- Home
- About Us
- Join/Renew
- Member Benefits
- Member Pages
- Log In
- Help
- Museum Store
Our 1916 48b touring will lock up the rear wheels with the service/handbrake, but the pedal brakes have a lot to be desired. Someone has suggested Moose Brakes to better reline them.
However, a friend, with his Lozier (two rear wheel brakes) is going to hydraulics, hidden inside the brake drums. Seems like a good idea.
Any of you “juice” the brakes in an older car? I plan to get out and do some touring and want to be able to stop as best I can limited to the two small rear tires. Of course, it can never stop as well as a 4 wheel brake car with more rubber on the ground.
But would like it to stop as best it can.
Another friend is putting a disk brake on the driveshaft, not a PA, but I can’t see how it could help as it could only stop one of your rear wheels.
Bill,
There is a 1904 Pierce on the HCCA website for $105,000. Said to be original, and looks pretty nice. If you buy it, I want a ride.
Bob Coates
Might as well get the 1913 66A on the same site for $350K. I think I saw an 02 also
I saw the PA 66. Needs a little work. Might pay a little more for one finished. I also like the 1904 Stanhope. I just did get a 1903 Columbus Electric Folding Top Runabout. Original almost everything. Moves very well.
Still thinking about getting better brakes on my 1916 PA.
Probably just work on the existing brakes and get them better working. I do like authentic
Have juice brakes hidden on my (very heavy) 14 Simplex. They
do very well. However, at the end of the day, the amount of rubber on the
road limits the amount of braking.
Before you go to all the trouble of hydraulic brakes (which will require maintenance that mechanical brakes don’t need), make sure all your brake components are in correct condition.
All linkages are tight and have no wear, brake drums in excellent condition, no oil leaks from the axle, and possibly the most important, you have the CORRECT brake lining material.
I’ve driven a 1911 Buick roadster, the big model, with rear brakes only that were set up by an owner who really knew his stuff. The brakes were great, easy pedal and fast stopping. BUT, everything has to be correct for that to happen.
Gents,
David’s comment is excellent & important.
When I acquired my Series 80, the brakes were TERRIBLE.
I studied the diagrams and decided that the Brake Rods were too long.
One knowledgeable friend admonished me TO NOT SHORTEN THE BRAKE RODS.
I fussed over that problem for a year and no matter what I did, the braking was TERRIBLE!
Then I consulted another Series 80 Boy who was doing his brakes and asked him to measure his brake rods end to end, including the clevis yoke.
It turned out that my brake rods were THREE-INCHES TOO LONG!
When I adjusted the length (read, cut the rods and rethreaded them), the car stopped like a champ.
Obviously, somewhere in the then 80-years of family ownership, someone put on the car brake rods from a 145 / 147-inch WB Pierce-Arrow rather than those from the 130-inch WB Series 80.
Bill, start from the Owner’s Manual and move forward.
Your 48 has been around for 102-years and obviously the brakes have worked well enough for the car to have lasted for 102-years.
Good luck.
Peter
As suggested above, I plan to work on the existing brakes, they have been working for 102 years and should go even longer. Also, the rubber on the road is a limiting factor.
Our car has 147 inch wheelbase, so not sure about the brake rods could be too long? But I will consult the Owner’s manual (Thanks George Teebay).
Paul Murray who worked on our car a few years ago in California suggested I get with Moose Motors, Obsolete Brakes and get the proper linings. Paul did feel our brakes were not working correctly.
I have our car in storage and it is hard to work on it and am awaiting the completion of our Garage building.
I have driven my very original 1915 C-3 on the road and the original two wheel brakes did just fine.One should use both the handbrake and footbrake together so as not to distort the drums.I think my two wheel brakes were actually better than those on a Ford Torino I drove.I keep the car to around 35-40 mph and in my neighborhood keep the car in second gear as we have lots of critters in the area.
That Pierce Stanhope has some issues just from a cursory inspection of the pictures. Nothing huge, but things that need attention.
The broker that advertises the car is notorious for asking very high prices, maybe she gets them sometimes, and of course you can ASK anything.
Bob C., you ARE coming to the June 2st Pierce tour in Maryland, correct? I hear Mr. Brown needs a navigator!
I dont understand the question of wanting hydraulic brakes. Proper setting of the mechanical controls will allow the driver to lock the rear wheels. If the driver can control when lockup occurs then they can maximize the braking of the car. The real problem is that the tire patch is extremely limited and the car is quite heavy. If the driver can makes the wheels lock then maximum braking of the car has occured. BTW I think max braking is just prior to lockup.
James Whelan, I think that you agree. As long as the original brakes can lock up the wheels, why do you need anything else? Just make them work properly.
It is important to drive in mind regarding the original driving purpose. On regular speed limits. Respect your car and stay within what it was designed.
There’s a reason why even Henry Ford went to juice brakes and that is better
control. There are many mouths being fed by proceeds from Model A’s and V8’s
being “upgraded” to hydraulic brakes. We may not have control over tire width,
but hydraulic brakes make it easier to stop without resorting to skidding. I
was able to stop my 1911 Hudson, avoiding smacking a modern car that zipped in
front of me. The previous owner had “massaged” it to go 75 MPH and drove it
from New York to San Francisco on a trans-continental tour. My 1910 Rambler
had a hard landing with a police car in 1961. The cure was hydraulic brakes
with a booster. Many clubs don’t deduct judging points for changes that
enhance safety.
Yes, but Ford didn’t convert to hydraulic brakes until what, 1938 or 1939?
That tells me that mechanical brakes worked just fine.
It’s all in the condition and adjustment. Personally, I think hydraulic brakes are a pain in the arse, between corrosion and maintenance, I’d rather have a correct mechanical setup than fool with cylinders and leaks and such.
My ’31 Pierce has excellent mechanical brakes, set up and adjusted by an old time mechanic who knows his stuff. I’m of the opinion that when there’s complaint about how an old car drives, it’s because of condition of the old car being poor. If an old car had been hard to start, steer, stop, when new, they wouldn’t have been able to sell them.
I don’t have any experience with a 2 wheel brake system on a Pierce but my ’29 stops just about as well as my ’64 Malibu with the stock 4 wheel drum brake system.
It stops amazing well for its size and age.
My front shoes will need to be relined soon and I know that it is critical to get the proper material on the shoes.
I know I will most likely end up shipping the shoes somewhere to have them done.
Not something I look forward to since I don’t like to have parts like that have the possibility to get ‘lost’ in shipping.
As so many have already said, the friction surface with the road (rear tires only) is the primary limiting factor of stock brakes. The greatest improvement might be in adding FRONT brakes (would almost have to be hydraulic) to effectively double the friction surface with the road.
My sense is that the hand brake (external contracting, unless it’s been changed) is about three times as effective (seat of the pants) as the service (foot) brake. As the two Tonys (Costa and Wollesen) taught me, slow with the foot brake, finish the stop with the hand brake. And for a “sincere” stop, be on both of them from the start–and be prepared to do that. Keep the hand brake from locking up, ease off pre=lock–when you’re skidding you have no control. This is where driving SKILL comes in, and is part of the fun of these machines.
I heartily endorse Jeff Adkins, dba Moose Motors in Penngrove, CA, just up the road from this year’s annual meet, as a brake relining source.
Bill, you might want to contact Dana Morgan of CA (doesn’t frequent the message board but will probably be at the meet), who has installed disc brakes on the rear of his 1915 48 touring.
Pierces from 1932(?) forward had 342 sq in of swept brake surface, about 30% more than a Cadillac V-16, which itself did not have hydraulic brakes until 1937 or later. Mechanical brakes DEMAND periodic adjustment to remain effective, and are less forgiving in this regard than juice brakes. This is especially true of the 1933-35 S-W power units, whose brake pedals do not drop as the shoe linings wear; accordingly, my 1934 gets a brake adjustment every 3,000 miles.
George,
With the amount that you drive your cars, every 3,000-mile brake adjustments must occur every month or so.
Cheers,
Peter
David,
Ford went to hydraulic in 1936. Chrysler in 1926 as I was told.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to make the tour, we have baseball tournaments for the 11 and 14 year old up and down the East Coast from now until November. 11 Year old Jamie will be with you in Winchester this weekend. I will be in Fredericksburg with the 14 year old. Is anyone near Cooperstown? We will be there in late August with some time between games.
The Pierce just sits without the finished engine. Hope springs eternal…
Ford went to hydraulic brakes for the 1939 models,Chevrolet for the 1936 models and Chrysler from its beginning in 1924.