Hi, my EE friend: So, Your saying you have a 1962 300 Gussied up with a set of short rams and a firewall-mounted boosted MC. You ask the question on engine bays. The ’62-’64 bays are decidedly shorter than the ‘’60-‘61’s due to the shorter wheelbase. That’s the question before the house. Pretty sure the ’63-’64 ram cars had the master-slave setup with a manual brake MC on the firewall and a remote boosted slave cylinder in the front fender well—under the battery area. Apparently due to the ram system being too close to the standard boosted MC, The question(s) is/are 1. Is there evidence of any ram-engined ‘62’s floating around? I understand the ram installation was a dealer-installed option so, no factory ram cars. 2. What kind of brake system was on the ram-engined ‘62’s after the dealer install? All Manual brakes? The standard firewall mounted boosted MC? A remote slave cylinder as on the J’s & K’s? Not doubting your description of your ram-engined ’62 with a boosted MC on the firewall—but a picture showing the proximity of the MC to the LH ram system would be educational—and, perhaps, lead to more ram-engined ‘62’s, Thanks for your review of boosted vs. manual brakes-with and without disc conversion and split MC vs single tube, Those of us in our ram-engined J’s & K’s and forced to live on the single tubes running from master to slave and slave to the four wheels might welcome a boosted and firewall-mounted split-system MC. Even if it came from a Corvette or a Jaguar. Your ME friend, Rich Barber Brentwood CA From: John Grady <jkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Rich . I have a 62 with 405 clone , the mc is the same setup as an F . It also has air , guy before me was ambitious .He did a better job than factory . I also looked carefully at “ Big Red” at the Pa meet ; 62 405 with manual brakes and also water heated carbs . More of a race car setup but I liked it . Frees up exhaust options and no struggles with exhaust heat problems . FYI manual brakes with correct manual pedal ratio setup from a dodge ( fits) and stock 12 “ drums is not too bad . Good even . However even correctly done manual brakes and any disc conversion are a horror show imho . Very hard pedal , and it travels a few inches first due to very high brake fluid requirement ( cc) of the large disc puck cylinders compared to drum cylinder piston surface area . No amount of bleeding etc fixes that . Been there . Lesson learned . That car ended up with larger bore corvette master ( big but fits with redrilling , with no boost , non ram ) to reduce travel , but that makes pedal even harder . Lesson learned … Back to first question , I think 60-62 exactly the same engine bay ? Right ? I ask , as often headers ( like TTI ) are listed 62 up , why not 60 ? Something else hits? Anyone know? What was on 400 hp F for carb heat and brake mc ? Sent from my iPhone
For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chrysler 300 Club International" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chrysler-300-club-international+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chrysler-300-club-international/014501d8a69e%24d05562d0%2471002870%24%40ez2.net. |
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap