Packard Forum Index » General

Engineered Components, Inc.
Hot Rod Brakes and Brackets
P.O. Box 841
Vernon, CT. 06066
(860) 872-7046
www.ecihotrodbrakes.com

I talked w/Ralph at ECI to see if this would be a straight replacement for the BTV on my 56 Exec. He first explained that he didn't think that this unit would be able to handle such a heavy vehicle. He also mentioned the required pedal ratio, which was kinda confusing to me. I did follow Craig's plans and replaced my BTV with a modern booster/remote fill m/c and a reconfigured brake pedal. The booster-m/c combo is good, perhaps a little too good. The problem that I have is with the reconfigured brake pedal. If this unit would work with the original 1:1 brake pedal ratio and brake pedal, our BTV replacement issues would be all but solved

Quote:

Isn't that the truth! I am not totally satisfied with my conversion yet. While the latest layout has the 56 pedal in the correct location with stock look, like yours it is a bit too sensitive. Right now my car stops on a dime but I'd rather it was a quarter or even a half dollar. If I do get the feel right, can't say if it will work on anything but a 56 with PB trans. Not many would want it done the way I am trying to do it either.

Mat and I think it was Jed both gave the Electro-boost good marks. In spite of the price perhaps that is the way to go -- at least for 12v cars. Fits in with minimal modification and since the output is adjustable, keeps the stock pedal. Must confess to being a little concerned keeping a 1:1 ratio though. It claims to be good for several stops without power. With the large 1 3/16" diameter master and a 1:1 ratio, I don't think there would be a prayer for an average person stopping the car with no power.

6v cars still don't seem to have many options.

all talk aside....someone just needs to try it and see if it works. he says the car may be too heavy...well lets test that.

its like anything, you never know for sure till you try it.

the answer is always no if you don't ask, but if you do...you have a 50/50 chance of it being yes.

no...i'm not saying put this thing on and go test it willy neally...it has to be in a safe environment that wont cause harm to anyone if something bad happens.

on a lot of the things i've come up with on my car...i never knew if they would work till i tried. some were straight forward...others not so much.

just my thoughts. i have no other input to give. and i don't have the means to test this unit out and probably not the income. maybe if my car was finished and drivable.

Quote:
I am not opposed to give this a try, but like many others, I don't have the means to do it right now. Maybe in a few months I'll be in a better financial position.

BTV and various conversions have been a major topic of controversy of both originality and technicals over the last 10 to 15 years.

I belive the final solution yet to come is to find a 5/8" diamter MODERN DESIGN type master cylinder to replace the BTV master cylinder while RETAINING the BTV power unit.

THis entire BTV issue is on a par with the V8 oil pump. Many things were tried with the V8 OEM oil pump that resulted in too much compromise. When the Olds pump conversion was finaly discovered it put to rest the oil pump controversy. The same history will unfold for the BTV.

But it will take the yet to be discovered master cylinder to put the BTV compromises to rest.

Quote:
Are there any known manufacturers looking into this? I would think that the market would be rather strong for such a replacement m/c (w/as many cars that used the BTV). That combined with a complete and concise rebuild kit for the BTV itself.

I think the problem is more involved than just the size of the MC. There are some small diameter MC units available that could go on the end of the 7" single booster and effectively do the same as attaching to the end of the BTV would do. Even more actually because the BTV is only around 6" diameter. BTV would also need some machine work and changes to keep the vacuum in the shell and have the MC rod support the power piston. Problem is except for BTV and clones, all other cylinders than and now are short stroke -- less than 2".

The big problem as I see it is trying to match the increased pressure obtained by displacing the fluid out a little at at time over a long distance vs pushing the same amount of fluid at a larger area and shorter distance. I do believe that displacement and long stroke is the entire reason the BTV is able to use a 1:1 ratio.

Might be interesting if someone with more math skills than I could figure how much fluid would move and the pressure advantage obtained by shoving "X" square inches of solid object at say 100 lbs into a confined space with an area of "X". This would be done over a distance of say 2 inches to give a mid range number. See if anything modern could be made to come close and at what tradeoff. I don't think it will happen but it would be interesting to know what that ECI booster unit could do.

EDIT to bhappy's question: I don't think any mfgs are looking into it because I don't think anyone else used the BTV like we did so really not much demand. The other cars using BTV's mounted them high or on the firewall and had pedal ratio advantage from the start. There are direct bolt in replacement kits available for those applications. As to the complete rebuild kit, that is a sore point. It was brought up several times in past discussions as to why various or complete and deluxe kit combinations containing every possible replacement part couldn't be put together. A major vender said there was no need.

Quote:
"BTV would also need some machine work and changes to keep the vacuum in the shell and have the MC rod support the power piston."

Well yes. But no hill to overcome for a stepper. No sarcasim intended here at all but with all of the effort and superb designing/eng'ring and time put into HH56's conversion system as well as a few other BTV owners relentless efforts, then is it unreasonable to think a modeification to the end of the BTV rod support and a cheap gasket for sealing the vaccuum would be anything difficult??? Maybe.

Granted, the vacuum power portion of the BTV itself leaves alot to be desired in terms of service life longenvitty and rebuilding considersation. It's a compromise. A compromise we can all probably live with.

The problem to overcome is the oem master cylinder portion of the BTV that, in plain english, is little more than a piece of shit.

quote:
" I do believe that displacement and long stroke is the entire reason the BTV is able to use a 1:1 ratio."

No math nor high level eng'ring required. IF ANY master cylinder with a 5/8 (actually 0.655") diameter is used and assuming the stroke is at least as long (or longer) as that of the oem BTV master cylinder then there is no computations or analysis required.

A 5/8 cylinder is a 5/8 cylinder. So any such 5/8 cylinder would work as long the stroke is not significantly shorter than the oem BTV MC. Longer ok. Comming up with such a mounting flange or adapter should not be difficult or at least not difficult compared to all of the other burning hoops and back flips we've had to perform thus far. Frame clearence at the nose end of the BTV is an issue. If the new MC is too long then maybe toebaord mod is needed. Again, minimal effort relative to previous efforts.