stock `32 brake pedal clearance

[xix32]

My stock `32 brake pedal ( stock pedal box and "K" member) runs into the back of the 59a engine before the pedal is half way to the floor. Is this normal? is it O.K. ? will the brakes work safely like this ?
thanks

[Ralph Moore]

I have an 8ba engine and it does the same thing, I am running 32 pedals , but converted brake to hydraulic , still seems like enough to work master cylinder .

[Karl Wolf]

...Uhh, no... I would absolutely want full travel... I run 32 crossmember and 32 pedals in an A frame... Don't remember what I did exactly but I made a jig and heated and bent to get them where I wanted them in relation to the steering colum, engine...

Karl

[Kahuna]

I have a stock 32 frame with stock pedals and full travel with a 59 engine. Something is amiss. Bent pedals?, Bracket?
I have hydraulic brakes, but regardless, there should be no interference

[xix32]

Originally Posted by Ralph Moore

I have an 8ba engine and it does the same thing, I am running 32 pedals , but converted brake to hydraulic , still seems like enough to work master cylinder .

Thanks for the response, Ralph. I also have a hydraulic coversion. It does make me quite nervous not having full pedal travel especially with the `40 type non-self adjusting brakes. That could continue to require more and more pedal travel, untill you just don't have enough. this engine/chassis combination is very common, I wonder what all those modifiers before us did about this? If the pedal was just 1/2" shorter to the "elbow" it woulld miss the engine block just fine. I cringe at the thought of cutting/ welding to shorten the pedal.

[xix32]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by Kahuna

I have a stock 32 frame with stock pedals and full travel with a 59 engine. Something is amiss. Bent pedals?, Bracket?
I have hydraulic brakes, but regardless, there should be no interference

Thanks for your input. I also suspected that something can't be right. I checked the pedal box location, seems to be setting back as far as it can against the "K" member. all the original bolt holes line up. thought I might have a "big" truck pedal. but it measures the same as another real nice original pedal I have. I also do have a "big" truck pedal it's the same length from the shaft forward to the "elbow". It's longer on the section that points up/back.

[Ralph Moore]

I can send you a picture and or measurements if that will help , mine is all set up and i have not bled my brakes yet , I'm also running early brakes as well .

[Andy]

I have a jig to modify truck pedals to pass spec's. if you want to send it to me, will tell you what is wrong. i could fit it if you want.

[PeteVS]

David G ought to chime in somewhere along the way. I think that he said that early in '32 production, there was an interference issue between the brake pedal and the block and that the pedals (and the pedal plates) were modified.

[Ralph Moore]

That makes sense, as I think my pedals are early 32 production. And if they were on a four cylinder car this would never be an issue.

[DavidG]

Late '32 brake pedals are 3/8" shorter from the elbow to the bottom end of the pedal which translates into more clearance at the tip of the elbow when the pedal is depressed. The reason for the change was possible interference with the cylinder block, although in my experience this is a much bigger risk with the early '32 "flange" blocks.

Restricted brake pedal travel is a highly undesirable situation. It is likely easier to compensate for a restriction with mechanical brakes than with hydraulic brakes as the former have more adjustment possibilities than the latter.

[alchemy]

I put a '40 Merc block in an early production '32 tudor and ran into the clearance problem. I had to grind the little tab off the elbow of the brake pedal, and a very slight bit off the back corner of the block. I really hated to grind the pedal as the small tab thingy at the elbow is what makes the early pedals special. But it wasn't going to fit otherwise. I probably have a whole 1/8" of clearance now.

[xix32]

Thanks for your input, "alchemy".
Here is a sketch of my pedal. I wonder if those that say theirs clear without problems are the same length ? I wonder how thick the block casting is back there? maybe enough could be ground away to clear without having to modify the stock pedal. I guess I wouldn't want to spring a leak into the water jacket to find out.

[Kahuna]

Mark
I sent you a PM re pedals on my car with measurements. David G is absolutely right.
I think you have the wrong pedals

[DavidG]

The brake pedal that alchemy is the very first version and as is shown in the photo below an even greater risk of interfering with with block. (Overall, there were three different versions of LHD '32 brake pedals and two of the LHD clutch pedal.

[Lawson Cox]

?????????????? Did 32 have a third pedal, or is that an optical illusion??

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by Lawson Cox

?????????????? Did 32 have a third pedal, or is that an optical illusion??

Might be a good time to visit your friendly optometrist. DD

[Lawson Cox]

Hmmmm. Shadows. (Heck, I'm getting old.
don't pick on us old folks. LOL

[Ralph Moore]

So I measured a spare stock 32 brake pedal I have and using the above drawing, I came up with 13-1/2" to the end of the small bump. Could it be longer, or am I just not setting the tape at the right point on the base end of the pedal?

[xix32]

Originally Posted by Ralph Moore

So I measured a spare stock 32 brake pedal I have and using the above drawing, I came up with 13-1/2" to the end of the small bump. Could it be longer, or am I just not setting the tape at the right point on the base end of the pedal?

That seems about right. My pedal doesn't have the bump. so that accounts for the 1/8" difference.
I held the clip on the end of a tape measure against the round base of the pedal, that's all that's accessible on a pedal set that is together.