I've got a 65 non power 4 wheel disc brake car with the single bowl master. I'm trying to find the parts or kit to make a dual bowl master.

 

You can't "make" a dual-reservoir master cylnder. Stainless Steel Brakes (SSBC) has reproduction '67 master cylinders which will work fine for your application, and the lines to go with it.

 

Or you can convert to power brakes. The 65/66 PB master cylinder is a dual reservoir unit.

 

Basically, you have to change the front brake block or plugged the hole to the rear line. The '65 block as the inlet, the left front outlet, the right front outlet, and the rear outlet. Plug the rear outlet.

Then you can change to a '67 style master cylinder and run the old inlet line to it. You need to get a union or block to connect the rear line to another line to rear the master cylinder.

Everyone says to use the '67 master cylinder but I believe the master cylinder is the same from '67 to '82(?). There are some differences in the later ones on manual and power brakes, as to how the plunger fits.

If you are mechanically inclined, you can probably get all you need at Advanced Auto, Napa, CarQuest, or any other LAPS.

 

Zip Products has a conversion kit for 63-66. It is #DB503. I used it no my '66 non-power brake car awhile ago.

 

really no need if your brakes are working well, it won't stop any better with a dual master cyl., just keep your brake lines in good shape ........

 

Agreed there is no need to convert to a dual master cylinder, but for someone not worried about a correct restoration it's a damn good safety improvement. The 66s were the last pre NHTSA cars, and by comparison even to 67 models were absolute death traps: single circuit brakes; solid steering column; all metal interior ***** and handles; no standard headrests; no standard safety flashers...you get the picture.

 

I had a line go when my car was still the stock single master cylinder. Scary!! Fortunately, I was going really slow and managed to gather it all up without a disaster.

 

I've had three total brake failures with dual master cylinders. They were no more scary than the one failure I had with a single master cylinder.

The most dangerous feature of an unsafe car is a dangerous driver. All the federal standards in the world will not negate that feature.

VT 65 has the best idea here, inspect your brake lines, especially the main front/rear line for rust.

 

Respectfully disagree. If you are driving the car my opinion is that the dual master is the best thing to change on a 65. My 65 brake lines looked just fine (had looked them over a month prior) when the rubber one to the right front brake blew out. Fortunately the reason I had looked over my lines was thatI had changed over to a dual 67 master. When the line blew, I knew there was a braking issue but the car stopped. All my flex lines are stainless braid now.

 

A question for those of us with dual cylinder M/C's.

Mine is from a '70's manual brake Corvette and I run front disks from a '77 and the rear drums ('64). There is a 10# residual valve and proportioning valve under the dash that is plumbed into the existing rear line where the front T-block was near the steering box.

The front line goes directly to a Hurst Roll Control (line lock), then both front calipers. All rubber lines have been changed to braided teflon.

When I bleed the brakes, it seems to me that if I crack open any of the four bleed screws, the pedal goes to the floor.

Does yours do the same???

If the pedal goes to the floor, how can I pressurize the other side of the system that is not loosing pressure and wouldn't I expect the same thing to happen in traffic?

If that's the case, how is this advantageous to a single cylinder M/C?

(Or maybe this M/C is defective and has been the source of my hard pedal/poor brake aggrevation even though it's a rebuilt?)

 

Sorry. Can't answer that one. I use a pressure bleeder on mine so never have pumped the brakes with a bleeder open. Like I said, I have lost the front half and while the pedal was not as firm, it didn't go to the floor either. The car stopped with just the rear working.

G

 

100%. There are millions of cars on the road that are running single master cylinders with no problems. I have two of them. For those that are afraid of a failure, fine, add a dual circuit M/S. You may want to retro-fit it with ABS, collapsible steering columns, steel beams in the doors and air bags as well.

Jim

 

You can easily have an internal leak in a dual MC and it will cause what you described. Just had to replace the one on wifey's '07 Exploder. The brakes worked, but damn the pedal travel was ridiculously long and the pedal was squishy. I flushed the entire system, twice, replaced all the pads and still.....squish. I finally figured it was one of the seals on the front piston, or the forward seal on the back piston (because not a drop of fluid leaked out of the MC or anyplace else in the system. New MC - perfect brakes.

...as for adding ABS, collapsible columns, air bags and steel beams in the doors, well that's the kind of snark that really doesn't help anyone. I read all kinds of ooohs and ahhhs on here about some really great projects like putting a C1 body on a C4 chassis (and those are really cool), but suggest something simple and easy (and effective) like changing a master cylinder or getting rid of breaker points and half of you act like the owner is about to cut his car in half with a chain saw.

Mike M you need to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs a video showing a '59 Impala smashing into a 2009 Impala in an offset head-on crash. To state that the motor vehicle safety standards imposed in the last 50 years haven't reduced the injury and death rate from ordinary crashes is false on its face. To put it midly, your statement is uninformed.

 

I don't care if you quote me but please quote me accurately. I never said anything even remotely resembling what you are giving me credit for.

I watched the phony setup Impala deal a long time ago. It's about as phony as the Chevrolet truck gas tanks blowing up that some TV station/network staged.

That '59 Chevy got hit in absolutely the weakest point on the body/chassis while the car that hit it has been designed SPECIFICALLY to withstand an impact in that same area. I'm afraid you are the one that is uninformed or maybe you are just a drama queen.

I'm kinda' old fashioned, that's true but I've never had one Corvette upside down and another one tore all to hell in a ditch! Matter of fact, I haven't had any car in either of those situations. It's been almost 50 years to the day since I put a dent on a car on a public road. Could you tell us more about how you've managed to accomplish these two feats in your short lifetime?

I have never said newer cars aren't safer because they are. I do resent it more than a little that the government tells me what kind of car I can drive when most accidents are caused by the driver, not the car. Your case is a good case in point.

Go pee in somebody else's boot and tell them it's raining.

 

PS,

I forgot to tell you, by your own admission, (the story you told above about the failure of your Explorer dual master cylinder) adding a dual master cylinder does not guarantee anything as far as brake safety as it sounds like your Explorer was just a few stops away from total brake failure.

Your tale is just another example of why this is true.

 

People are aware that dual circuit master cylinders were installed in case a line failed, right?

The issue is due to rust mainly and impact such as hitting something in the road that rips a brake line.

So if you are driving a car with 40 year old rusty lines, you do have to worry.

If you are driving a restored car that has 2000 miles a year only on sunny days, the chances of you having a rusty brake line fail make hitting Powerball look like a sure thing.

 

Scary, isn't it!

 

When you hit a deer on a lonely country road in your midyear at night in an unavoidable collision (as in it's not your fault at all, and God knows I hope you don't), or some butthead rearends you at 40 and you break your neck 'cuz you have no headreasts, come back and tell me about car safety. I won't drive mine out here in the boonies at night for just that reason. I got a chance in the Cobra, nearly none in the Vette.

What possible reason would the IIHS have to fake a staged collision? They don't sell ads like NBC.

My bad driving habits and skills have nothing to do with this discussion. This is about a CF member who wants to put a dual circuit master cylinder in his car, and a bunch of you are telling him it will give NO safety improvement. You want to believe that, that's your business, but 45 years of crash data don't support that conclusion. The '07 Exploder brakes continued to work precisely because it had a dual circuit M/C.

You want to take all the avionics out of an F22 Raptor and fly by the seat of your pants like in a P51 Mustang? Driver error is unavoidable, just like pilot error is unavoidable, and you can be the victim of someone else's error, too. Designing cars to migitate the damage is the right thing to do.

 

Once again, you are spinning so fast you've spun out of orbit.

In your spare time, see if you can find where anybody said it's a bad idea to put a dual master cylinder on his car and then post it here. It is true, some, including me have said the dual cylinder is no guarantee of the elimination of total brake failure as some seem to believe.

WTF does an F 22 have to do?????????????????????