[Rovernet] SD1 Rover brake servo compatibility

[geffandjulie at comcast.net]

Being of a certain age, most of us remember that the Feds required dual
braking systems, among other safety and smog standards, for 68 models.  We
were stationed at RAF Lakenheath in East Anglia - I was flying '56 model
Super Sabres, no autopilot, tube radios, uncertain gyroscopic gunsight, and
had a Series II Elan. At the Wymondham factory near Norwich, which was an
abandoned RAF station, Loti were being driven 24/7 , clockwise one hopes, to
accumulate 50,000 miles with no exhaust gas deterioration to et the new
Federal standard. Hence transistor ignition and early fuel injection for US
cars. 

Geoffrey W. McCarthy MD MBA DipAvMed
677 NW Melinda Ave
Portland OR 97210
503-241-8468 (h)
503-799-3809 (m)

-----Original Message-----
From: Rovernet <rovernet-bounces at rovernet.org> On Behalf Of Ben Saunders via
Rovernet
Sent: 07 December 2020 06:22
To: Glen R Wilson via Rovernet <rovernet at rovernet.org>
Cc: Ben Saunders <bsaunders at firstva.com>
Subject: Re: [Rovernet] SD1 Rover brake servo compatibility

What gets me is that the 67 TC 2000 had the best braking system of all other
normally marketed cars in the world and did not have that stupid valve in
it. I wanted to do a similar system in a P6 3500S I had but ended up trading
it off for some other Rovers. I did find out that the mount for the AC parts
on the left inner fender of the P6 is a mirror of the right mount for the
vacuum booster. I had planned to move the booster on the right to the left
and find a slightly smaller booster to mount on the right for the rear
brakes and use the same set up as the
2000 TC NADA. which had a shorter braking distance of 30 feet (two car
lengths) than the 3500. I was going to use the same TC 2000 brake cylinders
on each booster. I found the problem with the 3500 system is the long
distance natural rubber vacuum lines to the servo that in time would cause
lots of problems. Sorry I did not get to do the system.

On 12/6/20 2:55 PM, Glen R Wilson via Rovernet wrote:
> Ben, that sounds like good advice to me. It's not rocket science to 
> someone who understands brakes and the cost of a custom installation 
> might be less than a bespoke NIS part.
>
> The other thing about SD1s to watch out for is that the proportioning 
> valve is designed so that the back brakes do next to nothing. I've 
> seen people post about taking the proportioning valve out, but would 
> not recommend it if you don't want to be driving backwards. I know it 
> was a good idea if you were building a race car, but not a driver.
>
> On 12/6/20 12:40 PM, Ben Saunders via Rovernet wrote:
>>
>> For what it is worth, having owned and driven Rover SD1's a lot, I 
>> found that the braking system was poor at best especially in the 
>> rain. When the front calipers got wet you were driving without brakes 
>> at all and yes my vacuum servo was working fine, just inadequate. I 
>> installed a Chevy servo that was larger in diameter and the brakes 
>> worked in the hardest rain so end of problem. This was done before 
>> the tandem servos were available so you might want to fry one of them.
>>
>> Ben Saunders
>>
>> PS: anybody interested in a 1960 Rover P4 100 let me know.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rovernet mailing list
> Rovernet at rovernet.org
> http://rovernet.org/mailman/listinfo/rovernet_rovernet.org

_______________________________________________
Rovernet mailing list
Rovernet at rovernet.org
http://rovernet.org/mailman/listinfo/rovernet_rovernet.org