Advice Regarding Fitting Rear Disc Brakes Wanted.

[Guest Julian]

I bought a second hand robin hood project some time ago, and have now found time to start back on it and get it completed.

 

I think it is either a 2B+ or a sub K as it has independent double wishbone rear suspension. I've fitted a cosworth limited slip diff but would also like to fit rear disc brakes.

 

The problem I have is that the brake caliper fouls the backplate present between the wishbones upon trying to fit the rear brakes. Before I even think of modifying the back plate, I was wondering whether anyone else had encoutered this problem and whether they could supply any advice on how they overcame this issue. I'm not really interested in fitting drum brakes.

 

We have high aspirations for this car. We have a 2.0xe redtop set up on twin 45 dellortos ready to power it.

 

Any help with respect to supplying advice regarding fitting rear disc brakes will be greatly appreciated.

[Grim]

if it has independent double wishbone rear suspension, it must be a zero, unless it is another make (bar a couple of special cars). The 2b/subk had a single rear trailing arm from the sierra.

Get some photos up so people know what they're talking about. Oh, and welcome to the madhouse

[knights_templar]

would agree with grim

 

if we are right, you need some spacers, that should have been part of the kit.

 

as grim says, post some pics so we can advise

[Guest Julian]

Thanks for the replies. I'll get some photos posted very soon.

[Longboarder]

Hands up all those who have forgotten the brief foray into double wishbone rear suspension in the early 2B chassis days. Can't remember what it was called and I have never seen one. Don't even know if any were sold but I saw the pictures of the chassis. Could Julian have one of these rare beasts.

 

Nigel

[Dave Ed]

wasn't there a square chassis called a lolocost, i'm sure that was double wishbone at the rear.

that was around just before the time RH were changing the names of the sub-k to the 2B and the old 2B to the 2B plus

[Guest snotfart]

yep ,got one,its called lolocost irs sports,very like the 2b and not square tubes.phoned gbs a while back and they reckoned only a handful were made.look here for a pic of the backend.

http://locost7.info/files/suspension/lolocost/LolocostIRS.jpg

[Longboarder]

That's the one. Never did understand why that was not implemented across the range to give a better rear end and save 50kg+.

 

Going back to the OP I think it's a pity you are not considering staying with the drums. They provide an excellent handbrake mechanism and the braking is well balanced for the front discs. Overbraking the rear end and then fitting a pressure reducer in the rear lines strikes me as counterproductive.

 

Nigel

[Bob Tucker]

Ditto with Nigels advice.

I have an XE tuned to 200+ bhp. I run standard vented disks & calipers at the front, standard drums at the rear,

and a Rally Design tandem MC, and no servo.

I originally used standard pads, but got brake fade on trackdays.....definite brown trouser moments.

Then I changed to Mintex 1144s, braking effectiveness and effort were identical, but no fade.

 

With this setup I can still (but not easily) lock TOYO 888 trackday tyres on good tarmac, & the

fronts always lock up first (the safe way)

 

But I kind of agree.....drums do look manky!

My typical Hoody solution was to fit drilled ally plates that look like disks to cover the drums....

you can just see them in this pic.

Try any Max Power type shop...

 

Bob

[megadodo]

I have rear disks (thanks Mr Tucker!) on mine and the brake balance is excellent with nothing other than the standard Sierra set-up, never have locked the rear before the fronts, In fact I don't think I have got anywhere near locking up the rears ever (are they working I wonder!??? ) ,except with the handbrake and I have used the brakes in anger on several occasions. In fact the only car I have ever driven that has come close on stopping distance was an Evo 6! They do look so much better than a drum set-up.

[Guest Julian]

Sorry about the delay in getting the photos posted!

 

I bought the car for my father as a retirement hobby. Having now recovered from surgery, radio and kemo therapy, he is now more eager than to get this bad boy mobile.

 

We've looked through some old correspondence that Dad had filed. Tim Norman advised us some time ago that it was a Sub K with the optional and more expensive independent rear suspension.

 

Once again, thank you in advance for any advice/comment that you can supply.

 

Julian

[Guest Julian]

More photos!

[Grim]

interesting, there are not many of those about! I haven't seen any on the forum before.

 

Are the backplates handed for each side?

[Guest Ian & Carole]

Was it not called the "HOOD" Seem to recall the word "HOOD" machined into part of the rear chassis cross member.

[Guest Julian]

Grim - back plates are handed due to notches machines out for passage of the brake lines - see photos 1 006.jpg and 1 010.jpg.

 

Ian - I haven't noticed the word "HOOD" machined in but will take another look and let you know.

 

As we've tried to demonstrate in 1 009.jpg, caliper fouls the back plate, which has been a major hold up! Turning the bearing carrier/hub through 90 degrees, or any orientation, does not solve problem. Spacers are in place, as can be seen from photo.

 

We have looked at a westfield (sorry for being new and swearing on your website!) locally with independent rear suspension. This has an A shaped back plate with a bottom wish bone arrangement and a single bar radius arm at the top with a knuckle joint.

 

Julian