More questions on brakes

[Matt No VAT]

Can someone tell me the size of the Alfa 164 front brake disk?

I had planned on using Integrale Evolution disks but they are 280mm diameter and are a little too large.

I have three options:

1. Make a brake mounting kit so I can fit my Brembo 4 pots.

2. Use the Brembo 4 pots on an Alfa front disk (provided they fit)

3. Use the Alfa 164 brakes that I also refurbed before I got the brembos.


In the meantime I'll be hunting round on the net!!

The back wheels and brakes are on, although I will be having braided hoses made soon and they'll come off for that again but otherwise ....progress progress :D

I had to wind the spring platform up about 1 inch, so that my tyres didn't foul on the bottom of the platform.... I take it this is normal?

[chris.richard]

Originally posted by Matt No VAT
Can someone tell me the size of the Alfa 164 front brake disk?

I'll measure mine tomorrow they're sitting in a box.


I had to wind the spring platform up about 1 inch, so that my tyres didn't foul on the bottom of the platform.... I take it this is normal?

If the offset was different to shift the tyre outboard, presumably you wouldn't have to.

[JohnB_SPY8808053]

For the 12v L & S models, I think the front should be a 281mm vented disk and the rear should be a 251 mm solid disk. I thought the Integrale disks were 284mm. That's all from my rather questionable memory though so it should be confirmed or (more likely) denied by a better source.

John B.

[mogul_x]

Originally posted by Matt No VAT
I had to wind the spring platform up about 1 inch, so that my tyres didn't foul on the bottom of the platform.... I take it this is normal?

Matt,

I'm going from memory here, but I seem to recall that most of the cars I've seen were set up as you described. The spring platform was wound up above the tires. I'm not sure if this was done to prevent tire fouling, or if that's where the spring needs to be to get the proper ride height.

I've attached a photo of one of the cars from Abingdon this year. This photo doesn't look like there would be an interference problem. Did you have your springs set all the way at the bottom? Maybe the combination of wheels and tires on your car has closer clearance than this one.

[rutthenut]

Originally posted by Matt No VAT
I had planned on using Integrale Evolution disks but they are 280mm diameter and are a little too large.

How come they work out too large? Is it a combination of the larger diameter plus the depth of the brake calipers not fitting within your wheelrims? Or is it the width of the disc that is a problem?

[rutthenut]

Originally posted by mogul_x
The spring platform was wound up above the tires. I'm not sure if this was done to prevent tire fouling, or if that's where the spring needs to be to get the proper ride height

The threaded section on the strut body allows the lower spring seat to be much farther down the strut than is needed, so positioning it to avoid the tyre is quite reasonable.

One of the other diagrams showed a comparison of the two struts. I think you'd find that the fixed spring seat of the standard Beta strut would clear the wheels anyway.

And unless you fit really long springs, you would have no need to drop the mount that much either (light helper/packer springs would then be considered to prevent the springs shifting when the unloaded - although they've got nowhere to go).

If I remember tomorrow, I'll look at my rear struts as I'm sure that the top mount is of a different size to that in the picture (which I guess might be of Ken Tomblin's car?). If these are different, then maybe that could be the cause for some of the reported problems with strut tops, thread lengths and locknuts?

Then again, did the car in the picture have any problem with this part of the strut installation? I see that the chassis had been modified too, I guess for a more 'authentic' appearance, but I don't see how that would make any real difference, as the strut and top mount are assembled together before being fited to the car, aren't they?

A few thoughts anyway...

[Stratos]

I thought that both the 164 and the Integrale used the same sized disks, namely 284mm, with the only difference being the number of stud holes - 5 for the 164, and 4 for the Integrale, although, if I remember correctly, the Integrale Evo II used 5 stud with 284mm.

Matt, what size wheels are you using? You shouldn't have a problem fitting Integrale disks under a 15" rim.

[chris.richard]

[i]

I had to wind the spring platform up about 1 inch, so that my tyres didn't foul on the bottom of the platform.... I take it this is normal?

In the picture of the red car that Scott posted, the bottom adjustable spring pan has been wound up the adjustment thread by about two inches. If you look closely, you can make out the threading. The spring as supplied by Hawk is normally slightly compressed even at the bottom of the adjustment, so at this setting the spring is heavily preloaded. There also appears to be some sort of rubber boot over the damper rod - do people normally use these, are they necessary?

[Matt No VAT]

I have a set of Integrale front disks (All Integrale Evo 1 and Evo 2's have 5 stud hubs and are 280mm) 8v and 16v Integrale (non-Evo) are 4 stud.

The issue I have with my setup is that if I put the disk on the hub, then attempt to position the bolt holes for fitting the caliper they dont line up! They fall short of lining up by about 15mm - the caliper fouls on the outer edge of the disk.

I haven't even got to putting the wheels on yet. But I dont see that as a problem as an Evo 1 has 15" x 7j rims and the Evo 2 has 16" x 7j so the caliper should fit inside without issue.

Dimensions of disk width aswell as diameter would be extremely useful as the 164 caliper bracket doesn't fit over my Evo disk as the disk is too wide !!!

BTW for those of you doing the 5 stud hub conversion - when fitting the brake mounting bracket have the recessed face facing outward - I had mine on back to front so had to swap O/S with N/S.


:( :confused: :(

My Springs are not wound up as high as the car in the picture from Abingdon!! My lower spring platform is about 15mm above the tyre.

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Matt No VAT
IThe issue I have with my setup is that if I put the disk on the hub, then attempt to position the bolt holes for fitting the caliper they dont line up! They fall short of lining up by about 15mm - the caliper fouls on the outer edge of the disk.


AHA!! OK, I don't believe any one has said that a 164 caliper would fit directly onto the Fiat 132 stub axle.

You will need an adapter plate mounted onto the stub axle, and mount the caliper onto the adapter plate. At least, that's what I did with mine. (But bear in mind, I'm not using the same calipers as you)

[rutthenut]

Originally posted by chris.richard
The spring as supplied by Hawk is normally slightly compressed even at the bottom of the adjustment, so at this setting the spring is heavily preloaded

It's quite likely that a different spring has been fitted in this case, as everyone has their own opinions or preferences as to what they want to use.

Preloading does have other implications, but I haven't worked those through myself.


There also appears to be some sort of rubber boot over the damper rod - do people normally use these, are they necessary? [/B]

I think it's fair to say that they aren't 'normally used', but that someone could always make a case for them in protecting/proloning the seals on the damper rod by keeping out grit and dirt.

[Matt No VAT]

AHA!! OK, I don't believe any one has said that a 164 caliper would fit directly onto the Fiat 132 stub axle.

You will need an adapter plate mounted onto the stub axle, and mount the caliper onto the adapter plate. At least, that's what I did with mine. (But bear in mind, I'm not using the same calipers as you)


Yup, I have the adapter plate and its bolted to the 132 stub axle! Even with this mounting braket/adapter plate.

My front disks seem to be too big - I think if they were a little smaller in diameter then the two bolt holes would line up and everything should fit as per normal.

My front vented disks are 280mm in diameter and 26mm wide. give or take .5mm

[chris.richard]

my discs are;_

Front 285mm X 22mm vented, drilled and grooved
"Offset" from hub surface to inner surface of disc 37.5mm

Rear 250mm X 10mm drilled and grooved
"offset" as above 45mm

I haven't got calipers yet, nor tried fitting any of the front together - still killing rust at the rear. (Oh yes, and working):rolleyes:

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Matt No VAT
[
Yup, I have the adapter plate and its bolted to the 132 stub axle! Even with this mounting braket/adapter plate.

My front disks seem to be too big

OOhh!!

[chris.richard]

Originally posted by mogul_x


I've attached a photo of one of the cars from Abingdon this year.

The car in the picture has the upper mounts of the struts moved outboard, which would bring the outer part of the lower pan nearer the tyre, so he might need it screwed higher.

[rutthenut]

Originally posted by chris.richard
The car in the picture has the upper mounts of the struts moved outboard

Which will also introduce a substantial change into the camber angle, requiring modifications to the hub carrier joint to remove the resultant negative camber - I would guess.

[chris.richard]

Originally posted by rutthenut


requiring modifications to the hub carrier joint to remove the resultant negative camber

resultant positive camber, surely?

[rutthenut]

Originally posted by chris.richard
resultant positive camber, surely?

Ooops, that's what I meant to type! :eek:

Brain and fingers not working properly together - I was thinking about the negative effect it would have on the handling...

[Matt No VAT]

While painting the stabalising coat of exterior paint on my now extended house I've been pondering the brakes issue and occaisionally bobbing off to the garage to check things out or try something. (I just cant leave the car alone for 5 minutes!)

In short I can't use the Brembo 4 pots as they will foul the inner section of the wheel due to inadequate offset. Shame really as they would have provided improved stopping power and they look good too (especially as they had "LANCIA" emblazened down the side.)

So I tried the trusty 164 brakes, which fit without issue (no great surprise there) apart from having to swap the Evo front disks and pads for 164 disks and pads she's almost done! Just as well I overhauled them eh!

Whats that saying? "You live and learn!"

Thanks go to Chris for providing the dimensions of the 164 disks and to everyone else who chipped in thier thoughts also.:cool:

[GMC]

Matt.
Not trying to upset you, but is there anyone out there who has managed to get the Alfa 164 front brakes to work ?
I have tried a lot of combinations with master cylinders during the week and I am still not happy.
The only thing I have not tried is a servo ???????

[chris.richard]

I remember hearing that someone had fitted a pressure limiting valve in the front circuit - or was that in stead of adjustable bias?

[rutthenut]

Originally posted by chris.richard
I remember hearing that someone had fitted a pressure limiting valve in the front circuit

John Whalley had done this on his car (probably Thema-type brakes in that case).

The intention being to reduce the line pressure to the front brakes on initial application, with the aim being to avoid - or reduce the risk of - locking the front wheels whilst they are lightly loaded. Once weight has transferred to the front, then those wheels can handle higher brake loads.

Don't know if this really works, but the theory is sound.

It won't help at all with GMC's problem - if the brakes do not seem to be efficient enough when compared to the older Fiat braking setup, reducing the pressure would only make it worse.


Any idea what the difference is in piston size between the two braking systems (Fiat 132 and Alfa 164 front brakes)? If that is a large difference, I'd guess that's the root of the problem.

If it is, I still don't have any recommendations to fix it though - which may be a [substantial?] drawback of having large single-piston calipers working from twin master cylinders.


I'm assuming that there is no problem within the caliper assemblies, restricting movement of either the pistons or the sliding pin and cradle mechanism?

I did have trouble in this area with a set of new Croma Turbo (aka Thema 8v Turbo) calipers some years ago. The 'saddle' part would bind on the main caliper, restricting travel. It didn't show up straight away though, only when the pads had worn down a fair bit. The result was a serious lack of front-end brakes at the time. Having seen the problem, I then did a bit of judicious filing of the mating parts and the problem was resolved.

Would it be to much to hope that you've got a similar problem?

If the parts are brand new, then there's a slight chance, but I'd be really surprised to find this on a set of brakes that had already been fitted and used on a 164.

[GMC]

John,
Can you please do me a favour, can you please give me the measurements of your brake pedal. You must have a total different pedal (and car) from mine, as you are using .625 cylinders on back and front (correct?). Each time I go down on cylinder size to increase pressure I also increase pedal travel, With .625 at the rear and .7 at the front and the bias set to the front brakes I can touch the pedal off the bulk head !!, Scary (No air in the system, fluid pumped thru from the bleed nipples)
I am getting my self ready to change all the peda ratios as I had also had a slight problem with the clutch pedal when I fitted the V6.

Gerard.

[Stratos]

Gerry,

If someone measures their pedal ratios for you, you will also need to know the piston sizes of the calipers to be able to doa valid comparison.

[rutthenut]

Originally posted by GMC
Can you please do me a favour, can you please give me the measurements of your brake pedal. ... you are using .625 cylinders on back and. Each time I go down on cylinder size to increase pressure I also increase pedal travel, With .625 at the rear and .7 at the front and the bias set to the front brakes I can touch the pedal off the bulk head

Gerry,

This stuff was covered in an earlier discussion, page 1 of the earlier 'brakes' topic, web link is
http://www.stratossupersite.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

From that, Dave Watson entered the following when discussing his brake pedal setup?:
Pedal to Pivot 310mm
Pushrod to Pivot 75mm
Therefore pedal ratio is 4.13

That prompted me to check the measurements on my car and I came up with the following:
Pedal to Pivot = 8"
Pushrod to Pivot = 2"
That comes out at a ratio of 4:1

Since the pedal pad itself is 3" in height, I measured to the centre of the pad, but you could work out ratios between 3.5:1 and 4.5:1 depending on where you press on the pedal.

Pedal ratios for Tilton pedal box assemblies were also listed in the earlier topic, going up to 6:1 I think.

And yes, I do have 0.625" master cylinders for front and rear circuits, but in both cases that is against four-pot calipers.

It does seem as though the size(s) of your piston calipers may be part of the problem, but having that much travel on the pedal is really worrying! When I had the twin cylinders working with single-pot calipers all round, I still had very little travel and a rock hard pedal - albeit with a lot of leg effort needed to brake really hard.

Do you have an amount of 'wasted travel' on the pushrods before the master cylinders actually get to pump fluid into the lines? It may be possible to adjust these further to use up any 'slack' part of their travel, or on the main pedal/brake pushrod.

Hope this can be resolved for you, it sounds like a real nightmare so far :(

[GMC]

David.
Yes and No. I just need to know are my pedal ratio on my car a way out. As I have tried so many combination of master cylinders I would start again if I thought it would work, plus no one has yet said that they got the Alfa calipers to work !
If my pedal ratio seems simuliar to John or your then I will seriously start thinking of starting from scratch again and machining new hubs and fitting a deeper dished front discs and use the Princess four pot calipers front and rear, a lot of extra work but it surley must work better than what I have got ? plus I know the Princess calipers do work !

[GMC]

Thank you John,
It must be my pedal. mine measures;
Pivot to pedal (centre) 235mm
Pivot to pushrod 38mm !!!!!!!!!! ?
Ratio 6.1:1
Pedal ratio should work but, the 38mm is too short and gives me too much pedal movement for little movement of the pushrod.
plus John now I see why you can use the .625 cylinders with a ratio like that. if you have any bigger cylinders I do'nt you would be able to push the pedal ?
Thank you, I will start tonight cutting out new master cylinder holes and re plate the bulk head and modify that stupid pedal of mine !

[Stratos]

Originally posted by GMC
Thank you John,
It must be my pedal. mine measures;
Pivot to pedal (centre) 235mm
Pivot to pushrod 38mm !!!!!!!!!! ?
Ratio 6.1:1
Pedal ratio should work but, the 38mm is too short and gives me too much pedal movement for little movement of the pushrod.
plus John now I see why you can use the .625 cylinders with a ratio like that. if you have any bigger cylinders I do'nt you would be able to push the pedal ?
Thank you, I will start tonight cutting out new master cylinder holes and re plate the bulk head and modify that stupid pedal of mine !

Whoa there, Gerry - slow down a bit before you go cutting things.

Doesn't the 6.1:1 mean that you need less pedal travel for the same amount of piston travel?

If you cut the bulkhead, and move the master cyclinder position your going to reduce the pedal ratio and need even more pedal travel. So you're going to make your problem worse.

[Stratos]

Gerry,

Before you go cutting the bulkhead, I would suggest trying a larger diameter master cylinder, as this will move more fluid to the brakes to push the new larger piston of the 164 brakes.

Possibly try going as high as a .75 master cylinder for the front.

And, just recheck that you haven't got all the effort moved to the back via your balance bar.

Another thing to do, before you start cutting! Get someone to push the pedal for you, and watch to see if the pistons in the front calipers move immediately, or if there is some play in the system which gets taken up first. (What John refered to as "Wasted Travel" in his earlier post)

You could even take the brake pipe off the master cyclinder and see if it starts squirting fluid out as soon as the pedal starts being depressed.

[GMC]

David,
Already started stripping, no hanging around here !
Yes I will reduce the pedal ratio and will loose leverage, but for the same amount of pedal travel I will increase the travel of the pushrod. At the monent I cannot use small cylinders because the pedal will hit the bulkhead.!!
I have already tried .7 - .75 - .875 at the front, yes I thought the .75 was better, but nowhere near as good as I am expecting.
After fitting the V6 three weeks ago and the five hub conversion last week, and pedal ratios this week No problem, (Ya right !)

[Matt No VAT]

I think I'll fit the 164 brakes for the time being - they may prove to be fine, but if they don't then I'll change them at a later date.

After all theres plenty of time for tweaking!:)

[GMC]

John, David,
I modified my pedal ratio to give me 5:1 by dropping the 35mm to 50mm and what a difference, now with the "small" cylinders I can only press the pedal approx one inch by hand, Which is what I wanted. sure is better that pressing it all the way to the bulk head !, and I have changed nothing else (at the moment!)
It is too late to drive the car tonight, but I will give it a run tomorrow, and if nessurary I will try the larger (.75) cylinders.
Thanks,
Gerard

[rutthenut]

Originally posted by GMC
I modified my pedal ratio to give me 5:1 by dropping the 35mm to 50mm and what a difference, now with the "small" cylinders I can only press the pedal approx one inch by hand

Great, sounds as though you've made progress at last.

Seeing your post that suggested you were going to move the master cylinder mounting positions, I was going to suggest that you don't need to do that to change the ratio. You could do all of this by modifying the pedal or the actuating lever, which I guess you have done, or the pivot link on the master cylinder mounting plate. That's if you're using a Transformer/Hawk setup, which I am familiar with.

Anyway, if you've now got the leverage about right it does give you scope to play around with preferred master cylinder sizes - if you aren't already totally fed up with those!!!

[chris.richard]

Do any other better calipers fit the same mountings as the 164? Or does every different caliper, especially specialised aftermarket ones, use their own?

[BAS]

Originally posted by chris.richard
my discs are;_

Front 285mm X 22mm vented, drilled and grooved
"Offset" from hub surface to inner surface of disc 37.5mm

Rear 250mm X 10mm drilled and grooved
"offset" as above 45mm

I haven't got calipers yet, nor tried fitting any of the front together - still killing rust at the rear. (Oh yes, and working):rolleyes:

This is from an old thread but I'm trying to fit vented disks and willwood or hi-spec calipers. What disks are people using?

I'm keeping the 4 stud hubs for now.

Chris what are the above disks off?

[Stratos]

285mm are Integrale - you could get them quite cheaply from Rally Design.

[chris.richard]

Mine are alfa 164 24v discs from Rally Design. They are 5-stud ones.

[BAS]

I've tried 285mm Integrale disks, but the disc offset seems to small 22mm from the face of the disk to the outer face of the hub mount. This leaves me approx 35mm between the wheel and the disk to fit the caliper in, to small. I’m using the old 15" replica coffin spoke wheels which maybe causing the problem. Has anyone else had the same problem. Also the inside dia of the wheel is approx 330mm giving 22.5mm of clearance, with the caliper in place 3-4mm of clearance.

[Stratos]

BAS,

Your best option would be to use Hi-Spec calipers as these are very low profile, and you should easily be able to fit these with 285 disks in your 15inch wheels.

I use these calipers with 310 disks in my Compmotive ML 15inch wheels.

[BAS]

Thanks for the help Guys.

Dave, what clearance have you got between the disk face and the back of the wheel?

[rutthenut]

Brent, depending on your current wheel offset, maybe a set of small wheel spacers would solve that problem?

[BAS]

Thanks John, I think the spacer would need to be about 15mm thick to give clearance, but could be an option.

[SUSIT]

I would give the boys at Hi Spec a ring as I spoke to them at the Autosport show and they seemed to know what they are talking about. Having looked up an old lucas catalogue a while back I seem to remember the nearest disc of 284mm that had almost the same inset on the bell was from an Alfa Integrale. I think a variant on a 146. If I remember correctly it had a different inset to the Lancia disc. Your local motor factor should be able to let you see a reference catalogue that gives all the figures.


Stephen Struthers