Brake master cyl, 300Tdi/TD5

[Snagger]

Can anyone please enlighten me as to how to identify 90 or 110 master cylinders for the all-disc braked models, please. Photos of the key recognition points or part numbers would be especially useful.

[6 pot]

This is what it looks like

http://www.mailorder4x4.com/acatalog/info_3005.html

Cheers Rob

[Retroanaconda]

Post 1991 (ish) when the brake rationalisation took place, they're all the same. STC441 as above

[Snagger]

Thanks, guys. Much like the Discovery I master cylinder then, but with one less port and a rectangular reservoir rather than tapered. I presume that single port end is for the rear brake line, while the front brakes use two lines right back to the MC? (Series III 109 LRs used a single to the front and single to the rear, teed off to each corner at the front cross member and rear axle respectively).

[cackshifter]

Thanks, guys. Much like the Discovery I master cylinder then, but with one less port and a rectangular reservoir rather than tapered. I presume that single port end is for the rear brake line, while the front brakes use two lines right back to the MC? (Series III 109 LRs used a single to the front and single to the rear, teed off to each corner at the front cross member and rear axle respectively).

That's the 110 setup. The 90 also has a pressure reducing valve which one of the fronts and the rears go through. (Talking 300tdi now)

Nigel

[Snagger]

That's the 110 setup. The 90 also has a pressure reducing valve which one of the fronts and the rears go through. (Talking 300tdi now)

Nigel

I just went to my local specialist (Rogers) and a friend showed me a TD5 90's system. It has an inertial valve, which by the sounds of things takes into account the deceleration rate of the vehicle and probably any incline it's descending. I have the plain pressure reducing valve from the Discovery I got all four callipers (and a master cylinder) from, so I'm not a bit unsure which to use - the discovery pressure reducer would be simplest to fit and I'd guess that it's orientation would just be horizontal, but my friend has a spare s/h inertial valve which may be better for a 109 conversion, but may be very subject to mounting angles...

Does anyone one know if it makes much difference?

[cackshifter]

If you're converting a 109, wouldn't you just go with the 110 type of piping - in other words no valve? Bear in mind that a 110 has 46mm pistons at the rear, rather than the 41 on a discovery. Not sure how big a discovery front pistons are. There's quite a bit more weight on the back I think. My 110 has 4x46mm on the front, 2 x 46mm on the rear, no valve. The 90 has 4x46mm on the front, 2 x 41mm on the rear and the valve. Both 300tdi. The 90 rears are I think common with the discovery.

Nigel

[Aragorn]

.

[Snagger]

Since the max gross weight of a 109 and Discovery are near identical, I had planned to fit the whole Discovery system to the 109. I had been under the assumption that 110 Defenders also had the smaller rear pistons, not just the 90. However, either way, braking will be significantly increased over the original full drum system.

[Snagger]

Since the max gross weight of a 109 and Discovery are near identical, I had planned to fit the whole Discovery system to the 109. I had been under the assumption that 110 Defenders also had the smaller rear pistons, not just the 90. However, either way, braking will be significantly increased over the original full drum system.

By the way, thanks to the master cylinder details, I was able to get a complete master cylinder, servo and pedal box in excellent condition from Stoneleigh for £25.