Topic: 1967 Power Brake Booster Hoses

[196667Bob]

Marty : When you made the conversion, did you use the Drum Brake Pedal, or did you use a Pedal from Power Disc Brakes like I mentioned in Reply # 24 comes with the kit ? If you used your non PD Drum Pedal, did it fit the Pedal Support OK, or did you need to modify anything ?

Thanks,

Bob

[Bob Gaines]

Jeff : Thanks for taking the time to dig up the Dearborn examples and Post them. I appreciate it. One thing they definitely show - there is no real consistency. It sure seems odd to me that on a car that came with AT only (which had only a single 90 degree fitting on the intake manifold, threaded for a steel tube to which the hose from the modulator was attached), that the Dealer would take the time to replace that fitting with a multi-ported one, instead of using the extra port on the Check Valve, and using a new piece of hose.
I guess, as one of my long time late 50's Ford friends says in trying to explain something like this, "It's a Ford".

Richard : I suppose I should have been a little more specific with my comment, and said something like "from all the info that I have, including MPC's, Sales Brochures, Showroom Option Book, Saleman's Price Guide, etc., PB are not shown as a Factory Option. As I mentioned, the Power Brake Booster Kit was available as an Accessory for Drum Brake cars, and as such, was also then available as a "Dealer Option". I just personally have not been able to put my hands on anything that confirms that it was available as a "Factory Option". Just another example of how careful and precise one must be in his or her wording. Of course if someone has any documentation that PB were available for Drum Brakes from the Factory, that would be good to know.

Thanks to both,

Bob

The typically plugged extra port on the check valve is not the best source for consistent vacuum. The booster uses a lot of vacuum and the extra port if used would have vacuum bled off when the booster is in use. The intake is a better source of full vacuum.

[J_Speegle]

Jeff : Thanks for taking the time to dig up the Dearborn examples and Post them. I appreciate it. One thing they definitely show - there is no real consistency. It sure seems odd to me that on a car that came with AT only (which had only a single 90 degree fitting on the intake manifold, threaded for a steel tube to which the hose from the modulator was attached), that the Dealer would take the time to replace that fitting with a multi-ported one, instead of using the extra port on the Check Valve, and using a new piece of hose.

Not sure that they do suggest that there was no consistency. We only have a ver very small sampling and only have two of them that area different (same application) That difference could possibly just when the car was build

And I'm not sure of your reference of a dealer adding some option taking the time to change out the rear vacuum block. Its common IMHO to have a 4-5 post vacuum block at the rear of the intake with only one or two of the sources used. Made it easier for the builders that way

[ruppstang]

Marty : When you made the conversion, did you use the Drum Brake Pedal, or did you use a Pedal from Power Disc Brakes like I mentioned in Reply # 24 comes with the kit ? If you used your non PD Drum Pedal, did it fit the Pedal Support OK, or did you need to modify anything ?

Thanks,

Bob

Every thing was just the same as disc brakes except the master cylinder. It was pretty strait forward you can use the same pedal support just knock out the nutplates for the booster and use the upper pedal shaft holes. The hole in the firewall needs to be oblong for the booster. I have a pattern some where.  It was in a 67 200 6cil. It made a nice car out of it.
Marty

[196667Bob]

The typically plugged extra port on the check valve is not the best source for consistent vacuum. The booster uses a lot of vacuum and the extra port if used would have vacuum bled off when the booster is in use. The intake is a better source of full vacuum.

Bob : Thanks for your input. Thought that might be the case as the intake is a much better source. Based on the few pictures that Jeff provided, it doesn't appear that they always adhered to that thinking.

Not sure that they do suggest that there was no consistency. We only have a ver very small sampling and only have two of them that area different (same application) That difference could possibly just when the car was build

And I'm not sure of your reference of a dealer adding some option taking the time to change out the rear vacuum block. Its common IMHO to have a 4-5 post vacuum block at the rear of the intake with only one or two of the sources used. Made it easier for the builders that way

Jeff : Once again, my choice of words was lacking. I should have said "Based on the few samples you provided, there appears to be no consistency".

Not sure that they do suggest that there was no consistency. We only have a ver very small sampling and only have two of them that area different (same application) That difference could possibly just when the car was build

And I'm not sure of your reference of a dealer adding some option taking the time to change out the rear vacuum block. Its common IMHO to have a 4-5 post vacuum block at the rear of the intake with only one or two of the sources used. Made it easier for the builders that way

As far as the intake manifold fitting, I have attached a picture of my single fitting which I believe is original, and consistent with the "Tees and Fittings" Chart in the 1967 Specifications Section (copy also attached).

Bob

[67gta289]

See reply #19. Dead nuts on sells the correct hose although you would have to wipe off the markings which are 69/70 versions. Many times the 67/68 were plain .The booster has been changed out too. the entire unit as a assembly was painted and the white check valve would have been painted black along with the booster  plus the aluminum tag is missing from the booster band clamp which is common to get lost during the rebuilding process. Just some observations to go along with the pictures in case someone try's to copy because of originality concerns.

Bob, thanks for the lead on a potential hose.   As far as the booster change out goes, I can say that a younger version of me, who did not know how to spell concurs at the time, when changing the MC, cleaned the area up and made those plastic pieces look like new.  While the booster may or may not have been changed, certainly the booster to MC assembly is not detailed in a factory correct manner.  It is good that you pointed that out.

Any takers on what might be correct, and not, for the intake manifold to brake booster hose clamps?

[Bob Gaines]

Bob, thanks for the lead on a potential hose.   As far as the booster change out goes, I can say that a younger version of me, who did not know how to spell concurs at the time, when changing the MC, cleaned the area up and made those plastic pieces look like new.  While the booster may or may not have been changed, certainly the booster to MC assembly is not detailed in a factory correct manner.  It is good that you pointed that out.

Any takers on what might be correct, and not, for the intake manifold to brake booster hose clamps?

It is very common to see the crimp style hose clamp on 67/68 Mustang Midland brake booster hose clamp .The Bendix used the pinch style with flat ended ears.  The style of crimp clamp you can find today many times has a dimple stamped into them unlike the un dimpled original. That goes for fuel line too  . The dimple stands out and some will metal finish that non assemblyline look out of a clamp before it is installed.  A source for the clamps is on the powersteering ram bellows .The clamp is the same size as the clamp used on the P/S bellows. It was a part service by Ford and where I used to get them before the went obsolete.You can still find genuine ones without the dimple in some P/S kits. 

[196667Bob]

OK, I'll bite. Most of the hardware manufacturers use the "crimp" and "pinch" nomenclature meaning the same. Bob, when you say "crimp" are you referring to a "band" type clamp that typically in larger sizes uses the tower type with machine screw to tighten, but in the smaller sizes uses a special tool ?

Also, I thought that the PS bellows clamp was slightly larger than the Booster hose clamp ? I'm sure it would work, but different Part #'s.

Bob

[WT8095]

I believe the clamps Bob is referring to go by the industry names "stepless clamp" and "spring clamp".

Photos are intended to indicate style of clamp only - not the exact appearance for applications being discussed.

[196667Bob]

Dave : The top picture I have always called a "pinch" clamp; the bottom picture I call a "spring" clamp like is noted. I don't believe that a "spring" clamp is strong enough to compress and hold on a Booster hose, which is "corded" and very rigid. My 57's, 59's and my 62 T-Bird used the "constant pressure spring clamp" (picture attached), and my 66 T-Bird uses the pinch clamp.

Bob

[J_Speegle]

I believe the clamps Bob is referring to go by the industry names "stepless clamp" and "spring clamp".

Photos are intended to indicate style of clamp only - not the exact appearance for applications being discussed.

Never seen the bottom example used on a 60's or early 70's Mustang so thanks for mentioning.

More correct though the finish is still different than a couple used



One in use   - Different year

[196667Bob]

It is very common to see the crimp style hose clamp on 67/68 Mustang Midland brake booster hose clamp .The Bendix used the pinch style with flat ended ears.  The style of crimp clamp you can find today many times has a dimple stamped into them unlike the un dimpled original. That goes for fuel line too  . The dimple stands out and some will metal finish that non assemblyline look out of a clamp before it is installed.

Bob : Do you have a picture of what you note as a "crimp" clamp ?

Thanks,

Bob

[Bob Gaines]

Bob : Do you have a picture of what you note as a "crimp" clamp ?

Thanks,

Bob

Top picture in post #38. You most likely know this but for those who may be reading ,you have to use a tool to crimp it tight on the hose. The assemblyline ones are smooth like the picture. Many modern ones have a dimple stamped into the crimp area which I am guessing is a improvement to help that area to not distort but is a easy tip off of a non original part. 

[67gtasanjose]

I have another question also, though related, if it should have a different location, I can start or look for another thread.
Similar topic, but relating to the CHECK VALVE,, am I understanding correctly that a correct check valve for a 67 would be white in color but painted black with the assembly? (I have two different check valves that are white plastic, one looks like Marty's (see image at comment #18 ~his is black) and my other white one looks like it has a sort of lid on the visible side when installed)

[Bob Gaines]

I have another question also, though related, if it should have a different location, I can start or look for another thread.
Similar topic, but relating to the CHECK VALVE,, am I understanding correctly that a correct check valve for a 67 would be white in color but painted black with the assembly? (I have two different check valves that are white plastic, one looks like Marty's (see image at comment #18 ~his is black) and my other white one looks like it has a sort of lid on the visible side when installed)

For 67 they are typically white but painted black with unit.I have seen black ones to (also painted black with unit) but not as typical. There is a later 68 style with a lip but not used in 67.