Brakes: Installed Turner MC kit today

[mmagic]

[JoeHall]

Jobs like that are sooo much easier when you are looking at the frame from above. I have spent 2-4 hours installing those kits from below, depending on how much crud and how rusted the bolts were. Now is definitely the time to do that kinda stuff, and it looks like you are "all over it"

[mmagic]

The downside is risk miscalculations and of new brake install conflicting with the body when it is attached. Not addressed in the Turner instructions is where/how to attach the clutch pedal return spring as the replacement bracket appears to be in the way of original attachment and has no provision for the spring. I'm hoping that solution becomes obvious when the body appears.

[(S)]

I'm doing a 60 Lark convertable and the M/C does not line up with the pedal, in a straight line. I mounted it with and without the stock 'spacer' that goes between the M/c and the frame. On this car I had to cut the supplied auxilary brace and put a new bend in it and re drill it. The kit is nice looking and went right on, until I got to the M/c. On this car, the cover does hit the floor, I'll be making a cover plate for access. I am still test fitting, then onto the lines. And yeah, I wish the body was off, my neck hurts!

mmagic-- You should have just about 3/8 to 1/2 inch between the top of the frame rail and the floor pan when the body is on....
Heres a great picture of one with Standard trans: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...akes-questions Thanks Flashback!

[(S)]

The front fender is removed, this is looking in, from the front of the car. Brake pedal adapter hitting Convertable frame X member. I saw it would bind, but had to install it, so I could see where to 'clearance ' it. Now to remove the X member. : (they are different than regular car models as well as the floor pan,,,,,,

[avantibngrant]

Would anyone have some pictures of a Turner MC installed in a 47 to 52? I am looking to install the one I bought in Colorado in my 47 Champion. I think it will be much easier when the fellow removes the floor to pu the new floor in.
Much appreciated.
Neil

[JoeHall]

The downside is risk miscalculations and of new brake install conflicting with the body when it is attached. Not addressed in the Turner instructions is where/how to attach the clutch pedal return spring as the replacement bracket appears to be in the way of original attachment and has no provision for the spring. I'm hoping that solution becomes obvious when the body appears.

Difficult to explain, but on the GT and the 56J, I made an 'S' hook out of flat metal, and hooked the clutch spring to the front end of the 'S', and hooked the rear end to the back edge of the batwing.

[60Stude]

I am installing this kit on my '60 Lark wagon. I had some trouble with it too. I am more of a visual learner and the lack of photos in the instructions was disappointing. I ended up putting some spacers in to align the centerline of the M/C with the centerline of the brake pedal push rod. I had to take a hole saw and cut a hole in the body support to make room for the brake line due to the length of the M/C. The new auxillary brace was way too long. I decided it was easier to modify the stock bracket by cutting it, putting in a new bend, and drilling a hole to match the hole in the Turner M/C bracket. There was no way the lid would go on the M/C under the floor, let alone put the bail over it. So I ended up cutting a square hole in the floor right over the M/C so I can access it easily. I have made a cardboard template of the hole, I need to take it to the sheet metal shop and have them bend me a new cover for the larger hole in the floor. Hopefully all the work will be worth it for safety improvements.

[mmagic]

Turner provides a "kit" with the critical and harder if not impossible components for the average guy to make or source. Although it still requires a bit of ingenuity to deal with model to model variations, it is a God send to bring the safety level of this vintage vehicle forward 50 years. I spent a day frame off wiggling and fitting but would have spent a month doing it from scratch myself with an inferior result. I started with a too tall Master Cylinder (not on his list) and ended up with a shorter Jeep version ( he had identified) .

Although everything is located from comparative clearance measurements to the body and there still could be surprises when body and frame meet again, I believe the only minor challenge remaining is where to attach the clutch spring. I expect it will attache directly to the bat wing or the frame extender above the bat wing.

Kudos and a big "Thank You" to Jim for this product.

[60Stude]

I agree with you mmagic. After having my M/C fail once, I decided this was a worthwhile upgrade for my wagon. I did not do a disc conversion, at least not at this time. It's just a weekend driver, and the stock Studebaker braking system seems adequate to me. So I rebuilt/replaced all my brake components and added the dual M/C. I'm hoping it will make a nice driver this way.

[mmagic]

When I started the Speedster Project, I did 3 budgets.. A) Get it on the road cheap.. B) Get it on the road looking OK.. C) Doing it right to the max. I settled on plan B) figuring I could go to plan C) later. As I got into the project the "While Your there's" took control and it looks like we're heading toward C.

On every vehicle I've owned my theory has been make sure you can stop before you make sure you can go. As I contemplated a $1,000 upgrade/redo to the brake system I realized that at the time these cars were built 50 to 60 MPH was a norm and it was road conditions, not what's under the hood that determined normal highway speed. Today's normal highway speeds of 60 to 75 MPH call for more stopping power. My intention is for this car to be driven so to not invest in a total brake upgrade would be like deciding to drive on bald tires or the ones that were on it. One more item from the plan C list.