63(may be '62) Build
 

Subject of the day, Brakes. The goal here is to restore the original brakes to new status. This includes the hydraulic system. Before anyone says how dangerous single hydraulic systems are, I understand. Considering my intended use (occasional driver) this system will be fine. Not really wanting debate the merits of disc/drum or dual master cylinder conversions.
I will however, for those interested, discuss the process of rebuilding these "duo-servo self actuating" drum brakes.
The hydraulics are all new parts, including fabrication of lines. I've always hated my double flare tool, so for this job a new Lisle flare tool (cool design I had never seen) appeared in an Amazon box. Awesome, perfect flares every time!
Since brake fluid is hydroscopic, Silicon Dot 5 is the fluid of choice. Not sure if everyone is aware, but those combo brake/clutch master cylinders vent atmospheric pressure to the fluid. Any wonder why they are rusty?
So... guess this means we'll do the slave cylinder as well. Rusty beyond rebuildable, just 1 more cyl. replacement.
I'll insert some photos, and add more later.

Re: 63(may be '62) Build
 

Great, I'm along for the ride

Re: 63(may be '62) Build
 

So, today’s challenge:
The brake drums are the same, front & rear... well, not really. The fronts have 7/16 stud holes, but the rears have a larger hole to accommodate the shoulder on the studs. So I can drill them out, but think a trip to the parts store may be in order, since a longer thread reach would be better to accommodate mag wheels. Not sure the shoulder would be the same on a longer stud. And btw, the front studs are smaller in the knurled area. The Dorman web site has a wealth of info on wheel studs, so here we go...

Re: 63(may be '62) Build
 

What the heck is going on with your rear end? It seems like you have a coil spring not connected to anything and a panhard/anti sway bar running across behind the diff.? You seem to not know if you have a 62 or 63? 62 has torsion bar front, 63 has coil in front. Rears are leaf. Maybe I am not looking at the pic correctly.

This is the Coupe de Grass flaring tool, the Pierre de France, cats meow,

To view some links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Maybe you should introduce yourself with a new topic?

Re: 63(may be '62) Build
 

Rears are leaf starting in '63, but coils for '60 to '62.

Re: 63(may be '62) Build
 

That's what I said?...................63 has coil in front. Rears are leaf.

Re: 63(may be '62) Build
 

Ed & Ken,
Thanks for the help! Like I said, I'm here to learn and share! 1962 it is... Coils in the rear and torsion bars in the front. I suspected as much when I saw the generator, since I remember Chevy switching to alternators in '63.(wasnt sure about GMC). Not sure how it got 63 paperwork, but no big deal I guess.
Just ran the Vin decoder, J=1962.
Bob

Re: 63(may be '62) Build
 

Probably the reason your 1962 has 1963 paperwork could be the fact in was sold in the 1963 calendar year. Have had a few Model T Fords as well as Model A Fords that was titled as the year they they was sold. A word from the wise - DO NOT go to the State DOT office and ask them to change the year - you will end up floating in a sea full of hurt with no paddle.:censored:

Re: 63(may be '62) Build
 

Ok, side note: Dad had GMC Wreckers when I was a kid. One for sure a '60. I recall how he liked the torsion bar suspension, and was disappointed in the ride of his new GMC. (would have been a '63! This discussion is reviving old memories. I started driving them when I was 17...1967.

Re: 63(may be '62) Build
 

Ok, back to brakes. The front and rear are most definitely not the same! Contrary to all the suppliers I have researched, the rears are ofset about 3/16 - 1/4". As I said before, the stud holes are larger too.
So, careful inspection shows the shoes will be flush with the drum edge. I see no option except drill the holes and press on (unless someone has a source for the correct drums) . No reduction in braking surface.
Hopefully the pictures make sense... the white paper was added to highlight the gap.
Bob