Will it fit: SVO MC with a 5.0 booster and modern driveline cable clutch cable ?

Rusty67

Rusty67

Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
Dec 3, 2002
3,749
37
109
Seattle area, WA
#1
I'm planning on using the 87-93 5.0 booster in my 67 along with the SVO MC I've already got hooked up in there. Will this fit with the modern driveline firewall plate in there ?

Anyone put this setup in before and made it fit ? I know that MC has a little meat in it so I can grind a little off of the end if I have too but I'd rather not.

I've read up on the Ultrastang website but I didn't see anything about using the SVO MC with this booster or the cable clutch setup.
 

  • Sponsors (?)


#2
Rusty67 said:
I'm planning on using the 87-93 5.0 booster in my 67 along with the SVO MC I've already got hooked up in there. Will this fit with the modern driveline firewall plate in there ?

Anyone put this setup in before and made it fit ? I know that MC has a little meat in it so I can grind a little off of the end if I have too but I'd rather not.

I've read up on the Ultrastang website but I didn't see anything about using the SVO MC with this booster or the cable clutch setup.
Click to expand...


The Mk VII/SVO 4-wheel disc MC and 5.0L booster will be a tight fit on a '67/'68, but will just clear the shock tower if you grind/radius the left front corner of the "snout" sticking out the front of the Mk VII MC. This same setup will definitely not work in '65/'66 models due to the shape of their shock towers.

Probably a better setup would be to use the '99-'04 SN95 V6 Mustang MC. It will give you plenty of clearance without having to grind the MC's tip down, and it will put out more line pressure to your brakes. --SN95 MC has a 1" bore. Mk VII/SVO MC has a larger 1-1/8" bore. The larger bore will also require more input from you [your leg], to actuate the brakes.

In reference to the cable clutch setup, I couldn't tell you since I've never used a cable in an early model application.
 
#3
How does a smaller bore MC put out more pressure then a larger bore MC ? I thought that the larger the bore the more pressure the MC would put out ?

I don't like the newer MCs with the plastic tanks, they don't look right in a classic and the SVO MC I have is aluminum so its not all that heavy anyways. Also, those newer MCs use metric fitings which I'm trying to avoid where possible.
 
#4
Rusty67 said:
How does a smaller bore MC put out more pressure then a larger bore MC ? I thought that the larger the bore the more pressure the MC would put out ?

I don't like the newer MCs with the plastic tanks, they don't look right in a classic and the SVO MC I have is aluminum so its not all that heavy anyways. Also, those newer MCs use metric fitings which I'm trying to avoid where possible.
Click to expand...

Larger bore means more fluid displacement but less pressure output per given amount of input force on the brake pedal [of a given pedal ratio] and vise-versa.

A larger bore MC has less pedal travel than a smaller bore but requires more effort to actuate than a smaller bore MC.

The area of a common 1-1/8-inch master cylinder is approximately 0.994-inch. The area of an equally common 1.00-inch bore master cylinder is approximately 0.785-inch. Switching from the larger master cylinder to the smaller version will increase the line pressure approximately 26.5% assuming the pedal ratio hasn't changed.


Goto link and scroll down page to: "Effects of Pedal Ratio and Bore Size on Hydraulic Pressure Output"
Master Power Brakes - Reference/FAQs: Master Cylinders

http://www.peterverdonedesigns.com/files/hydraulic system theory.pdf

Braking Systems in Plain English
 
#5
Ultrastang, thanx for the links. It was an excelent refresher. I forgot it was the pedal travel that decreases with a larger bore, not presure increasing.

I think I'm going to need the larger SVO MC when I swap out to the larger TBird calipers I have. I wont be doing that for quite a while but I figure, why change MCs so many times ? I've done it too many already and I think with a vacuum booster, I should have enough assist to make braking smooth and powerful with my current 4 piston H/K calipers.

Also, what does the pedal ratio with a manual pedal look like compaired to a power pedal ?
 
#6
hey guys something i just found out recently is that some ford trucks have a more correct looking master cylinder with the lines on the fender well side of the master instead of the engine side like the SVO/MK VII master cylinder but are still made of aluminum for those of us who like to be really sneaky. i know for certain that some 84-85 rangers had the aluminum master like this and IIRC it has a 1-1/8" bore (could still be a 1", not real sure) so there's another option for some of us.

also i found out recently that SSBC's aluminum replacement for for the stock K/H calipers have a bigger piston than stock but not quite as large as the big 'Bird 4 piston calipers, this could be a good middle ground if we can find a 12" rotor with a width slightly less than 1" that will work with either a stock drum hub (rotor would mount outboard of the hub) or a stock disc hub (rotor would mount inboard of the hub). of course this would mean needing to have custom caliper brackets made but Rusty is looking at this already for his big 'Bird calipers anyway.

i'm just trying to come up with other options so if anyone has done something similar or knows of someone who has, please chime in.
 
#8
#10
Rusty67 said:
The SSBC calipers use the 67 K/H pistons which were slightly larger then the 65/66 ones.
Click to expand...



actually i'm pretty sure that the only difference between 65/66 and 67 is that the 67 uses a larger fluid transfer line, IE; 65/66 used a 5/16 crossover line and 67 used a 3/8 crossover line. otherwise they are the same part.

i went back and double checked what i had read and it seems that i'm wrong again...dammmittt!!!!!...the SSBC caliper uses the same 1-5/8 pistons as the stock 65-67 caliper. the t-bird uses 1-15/16 pistons and of course a wider rotor too.

still though, if we could find a 12" rotor that would work with the smaller calipers it would still be a good midway point between stock 67 brakes and the big T-bird/LTD brakes. i'll have to double check but it seems like a late model crown vic rotor was about right for this. i want to double check so i don't screw it up again this time.......:rolleyes:
 
#11
ok, i went and double checked and it seems like a 2003-2008 crown vic front rotor will work using a stock (68-70) disc brake hub, it's 12.015" in diameter and 1.105" thick which is slightly thicker than a stock mustang rotor which is about .9" thick so a thinner pad (modified stock pad?) may (or may not) be needed.

of course it would need a custom made caliper bracket too. i think it would even work with a 15" wheel, clearances may be close though. that's the real caveat here, i don't have rotor or a caliper to check it out with so i can't be sure it would clear a 15" wheel and me and Rusty, i think, are pretty determined to keep our 15" wheels at least i am anyway.
 
#14
ultrastang said:
A 2000 Crown Vic rotor is 12.44" in diameter and 1.105" thick across the friction surfaces. The height [from the inboard friction surface of the rotor to the surface of the hat] is 2.59".

http://partimages2.genpt.com/partimages/625844.jpg


A 2003-present Crown Vic rotor has the same thickness as the earlier models but is smaller in diameter at 12.015" and the height is shorter at 1.77".
Click to expand...



like i said 03-08. i think the 2000 would end up being too tall. i could very well be wrong again though........:shrug:
 
#15
bnickel said:
like i said 03-08. i think the 2000 would end up being too tall. i could very well be wrong again though........:shrug:
Click to expand...

The bad part may possibly be the 2003-up rotor's shallower thickness --1.77" vs. the earlier 2.59" thickness. A rotor with a thinner hat is going to mount further away from the spindle's upright when mounted to the face of a 5-lug hub. This will position the friction surfaces of the rotor further out over the spindle pin [putting more leverage on the thinner portion of the pin].

Machining the center hole out on the rotor and mounting the rotor to the backside of the hub instead may bring the rotor's friction surfaces within a better distance of the upright to position the rotor over the thicker part of the spindle pin where it needs to be.
 
#16
ultrastang said:
Machining the center hole out on the rotor and mounting the rotor to the backside of the hub instead may bring the rotor's friction surfaces within a better distance of the upright to position the rotor over the thicker part of the spindle pin where it needs to be.
Click to expand...

Just how the hell do you mount a rotor to the back side of a hub anyways ?
 
#18
ultrastang said:
The bad part may possibly be the 2003-up rotor's shallower thickness --1.77" vs. the earlier 2.59" thickness. A rotor with a thinner hat is going to mount further away from the spindle's upright when mounted to the face of a 5-lug hub. This will position the friction surfaces of the rotor further out over the spindle pin [putting more leverage on the thinner portion of the pin].

Machining the center hole out on the rotor and mounting the rotor to the backside of the hub instead may bring the rotor's friction surfaces within a better distance of the upright to position the rotor over the thicker part of the spindle pin where it needs to be.
Click to expand...

the disc hub will add about another inch to the height of the hub part of the assembly which should be close to what it needs. i have a spare set of original discs in the garage i will measure later to get an idea of what's needed height wise
 
#19
ok, i went out and checked my original rotors and the height is just about 1.5" with another 1.5" or so to the top of the hub, so in order to use the crown vic rotor and the original disc brake hub you "might" actually need to to mill about 1/4 or so from the back of the original disc hub and there seems to plenty of meat there to do it.


this seems like a really good way to get a set of 12" discs for cheap to me. i'm going to further investigate using the 03-up CV front rotors, stock mustang disc hubs, and the SSBC replacement aluminum 4 piston calipers with a custom caliper bracket.

Steve any interest in helping me out with this idea? i'd be willing to let you borrow my disc hubs and i can probably round up a CV rotor and stock 65-67 caliper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Drivetrain Clutch Cable too Short?!
Replies
9
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
vpap1
V
C
BBK Clutch Cable Works Hard
Replies
1
Views
633
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
2Blue2
2Blue2
C
New here. Was left a 67' Mustang 347. Ready to go down the rabbit hole but don't know where to start.
Replies
4
Views
1K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
AeroCoupe
AeroCoupe
2000xp8
Time for a new clutch
Replies
110
Views
9K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
2000xp8
2000xp8
Waz900
Drivetrain Clutch fork/throwout bearing/cable adjustment
Replies
5
Views
3K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Waz900
Waz900
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu