Series III Brake Lines

[Retroanaconda]

Hi all,

First question, my 88" is getting parabolic springs so will likely suffer a small amount of lift over 'standard' spec. Will I need extended brake lines for this, or should I just limit the articulation with the check straps (seems a shame)? Reason I ask is that I don't want to put stainless lines on as I like the ability to clamp them off, it's not exactly going to be a racing car so it seems like a bit of a waste of money, and I can't find 'normal' extended lines anywhere.

Second question, this relates to the layout of the front off-side wheel solid brake line. When my new chassis arrives one of my impending jobs is to run in the new brake pipes, and this is confusing me. Please cast your attention to this picture of my grubby 88's layout as arrowed:

As you can see, the line comes along the chassis rail from the PDWA valve thing (which won't be present in my re-build, but that is irrelevant) and goes underneath the battery box with the steering rod. It then turns left, goes right under and around the chassis rail and comes back up and onto the bracket for the flexi hose. This seems completely illogical to me and just seems to add another potential spot to hinder bleeding (like I need that with TLS brakes on the front...).

Now please guide your learned eyes to this second image depicting a very shiny mid-rebuild Series III:

As can be seen, this takes what I would consider the logical path. Turns right under the battery box and straight down onto the flexi hose bracket. The bracketry is slightly different here, but that doesn't really matter as I can just work with what I get.

My question is, which is the 'proper' way, and is there any reason not to do it the (seemingly more sensible) way shown in the second photograph?

Thanking you

[Phil Hancock]

The top one is correct IIRC, the 2a's had it from on top but they had opposite angled brackets for the hose/pipe joint.

[Retroanaconda]

Like the bracket shown in the second photo?

It seems like most replacement chassis come with this style of bracket, but as far as I can see the angle of the brake line makes no difference anyway. That's the whole point of a flexible hose after all

My hoses will need to come into the swivel-mounted bracket from the front of the vehicle anyhow, as shown in the second photo above, so that style of bracket would be beneficial to me as the hose would then be in a nice smooth curve rather than making an S shape unnecessarily.

[moore101]

mine are like how you have redone yours and i had no problems bleeding my old twin leading shoe brakes. it seems a more logical route.

only thing to watch out for is the inner wing trapping the pipe between itself and the chassis, will vary with each vehicle (landrover tolerances!)

[Les Henson]

I fitted parabolics to my old 109. I used Goodridge +2" hoses.

Les.

[ludylandy]

only thing to watch out for is the inner wing trapping the pipe between itself and the chassis, will vary with each vehicle (landrover tolerances!)

I think that is probably the reason for routing the pipe under the chassis rail. Mine run over the chassis rail and the gap between the chassis and the wing is pretty tight so I slipped a short piece of fuel pipe over the copper pipe to offer some protection.

[Retroanaconda]

Will do a test fit of the wing I think. Can always notch it if necessary

[Retroanaconda]

Right, I've answered my own question with regard to the front brake lines. If anyone wants extended hoses but doesn't want stainless ones (so you can retain the ability to clamp off), then if you go to your local motor factor and ask them for the front brake lines off an E-Type Jaguar, they're about 2" longer

I will confirm a part number when I pick them up tomorrow.

[Retroanaconda]

Oooh, and another question or two:

1. Since Land Rover went metric in June 1989, shouldn't all my new brake cylinders etc, have metric threads? They all seem to be 3/8" UNF so far, but then so are the wheel cylinders on my 90. So were they all metric apart from the final connections like said 90?

2. The master cylinder I bought is part no NRC6096. It looks like this:

Now, I've not been able to find any concrete evidence on the net as to the threads in use here. I understand one is different to the other front/rear to stop people getting them the wrong way around. One site suggest M12 rear, 3/8" UNF front. Another suggested 3/8" UNF and 7/16" UNF, but this doesn't tie in to the 'going metric' idea...but then neither does the first option, surely it would have been M12 in one and M10 the other? Any ideas?

The reason it matters is because I am basically building a post-1980 dual circuit system, but the whole lot is being done in 3/8" UNF (because I don't see any reason to mix union types unnecessarily. If I have to have a couple of metric fittings to go into the master cylinder then so be it, I'm not buying another one now.

[Retroanaconda]

To answer my own question, the NRC6096 master cylinder as fitted to dual-circuit vehicles from 1980 onwards, uses M12x1mm for the large port and M10x1mm for the small one

[Phil Hancock]

The wheel cylinders were imperial on series, it was just the hoses and master cylinder that went metric.