Alpines List Archive
MC for Webers
Posted by mailbot
|
mailbot
Mail List Archive Bot
., Online, USA
|
Topic Creator (OP)
May 31, 2000 10:16 AM
Joined 15 years ago
68,271 Posts
|
This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)
I got a couple e-mails about MC's for Weber set ups. In case there are
more interested, here is what I sent to the first, copied for everyone
else:
The Girling MC I got from Pegasus was the .62 (or 5.8"
MC, Part No.
3500-.62. For whatever reason, that MC when I bought it was just a bit
shorter than all their others. Their catalog shows a sketch and
measurement of their Girling MC's which suggests all of them (the .62 ,the
.70 and the .75) are 3.95" long from flange to back of reservoir. I don't
recall the exact number, but the .62 one was short enough whereas 3.95" was
too long. I seem to remember it might be something like 3.8 and change.
I can go measure the gap for you on my car if you want. I will comment
that the SV, for whatever reason, had just a slight bit more room than the
S3. I now have a lot of trouble getting the cap on, where I didn't before.
If you find a Tilton that will fit, certainly let me know. The Tilton they
show is 5.56" long.
Someone else on the list recently called Pegasus and tried to get them to
measure one for him and they were not very receptive. Seems they've gotten
a little big since I bought from them 6 years ago.
One option is the Steve Alcala set up with the MC on the inside of the car
(Tilton double MC I think). But, then you need to weld in an entirely
different pedal box.
Another option is to use the stock remote resevoir MC and file off enough
metal off of the front tip - which "seems" like extra metal anyway. I
debated that, but decided that the amount of metal I would have to file off
was getting a bit too close for comfort to the threaded hole, and I decided
that extra material might have been designed for strength and the last
thing I wanted to do was jeopardize the integrity of the brakes.
I hear there is a guy in No. Cal, that rigged up some rotating shaft that
ran along the inside of the firewall to push a plunger out through the hole
where the RHD brake hole is, and mounted the MC there. While that has some
merit, in that it allows the stock brake set up, I was concerned about not
having direct pressure on the brakes and the risk of breakage of that
linkeage.
Let me know your thoughts and certainly what you decide to do.
Jay
Mail From: (email redacted)
I got a couple e-mails about MC's for Weber set ups. In case there are
more interested, here is what I sent to the first, copied for everyone
else:
The Girling MC I got from Pegasus was the .62 (or 5.8"
MC, Part No.3500-.62. For whatever reason, that MC when I bought it was just a bit
shorter than all their others. Their catalog shows a sketch and
measurement of their Girling MC's which suggests all of them (the .62 ,the
.70 and the .75) are 3.95" long from flange to back of reservoir. I don't
recall the exact number, but the .62 one was short enough whereas 3.95" was
too long. I seem to remember it might be something like 3.8 and change.
I can go measure the gap for you on my car if you want. I will comment
that the SV, for whatever reason, had just a slight bit more room than the
S3. I now have a lot of trouble getting the cap on, where I didn't before.
If you find a Tilton that will fit, certainly let me know. The Tilton they
show is 5.56" long.
Someone else on the list recently called Pegasus and tried to get them to
measure one for him and they were not very receptive. Seems they've gotten
a little big since I bought from them 6 years ago.
One option is the Steve Alcala set up with the MC on the inside of the car
(Tilton double MC I think). But, then you need to weld in an entirely
different pedal box.
Another option is to use the stock remote resevoir MC and file off enough
metal off of the front tip - which "seems" like extra metal anyway. I
debated that, but decided that the amount of metal I would have to file off
was getting a bit too close for comfort to the threaded hole, and I decided
that extra material might have been designed for strength and the last
thing I wanted to do was jeopardize the integrity of the brakes.
I hear there is a guy in No. Cal, that rigged up some rotating shaft that
ran along the inside of the firewall to push a plunger out through the hole
where the RHD brake hole is, and mounted the MC there. While that has some
merit, in that it allows the stock brake set up, I was concerned about not
having direct pressure on the brakes and the risk of breakage of that
linkeage.
Let me know your thoughts and certainly what you decide to do.
Jay
|
mailbot
Mail List Archive Bot
., Online, USA
|
Topic Creator (OP)
May 31, 2000 10:44 AM
Joined 15 years ago
68,271 Posts
|
This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Christopher Albers)
(email redacted) writes:
>Another option is to use the stock remote resevoir MC and file off
>enough
>metal off of the front tip - which "seems" like extra metal anyway. I
>debated that, but decided that the amount of metal I would have to file
>off
>was getting a bit too close for comfort to the threaded hole, and I
>decided
>that extra material might have been designed for strength and the last
>thing I wanted to do was jeopardize the integrity of the brakes.
Why hasn't someone just designed a slightly offset intake manifold?
Seems like a simple solution to me. But then again, I'm no engineer.
CNA
Mail From: (email redacted) (Christopher Albers)
(email redacted) writes:
>Another option is to use the stock remote resevoir MC and file off
>enough
>metal off of the front tip - which "seems" like extra metal anyway. I
>debated that, but decided that the amount of metal I would have to file
>off
>was getting a bit too close for comfort to the threaded hole, and I
>decided
>that extra material might have been designed for strength and the last
>thing I wanted to do was jeopardize the integrity of the brakes.
Why hasn't someone just designed a slightly offset intake manifold?
Seems like a simple solution to me. But then again, I'm no engineer.
CNA
|
mailbot
Mail List Archive Bot
., Online, USA
|
Topic Creator (OP)
May 31, 2000 11:02 AM
Joined 15 years ago
68,271 Posts
|
This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)
>Why hasn't someone just designed a
>slightly offset intake manifold?
1. The power of Webers is maximized by having straight runners.
2. It's not a problem on RHD cars.
3. The demand is small.
4. The molds already existed without it.
Mail From: (email redacted)
>Why hasn't someone just designed a
>slightly offset intake manifold?
1. The power of Webers is maximized by having straight runners.
2. It's not a problem on RHD cars.
3. The demand is small.
4. The molds already existed without it.
|
mailbot
Mail List Archive Bot
., Online, USA
|
Topic Creator (OP)
May 31, 2000 11:26 AM
Joined 15 years ago
68,271 Posts
|
This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Jarrid Gross <(email redacted)>
>>Why hasn't someone just designed a
>>slightly offset intake manifold?
>
>1. The power of Webers is maximized by having straight runners.
>2. It's not a problem on RHD cars.
>3. The demand is small.
>4. The molds already existed without it.
The first artical weber TWM intake fit in my car by only removing the
master cylinder spacer. Granted there was only 1/16 inch clearance
beteen the carb case and the MC, but it did fit.
To make the clearance better yet, I took a tad over 1/8 inch off the
end of the MC. This is perfectly acceptable because the fitting end
is the low pressure "suction" side of the MC.
45mm cases would likely have additional clearance probs, where a smaller
MC would be needed.
Jarrid Gross
DCOE style fuel injection on my SII.
Mail From: Jarrid Gross <(email redacted)>
>>Why hasn't someone just designed a
>>slightly offset intake manifold?
>
>1. The power of Webers is maximized by having straight runners.
>2. It's not a problem on RHD cars.
>3. The demand is small.
>4. The molds already existed without it.
The first artical weber TWM intake fit in my car by only removing the
master cylinder spacer. Granted there was only 1/16 inch clearance
beteen the carb case and the MC, but it did fit.
To make the clearance better yet, I took a tad over 1/8 inch off the
end of the MC. This is perfectly acceptable because the fitting end
is the low pressure "suction" side of the MC.
45mm cases would likely have additional clearance probs, where a smaller
MC would be needed.
Jarrid Gross
DCOE style fuel injection on my SII.
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
Having trouble posting or changing forum settings?
Read the Forum Help (FAQ) or click Contact Support at the bottom of the page.








