Joined: Thu Mar 22 2007, 08:13AM
Location: In the workshop
Posts: 1063
Theres something that is troubling me a little regarding this spacer business. Not only that some cars have the plastic spacer and some dont, but also that my car seems to be the only one that needs one between the booster and firewall.
Joined: Sat Aug 19 2006, 05:03PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2919
Uncle Joe wrote ...
Theres something that is troubling me a little regarding this spacer business. Not only that some cars have the plastic spacer and some dont, but also that my car seems to be the only one that needs one between the booster and firewall.
Any ideas anyone?
There were two styles of booster for discs from two different manufacturers. (I forget the two manufacturer names.... Kelsey Hayes and ???.) The exploded pic shown is for the style that is held together with a band clamp and has a conical front. I believe these are the only ones that came with the spacer/filter. The other booster style is held together with folded-over tabs and is more flat on the front. I don't believe that the latter style uses a spacer/filter behind the MC... at least mine doesn't have one.
UJ, you are running front discs if I recall correctly. What booster are you running. On my hardtop which I converted to discs I am using the large single diaphragm booster from a 1973 Chrysler (the one that interferes with the linkage if you have column shift). It's always possible that mine was boxed incorrectly from the rebuilders and I actually got the wrong booster, but I found that the rod to the brake pedal is longer than my original. I needed to fabricate a spacer to move the booster further from the firewall so that the pedal wound-up being about in the correct location. I still had to slightly alter the brake light switch because the brake pedal sits a bit higher than it used to.
Joined: Tue Mar 01 2011, 04:53PM
Location: Seattle
Posts: 39
Here is the part number listing that goes with the diagram I posted. As you can see, the C and B bodies are the same parts as far as the hub, cover and filter.
Joined: Tue Mar 01 2011, 04:53PM
Location: Seattle
Posts: 39
Mike, the other booster is Midland-Ross, which is the kind that has the spacer. The Midland-Ross booster is a clamp-style booster, as opposed to the other one (Bendix and/or Kelsey-Hayes) which is a "crimp-style".
Joined: Thu Mar 22 2007, 08:13AM
Location: In the workshop
Posts: 1063
Mike66Chryslers wrote ...
UJ, you are running front discs if I recall correctly. What booster are you running. On my hardtop which I converted to discs I am using the large single diaphragm booster from a 1973 Chrysler (the one that interferes with the linkage if you have column shift). It's always possible that mine was boxed incorrectly from the rebuilders and I actually got the wrong booster, but I found that the rod to the brake pedal is longer than my original. I needed to fabricate a spacer to move the booster further from the firewall so that the pedal wound-up being about in the correct location. I still had to slightly alter the brake light switch because the brake pedal sits a bit higher than it used to.
Correct, I am running the front discs, the usual '73 setup. This is the booster I am using....
...along with the spacer I made...
..and the combi valve back in the mock up stage...
Joined: Sat Aug 19 2006, 05:03PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2919
OK thanks for that. I had been discussing this with JazzAndMoparGuy and he was the one that suggested that I may have received the wrong booster, because as far as he knew the '73 disc booster should be a drop-in replacement in an earlier C-body. I guess the typical advice to use the specific disc booster for your year of C-body when doing a disc swap has merit!
Joined: Sat Aug 19 2006, 05:03PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2919
GranTorinoSport wrote ...
Are you both using the 73 booster with 66 column shift transmission linkage? Does it clear?
My 66 has a console shift. I think Uncle Joe's 65 does too. In his pics I can't see any kind of shift linkage coming off the end of the steering column.
I am using the large diameter (10") single diaphragm 1973 booster, which is known to interfere with the 1966 column shift linkage. UJ is using the small diameter (7.5" I think) dual diaphragm 1973 booster. I don't know why both were offered at that time.
While I don't have to worry about shift linkage problems, I wish I'd used a different booster because it's so close to my engine that I can't install aftermarket cast aluminum valvecovers. They are too tall and will hit the booster. I'm stuck with the stock stamped steel valvecovers because they have a sloped area at the back that just clears the booster for installation and removal.