Fino's 58 Wagon

so which is worse (in terms of failure)....continuing to run the old springs in their original configuration, or running the old main leaf with the rest of the new pack? In other words, would mixing the leaves be any worse than just continuing to run the old springs, or are you specifically more concerned about failure with the mixed spring pack. I don't really know how old the 'old' springs are.....but I know the 'new' springs are RR (which is just another name for Omix), so the old springs might still be better than the new ones.

 

Fair enough....but in many cases, any of us that buy a used jeep, we are running on used leaves of unknown background use and abuse. In the case of some of the leaves, I know who bought them and how they used them (or didn't). In one case, the pack was bought new, and some leaves were removed to achieve the desired ride quality and reduce arch (SOA), so those leaves are not an unknown issue - I would be more hesitant to just pull leaves from JY or salvaged springs or the like. At the same time, new stuff isn't guaranteed to be any better - I broke a 2 year old BDS main leaf a couple years ago on the CJ - unfortunately quality even when new is just not what is was, but we have to make the best of it. Military wrap seems like a must these days for any hard use rig....I've seen quite a few broken leafs the last few years, albeit some of cheaper quality, but its the broken main leaf that can really ruin a day or trip. CJ options are limited - wagon options are even more limited. Starting to see the value in just cutting off all OEM hangers and going with the springs one wants/likes and then just fitting them to the frame as needed....wonder how hard it is to weld on coil spring cups and some links - bet a wagon would ride really nice with some coils up front instead of the shorty leafs

 

Adding in a 2lbs RPV for the front brakes.... something just hasn't felt quite right with the front discs after upgrading the rear to the 11" Bendix....I originally removed the 10lbs RPV internal to the MC when I installed the discs, and it seemed fine at first, but when the new rear drums went on, started noticing some odd pedal behavior ....or see if this helps....


Trying to clean up the brake line bends a bit as well to keep it as high and tight as possible. The Wildwood MC has bottom fittings and is still frame mounted.

While I've been crawling around, I think I got the OEM fuel gauge working - bypassed the burned out 'internal 6V regulator' and used a small external transformer to step the 12V to 5v and wired it directly into the 2nd gauge terminal. It's been so long since I've driven it, not sure if it needs any additional calibration, but I think it's about right. Nice to see the old gauge work - although I find it dumb the OEM arrangement puts the F and the bottom and the needle rises as it empties....


I actually just did this with the CJ as well (my aftermarket replacement gauge from 12 years ago burned out during last falls HITR trip, but it's still a better gauge than the new omix ones), but I found the 5V too small and it read low, so I went with a 6V transformer and it seems better. Really wishing now that I would have kept that original burned out CJ gauge - probably could have gotten it working now - didn't know what I was doing back then.

 

I find it dumb I can't just buy the 2lbs duckbill to go inside the MC port to replace the 10lbs one I took out....guess it's possible the 2lbs one inside the external blue housing might fit right inside the MC, but ...? Guess if I have sealing issues withe the external housing, it might come apart and see what that duckbill looks like and if it might fit directly into the MC housing

 

ok - brake question....I finally got the MC and lines all bled after installing the 2lbs RPV into the front disc circuit ...no change to the pedal....overall, it seems to work and feel the same as it did before without an RPV in the front (disc) circuit. Supposedly, the rear circuit has a 10lbs RPV in it from Willwood (the front did) - but I do confess that I haven't actually pulled it out to verify. So here is my issue...an initial light touch of the brake pedal moves it into a zone of light pedal resistance, and with the jeep on jackstands, begins to engage the front discs, but not the rear drums (which at least is good from a safety standpoint of not locking up the rears first). Then the pedal seems to travel a distance further with this ever so slight resistance and the front brakes engage ever so slightly more (determine from hand spinning the tire in neutral). This zone of pedal travel ends with another 'step-up' or quick increase of pedal resistance that quickly goes pretty damn firm and responsive (in a good feeling way) - but the total amount of pedal travel seems more than I like. When driving, this is when the jeep actually begins to have confident stopping. On jack stands, this is also when the rear drums begin to engage. Basically, I feel like the initial zone of pedal travel with weak braking is noticeable and annoying (especially when not 'jumping' on the brakes hard, and as i often kick it into neutral and coast a bit as I roll up to a stop). At first, I barely even noticed the front discs were engaging, so I adjusted the pedal travel and MC pushrod so I got into the good firm pedal feel sooner - but that actually meant the front discs were lightly engaged at all times, and it didn't take long for me to smell it and feel it when coasting. So, I guess, here is the real question - or should I say which of the 3 thoughts to address the issue:
1) do I need to try and adjust the rear shoes more, getting them out closer to the drums and require less fluid/pedal travel before fully engaging? But, when I set them up, I was pretty conscious of adjusting them so that they were just barely rubbing the drums...maybe the shoes are not well shaped and what I am set up as just barely rubbing, was just a small portion of the shoe? Maybe if I pull the drums and inspect, i can figure out how matched the shoe curve is to the inside of the drum? If this is the case, maybe I just need to drive it and use the brakes a bit and 'wear' the shoe into maximum contact surface with the drum.
2) Would some sort of proportioning valve help? In this case, its possible it is currently set-up with a bit too much front bias- I'd like the rears to come in a bit sooner?
3) would changing out the MC for a larger diameter help? Currently using a 1" willwood setup (have to look up the stroke), but it also comes in a 1-1/8 cylinder with same stroke. Would have the same 50/50 dual circuit even bias, and maybe the additional fluid it moved would help get the rear brakes to engage with less pedal travel....as I understand, it wouldn't really change the bias, and the front would still be engaged as much as they currently are when the rears engage, but all of it would happen with less pedal travel, and I would get to the firm and responsive zone quicker?

 

umm....who do you think you are dealing with....vac booster? never.....manual with organic pads on front...chevy s-10 style calipers etc

 

FWIW - here is the one that came out of the front circuit when I put the disks on....
http://www.earlycj5.com/xf_cj5/index.php?threads/156644/page-4#post-1799187

supposedly the MC was sold as a drum-drum - but yes I never verified the rear circuit has the same. What is the most frustrating is that this MC and front disk set-up was working fabulously when I first installed and was still using the OEM 11" inboard manual adjusted drums on the rear. Ever since I put the 11" bendix on, something has changed - don't know if they require a lot more fluid or if the shoes aren't fully contacting the drums due to poor shape/minimal wear, or if the self adjusters are possibly on backwards etc......Going to start with inspecting the rear drums, and then I confirm the the rear circuit RPV exists in the MC...but its going to be another week before I can get back to it.

 

???? All rear drum brake components were swapped out with new for 11" bendix...nothing carries over from the OEM to the Bendix. I am wondering how much more fluid the Bendix cylinders require as compared to the OEM...