 11" non-energizing rears. The 11" are the worst balance match with front discs and tandem MC, with rear brakes plumbed to bypass the HV. Easiest way to know whether your car has 10" or 11" rears is to remove a rear wheel and measure. I will attach pix of 10" and 11" drums for comparison, so you can figure out which you have. With either 10" or 11" rear drums you can still have good brakes, but let's hope yours are 10"!
                                I am in the process of converting my 64 Hawk R1 from drum brakes to Turner disc front brakes and 11" rear drums. This is under the assumption that Studebaker and Bendix knew what they were doing, and the non-self-energizing drum braking characteristics are better matched to discs than self-energizing drums on the rear. If I am wrong it would be good news in a way as I can more easily put the 10" brakes back on the car than finish the conversion to 11" rear drums.
                                -Dwight

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X