All the rotors I have seen on 140 series cars are A) solid and B) not very large in diameter.. I think I heard that 160 series are vented.. are they the same diameter?

Has anyone done any brake upgrading? Larger disks, calipers with more pistons?

Thanks, Hudson

I just did the swap you're considering. You need:1. 2 frt calipers from a 74-75 164, 2.vented frt. rotors from same, 3. longer wheel studs from same to compensate for increased rotor hat thickness. It's a great simple bolt-on swap. I would change the hoses to be sure & be sure to take apart the rebuilt calipers' dust boots & fill them with rubber grease to prevent rusting of the caliper piston bore's outer edge. From my experience this eliminates caliper piston sticking for awhile depending on your climate.

Mike M.

I've had both a 69 and a 73 164. Neither had vented rotors.
--
George Downs, The "original" Walrus3, Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Carb 140's have Girling solids up front.
Carb 164's & Injected 140's have slightly thicker Girling solids up front.
Injected 164's have vented discs with ATE calipers up front.

I'm with the bottom replying folks... 140 brakes were way ahead of their time, and more than adequate even by modern car standards. To be honest, I don't recall ever even having a rotor warp, and definitely never had a problem with fade. *Maybe* if you were doing serious scca road racing stuff, and fast enough to win...you *might* run into trouble, but even there I'd wager to guess you'd probably be OK with the stock brakes.

That said though, I do believe you could easily swap to the 164 vented rotors. You will, of course, need the wider calipers as well. And remember too that not all 164s had the vented rotors... I think they came along in '72 or '71 or '70 or so... I honestly don't know if the hubs are the same or not though.

-Matt

I've raced a 142E for several seasons now with SCCA. Full tilt boogie road racing, HARD brake useage, full race "sticky" slicks, very stiff suspensions etc. The ONLY part of the brakes that need to be "improved" over stock is the fluid. The best race fluid will still "boil" when it getts too hot... but I mean HOT. I also use Very aggressive pads from performance friction. Not A single problem. BTW - we use standard oem 140 Disks calipers and pistons and master cylinder.

The vented rotor would reject more heat more quickly and reduce the thermal loading on the pads, pistons, and the brake fluid. When brake fluid reaches boiling temperatures the caliper seals will be degraded quickly. Upgrading to a vented rotor is still a good idea, and makes sense considering very few street cars now use a solid disc.

so nothing has been upgraded? You're just using race pads and fluid? and of course the proportioning valves... Awesome!
kyle - corvallis for a couple more weeks...

I've raced a 142E for several seasons now with SCCA. Full tilt boogie road racing, HARD brake useage, full race "sticky" slicks, very stiff suspensions etc. The ONLY part of the brakes that need to be "improved" over stock is the fluid. The best race fluid will still "boil" when it getts too hot... but I mean HOT. I also use Very aggressive pads from performance friction. Not A single problem. BTW - we use standard oem 140 Disks calipers and pistons and master cylinder.

Simple swap to install the 164 calipers and rotors on the 140 hub. At least I think the hub is the same. If not, I am sure that transfers too.
Stock 140 brakes are pretty good, but vented 160's are even better. Good upgrade, as I have upgraded 240's to vented a couple of times, and it works well.

Ah you understand what i'm getting at. 140's have superior brakes to most vehicles of their era but the lack of vented rotors makes me worried about brake fade on twisty roads, etc.

So 164 rotors are vented? Perfect :)

Thanks, Hudson

Yes, I've done some research on this topic as well because i was also concerned about fade and the like. The later model 164s mostly came with vented ATE front brakes, and as far as i've heard, they are a direct fit. 240 swaps have also been done, but they are a bit more involved. Also, the brakes that the 140 comes with stock, are actually pretty good sized, its just the fact that they aren't vented and all.... Anyway, the things to upgrade would be the pads(i'm running nice and cheap, at certain places..., PBR MetalMaster pads), and good high temp fluid, either dot 4 or 5. And, also, stock 140s come with four piston front calipers, and two piston rear calipers, and this is outdoing many new vehicles... Anyway, its up to you. I may eventually upgrade to the ATE Vented rotors and calipers, but i've found that they are a bit harder to come by replacements and rotors and such. Also, i've been satisfied thus far with the performance of the stock components with PBR Metal Masters(no squealing, little brake dust, CHEAP, lol) and some Castrol dot 4 brake fluid. Happy travels, and have a great Thanksgiving, to everyone! While i trumble away to make little chips at this stupid WR 121 paper that was due on tues... damn
:-) Kyle - portland/corvallis :-)

Heh - and here I thought I was cool because I updated my PV's front drums to solid disc 3 piston caliper 122 brakes.. :^/

Ditto as George said.

I could lock up all 4 tires on my '74. That's about as good of a test that there's more than adequate stopping power ...

-- Kane

--
Blossom II - '91 745Ti/M46 ... Bubbles - '74 144GL/BW35 ... Buttercup - '86 245GL/AW70 ... The Wayback Machine - '64 P220/M40

Far as I know the brakes are pretty much the same on 140 and 164, and they
are more than adequate in my experience. I've been driving a 69 164
since I bought it used in 1971, and even with one path nonfunctional they
stopped well. The biggest weak point is not the rotors, it is the small
size of the rubber lines and the fact that they swell shut making them
act like a check valve (they apply fine but don't fully release).
--
George Downs, The "original" Walrus3, Bartlesville, Oklahoma

The ATE calipers from a vented 164 (late 72 on, not sure why George's has solid) are junk- use 240T/260 calipers- bigger pad, more robust. You need to open the mount holes from 12mm to 1/2" (about .030") and may need to do some grinding to fit.

Brake seals are not oil and grease proof- buddy you just ruined your calipers. Brake fliud has no 'oil' in it.

164 vented rotors are extremely rare to find new anymore.

Tires stop the car, brakes only stop the tires. Get Porterfield pads and serious tires 16'+ R-code, and the solid rotors will still be just fine.

ATE calipers aren't really junk, it's just that they lack the initial grabbing power of the Girling's bigger pads & pistons. Don't forget that you would also need custom hoses to convert to the 264's as they are metric & the 140 isn't. Probably would be easier to widen 140 Girling calipers.

It's also worth getting rid of the pressure limiting valves at the rear for a little bit more stopping power.

with taking out the pressure limiting valve thingys at the rear of the car? is that what your talking about? Cause i've thought about taking out those cylinders too, but if you take them out you'd need something (ie. brake proportioning valves) somewhere to reduce the amount of rear braking. Because, if you were to just take them out, i'm totally positive that your braking would be much worse, just because the rear brakes would lock up so soon... Have you done anything like this??? I'm interested to hear what setup you have, if you've taken out those pressure limiters in the rear...
Thanks
Kyle

I have removed them. They are pressure limiting valves set to around 800psi, I can't remember exactly, but it is different between 142,144 & 145. Also, this pressure would corespond with the available grip of 1970 model tyres & todays would have far higher grip than those from 30 years ago.

When I removed them, ten years ago, I was racing dirt hillclimbs & autocross & I was hoping for the rears to lock up on 3-2 downshift to get some more turn-in, but I never did.(Diff was a 4.56 ratio welded locked) The car today has an open diff & the rears don't lock up. I've never had any adverse pad wear either.

so what your saying is, you have just brake lines going directly from the master to the rear calipers? no limiting valve or anything? And if that's the case, wow. But still, when you slam on the brakes, don't your rear brakes lock up first?
kyle

"so what your saying is, you have just brake lines going directly from the master to the rear calipers? no limiting valve or anything?"

Yes.

"And if that's the case, wow. But still, when you slam on the brakes, don't your rear brakes lock up first?
kyle "

No. Why would they lock up 1st?

"And if that's the case, wow. But still, when you slam on the brakes, don't your rear brakes lock up first?
kyle "

"No. Why would they lock up 1st?"


If you dealt with snow they might. If you have more weight over the front axle than the rear and have similar braking performance on each the rear tends to lock up first.

Every pickup truck I have owned/driven liked to lock the rear drums before the front wheels.. It was not noticable on dry pavement, but you sure noticed in heavy rain or snow.

i agree with you, Removing those valves would lock up the rears in ANY heavy breaking situation. The rear pads are smaller and would wear too fast and overheat sooner too.
What we've done on the IT scca racecar is to place two manually adjustable proporting valves next to the Drivers seat to adjust the brake bias. Two valves to maintain the safety / split circuit system. it's not hard to do you just have to route new brake lines into the cockpit. They could be mounted under the hood, but they are touchy to adjust and i think would be less safe on varing road conditions lan the simple limiter that was stock. BTW i've "raced" a stock 142E for a couple seasons until I got fast enough to need a race seat and 5 point harness to keep myself in position.... The stock brakes with good pads were Never a problem
Unless you are trying to coax the last few millisenconds out of a lap at the track I doubt you'll notice the difference. Generally we only adjust the bias for Rain when we are trying to stop and not loose control at the edge of traction wherever we can find it.
--
71 142E , 71 142E ITB Race Car, 90 240 250K miles, 92 240 family car (very sticky back seat-yuk)

I've got a newly acquired '75 164 that I'm restoring and upgrading (including 16" tires, eventually) -- but one of my first things is to work on the brakes. I'm intrigued about your comment, "...use 240T/260 calipers- bigger pad, more robust. You need to open the mount holes from 12mm to 1/2" (about .030") and may need to do some grinding to fit...."
Can you give me more details about the modifications to a 240's calipers to make them fit this car? Exactly what grinding needs to be done?
And regarding that 0.5" hole, prior to '75, the fasteners were American, but in '75 most (if not all) of the fasteners became metric, so I'm wondering if your advice (change the 12mm hole to 0.5") comes from experience with a pre-'75 164, or if you know for sure that it applies to a '75 as well.
Also, I've been thinking about using Ate "Powerdisks" (the ones with the slots in the form of two overlapping triangles) -- I'm happy with them on my newer 240's, but I don't know if I can get them for my '75 164. Does anyone know if the hubs will accept such rotors in a 240 version?
Thanks. And happy Thanksgiving.

just a thought. I run a 142 ITB car and have to run stock brakes. About the only thing that I changed on the brakes was to take off the backing plates and run some ducting to cool them a little. As of yet I have not had any problems with fade. I would doubt that on the street anyone would experience fade.

I guess there must be great air flow past the breaks, which isn't surprising given how open that area is. I have never driven my 142 hard, but I have experienced fade in every vehicle I have driven hard (including a v70 T5 with 11 inch front rotors).

I appreciate the information though.

Hudson.I agree.I have experienced brake fade in all the cars I've really put through the paces as well.I agree with the people that say stock 140 brakes are great and ahead of thier time.What some people don't understand (I don't intend arrogance) is that people are asking for brake info because we drive our cars harder and found the need.No offense but most of you havn't pushed your cars to the point of feeling that you NEED better brakes.That doesn't make us better people (maybe more crazy or stupid though).But enough of the mister rogers speach.....
I have updated brakes on 6-7 140's.In all but the last case it was the front brakes only.I installed 164 calipers,rotors and studs (yes,do it right!).There IS a difference.The car stops on a dime.I especially noticed it in my current car with the turbo engine.On that car I also installed 240 rear calipers mainly for ease of parts location in the future (get pads at 7-11 while on the road,get the picture?!) Those needed only to have the mounting bolt holes enlarged and the fittings on the brake lines changed.I also have looked at the 240 front caliper swap.The metal,people have mentioned machining off is on the inside edge of the caliper (the side that contacts the spindle) I havn't measured but hopefully someone will ad the info.I use metal master brake pads (I know brake pads are like Oil,Politics,and Religion).Also interesting to note.The last set I did on my current car I got at the wrecking yard.The pads were thick,I figured what the heck I'm cheap,I'll run them.Having done the swap several times before I knew they wern't "right" when I was done.I surfaced the rotors (still over spec) and changed pads.better,but not where I wanted to be.I installed new Volvo rotors and another set of (metal master) pads and WOW! What a difference.I have experienced the same problem on some 960's and S/V 70's (re the rotors,NOT the pads)in servicing them daily.I'm not saying on all volvos,but on some,VOLVO rotors matter.

I'd agree & disagree :) Refer to my post down lower.

The 140 brakes stop harder but the 164 ventilated setup lasts alot longer.

Thanks for the info volvobub!

Are 164 rotors harder to source than 140 series rotors?

I have never seen any hard info about the 240 front rotor swap.. just passing mention. Is there a site with some info about it?

As for 240 rear caliper conversion.. assuming that the suspension mounting locations are the same, couldn't you just take a complete 240 rear axle? (obviously you would still have to mess with fittings)

Thanks, Hudson

For the front rotors, the early(non-vented) 164 rotors are the same ones as the 140 rotors, and these are pretty easy to get. The vented rotors (later 164s, FI) are more rare, and of course, more expensive.

Also, last i heard, the rear axles of the 240 and 140s have different mounting spots for the different parts of the suspension. I think a few people have modified them to fit, but I don't remeber it being easy...

Good luck, and i'm sure other 'boarders have more to add...
Kyle - back in Corvallis for two more weeks

If you read reprints of old R&T road tests, you'll find that they were not able to induce any measurable fade in 1800S brakes, and that's with rear drums. I'm sure the 140 brakes are at least as robust.

Ok, some catch up- my dislike of the Ate calipers also includes that fact that in ut local climate, they seem to rust and seize much more commonly than the Girling- post mortem suggests that the sealing is about equal, but plating of the cylinders is weaker. Perhaps I've never driven on a set that worked properly...!

On my conversion, I used used 264 calipers, known to be good. They definitely had SAE thread bleeders and line fittings, even though the mount bolts were metric. They required grinding off of the little pads of metal on the attachment points to recenter the caliper on the rotor, as well as some other grinding with a 1/4" die grinder for clearance- this latter may actually have been unneccessary in the end, not sure. I used my own brake lines made of Http://www.goodridge.net components. All steel-very nice stuff, & DOT spec. I had tried IPd ones once in the past, but the fittings are aluminum or some soft material, and they cross-threaded despite my careful installation.

I would expect the 75 164 would have carried on with the 73-74 SAE mount, but have not spent time with parts books to try to confirm that. I did get the BremboN.A. dimensional catalog and the 240 rotors seem too far off to work. I can post figures in MM if anyone is curious.

My friend with the two GT3 cars did find fade, ... as did R&T both times they tested 164's - the vented about 50-60% less. I hae the Brooklands reprint series. BTW, the distances were not great even by the standards of the time. I'd agree with the writers who figured the main shortfall was in tire grip.

I have a friend localy with a trio of 240T's in various stages of mods, and he swears by taking out the rear limiters, but only pre 79-ish? Personally, I've not messed with that, but again, he's a super smart guy, and he and B20Paul both have had luck with it. Not sure the legalities of deliberately modding your car's brakes...

Hi Ian :) I have no experience with snow(& salt I guess) so I'll defer to your wisdom on ATE v Girling quality.

Performance differences:
1. Girling + Solid rotors using a stock kind of pad: This setup gives the absolute best brake performance BUT with serious use they would only last a couple of minutes/half a dozen serious applications. This setup is what you would want for motorkanha's/hillclimbs where you require the brakes to work from cold & only mash them 2 or 3 times.

2. Girling + Solid rotors using a semi-metallic pad: This setup gives a harder pedal & doesn't stop the best until you've warmed them up. Once warmed up they then last for 15-20 minutes of serious abuse before they start to fade.

3. ATE + Ventilated: I've never tested the stock setup for a 164E, I've only driven 164's with semi-metallic pads. They lack the intial bite of the bigger girling setup, however, they never seem to give up.

4. 264 Girling Calipers + 164 Ventilated rotors: I've never tried this, I will one day.

quoting:

I have a friend localy with a trio of 240T's in various stages of mods, and he swears by taking out the rear limiters, but only pre 79-ish? Personally, I've not messed with that, but again, he's a super smart guy, and he and B20Paul both have had luck with it. Not sure the legalities of deliberately modding your car's brakes...



Playing with rear brake proportioning/limiting valves really scares me. It might be a great idea for a track only vehicle, but I can't see it being a great idea for braking performance in rain and snow. If what they are doing is changing a pressure limiting valve to a valve/setup which gives the rear brakes full pressure but only AFTER the front brakes have locked then it's a sane idea. Otherwise the cars rear end would end up at the front everytime you hit the brakes, especially in bad conditions.