Upgrade to power brakes from manual

[mschwader]

Anyone upgrade their manual brakes to power? I have only the main brake cylinder in the engine bay for brakes. Looks like it only stops the front wheels and not the rear. I know having manual brakes makes for really hard breaking and stopping but I feel kike it shouldn't be so hard to stop. I can put tremendous pressure on the brake pedal and it seems like it barely gives. Are there any maintenance suggestions out there. I feel like the pedal should depress a lot more than it is. I just got the truck running and now I want to be able to drive it around a little while I am working on the restore.

[mschwader]

BTW its for a 63 C20

[66Submarine]

No, you shouldn't be able to depress the pedal like power brakes; if you can, you have air in the system or other issues. It should just have a little bit of travel before going "solid". You want to generate pressure, not motion.

The one line splits and goes to both front and rear brakes. This is a modern truck from 1963, not a horse drawn buggy, lol...

If the truck is hard to stop, then look at the brakes themselves. Drums that have been turned out much will not seat up with the shoes correctly until they wear in, which could potentially take tens of thousands of miles IME. The lower shoe contact means the brakes won't be as effective.

My '65 C10 with drums that haven't been turned and good shoes stops very well with minimal effort, and will lock the wheels up easily (manual brakes, of course). It is by no means hard to stop.

[Pappyx3!]

Check your wheel cylinders to see if they are froze up, when they freeze up you feel like your applying enough brake that it should stop but the wheel cylinder can't actuate the brake shoes enough to stop efficiently. Went over mine not long ago and 2 of them were froze. I went ahead and replaced all 4 wheel cylinders, shoes and hardware. Stops good now.

Yes you can upgrade to power brakes rather easily, there is info in the FAQ's regarding the parts/processes to do it. Make sure you check out CaptnFab on this site for his info on booster mounting brackets.

Welcome to the forum! How about some pics of you project?

Good Luck!

[mschwader]

Thanks for the tips guys!!!!

[1963c-10]

You sure that's not a 62 c-20? Has a 62 grill and emblems?

[mschwader]

The title shows 63 and I'm pretty sure I looked up the serial number already and determined it to be a 63 as well. They guy that had it before me said he didn't do any work on it. He bought it from someone up north from us in Door County Wisconsin. Had it towed to his house two hours south and then I had it towed to my house two more hours south from the previous owner. I thought I had a picture of the serial number tag with me but I guess I dont right now.

[1963c-10]

Easiest way to tell the 60-62 and 63's apart is the 60-62's had torsion bar front ends and the 63 had coil spring front ends. There are big differences in the frames and slight differences with cab mounting, but the biggest issue is the 60-62 brake/suspension parts are different from the 63+ models.

[jtrichard]

Hi and welcome to the site does your truck have FRONT coil springs?

[mschwader]

Originally Posted by 1963c-10

Easiest way to tell the 60-62 and 63's apart is the 60-62's had torsion bar front ends and the 63 had coil spring front ends. There are big differences in the frames and slight differences with cab mounting, but the biggest issue is the 60-62 brake/suspension parts are different from the 63+ models.

That's right. I forgot that there was a suspension change starting in 63. I will have to check when I get home. The only thing I have done so far to the truck are replace the coil, plugs, battery, battery cables, and cleaned all the connections to get it running. After that I started working on the wood bed. Most of the wood was rotted out so I figured I clean it up. Here is a picture I took after the wood was removed. Is that the torsion bar you referenced attached to the frame and the axel?

While I have everyone you can also see in the picture that there are two cross members that are bent a bit. there is a trailer hitch attached to both of them. Looks like the Farmer might have used it to pull quite a bite. Thoughts? Anything you think I need to worry about? Doesn't appear to affect the integrity of the frame. Should be something I can just cut out and weld new ones back in right?

[DLW]

That should be the Trac-bar in that picture. Torsion bars will be in the front, if you don't have springs.

[mschwader]

Ill have to look when I get home tonight then. Thanks for the clarificaiton

[1963c-10]

In the pic above....boxed in frame and GM HO 10 bolt rear end.....really looks like a 62.

[66Submarine]

I agree it looks like a '62, but that's an HO-52 Eaton; it's a 3/4 ton (20 series) truck.

BTW, nice truck. Doesn't appear to have been driven much from the condition of the interior!

Also, it looks like you have three factory 17.5" tubeless wheels and one wide aftermarket 16.5" on the truck; any chance the missing 17.5" came with it? I think those OE 17.5" and 19.5" wheels really look nice on these trucks. Nice find either way.

[mschwader]

That's the sh!tty part about it. It didnt come with the other 17. Not sure where I can find a single wheel to replace the over sized one. The truck is super solid. Tow truck driver tried to buy it off me before he took it off the flat bed. Its a really solid truck. It doesn't drive too bad. Engine needs some fine tuning but that will come with time.

[mschwader]

I got the truck for $1100.
Signed up with AAA Roadside Assistance $95
Coil, Plugs, Battery, Battery Cables $160
Have a 1960 frame and body parts in the garage $200

Total invested so far $1555 and it is almost a daily driver. Only live 6 blocks from work. LOL.

[1963c-10]

Price is right and the truck looks pretty solid. The front fenders aren't a bad repair and the interior looks great for stock.

Try the classifieds here on the forum for the rim.

[66Submarine]

Probably could find one on the forum here. Sucks that it's missing one, though.

It does look like a very nice truck! What engine does it have in it? I guess it would have had/has a 283 or 235 being a '62.

BTW, now I see you said "GM HO 10 bolt" 1963c-10. I've never called them that, so I tend to associate that with people confusing the smaller Eaton rears in the pre-'63 half tons for the later 10 bolt GM rear. FWIW, the Eaton 52/72 was actually used under 20-30 series (3/4-1 ton) trucks all the way from 1947 (IIRC) until the introduction of the 14 bolt that replaced it in 1973.

[mschwader]

Originally Posted by 66Submarine

Probably could find one on the forum here. Sucks that it's missing one, though.

It does look like a very nice truck! What engine does it have in it? I guess it would have had/has a 283 or 235 being a '62.

BTW, now I see you said "GM HO 10 bolt" 1963c-10. I've never called them that, so I tend to associate that with people confusing the smaller Eaton rears in the pre-'63 half tons for the later 10 bolt GM rear. FWIW, the Eaton 52/72 was actually used under 20-30 series (3/4-1 ton) trucks all the way from 1947 (IIRC) until the introduction of the 14 bolt that replaced it in 1973.

I'm still trying to determine what exactly I have in it. Its got a straight six in it. Has the code 3836848 GM17 on the right side. Everything I keep reading says its a 230 but I didn't think they made 230's. The other side has B52 848 850 stamped on it. I have the 60-66 Assembly Manual. I looked through it last night and couldn't find what I wanted.

[mschwader]

Originally Posted by 66Submarine

Probably could find one on the forum here. Sucks that it's missing one, though.

It does look like a very nice truck! What engine does it have in it? I guess it would have had/has a 283 or 235 being a '62.

BTW, now I see you said "GM HO 10 bolt" 1963c-10. I've never called them that, so I tend to associate that with people confusing the smaller Eaton rears in the pre-'63 half tons for the later 10 bolt GM rear. FWIW, the Eaton 52/72 was actually used under 20-30 series (3/4-1 ton) trucks all the way from 1947 (IIRC) until the introduction of the 14 bolt that replaced it in 1973.

The hood and fenders are shot. The hood and fenders in my garage are about 90% better condition. couple of dings in them but NO RUST. they have been cleaned up and primered already.

[66Submarine]

Yeah, but in WI I imagine that rusted out hoods and fenders are pretty easy to find, especially considering how easy they are to find here where they don't even salt the roads!

235 should be what a '62 had, but it could be a 230 that was swapped into the place of a 283. 235 will look like this:


And a 230 looks like this 292, but with shorter side covers:

[66Submarine]

Sorry for the 235 picture being so much larger than my picture of the 292, but you get the idea. They are pretty visually different from each other if you know what they look like.

[66Submarine]

Here's a 250, which is just a 230 with a longer stroke crankshaft.

[mschwader]

Here's the best pictures i have right now

[66Submarine]

Yep, that's a 235 (or possibly 261 if you're real lucky). Which also confirms it as a '62 in my mind, since a '63 would have a 230.