[DeTomaso] Mushy brakes
MikeLDrew at aol.com
MikeLDrew at aol.com
Sat Mar 15 22:37:15 EDT 2008
In a message dated 3/15/08 5 57 39, wkooiman at earthlink.net writes:
> 4. Removing the proportioning valve - you can switch to a gutted valve if
> you want the stock look. I was going to add an adjustable prop valve, but I
> didn't need it. No prop valve was just right. I removed the shuttle valve
> at the same time, but I think removing the prop valve did the trick - not
> the shuttle valve.
>
This is a common myth, I think. Removing the proportioning valve results in
much more front brake application, sooner. This gives the illusion of
better braking, when in fact (I believe) all that is happening is that the front
brakes are now coming on substantially sooner than they would otherwise, for a
given amount of pedal effort. This does not make the braking system work
better--in fact overall it makes it work worse. Sure, for light stops, it takes
less pedal effort to stop the car. But I bet that under heavy use you would
lock the front brakes long before the rear brakes started doing anything
meaningful.
Brake systems are just that, SYSTEMS, and the front and rear components need
to work together. That proportioning valve is there for a very good reason.
Now, I'm not necessarily advocating sticking with the stock one; if there
was any doubt as to its serviceability (i.e. if it was leaking)I would plumb an
adjustable valve into the front line, and actually test the brakes under
severe use, restricting more and more pressure to the front brakes until the rear
brakes lock up first, and then back off the restriction so that the front
brakes lock only slightly before the rears. This is the only way to get optimal
performance from the stock calipers.
Mike
**************
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance.
(http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
More information about the DeTomaso
mailing list