The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Driveline Huck or Bendix

My 1950 brakes left is rear right is front. The front are Huck type and rear are Bendix correct? I thought 1950 were front and rear Huck type. I'm looking for front and rear wheel cylinders. The ones listed at the various web stores do not look like the rear ones that I have currently. I'm guessing the rear end is probably from a newer truck?

Your link requires a log in.

Ok I think fixed it.....Sorry

JackieC you are correct. The front is a Huck brake, correct for 1950. The rear is a Bendix, not correct for 1950 but could be from 1951 or later.
Kent

I had to take my old bendix rear brake cylinder from the rear to the local shop and he took the casting number to match it up as nothing was correct on the Web listing service ended up being a wagner where cylinder 1 inch bore with a banjo type brass fitting were it connected to the brake lines. My rear axle is from a 52 on my 54 truck . May also make a difference as my truckids is a Canadian model.

If you can find a set of front Bendix brakes to swap, it would not be year-correct, but you'll have much better brakes. Huck brakes have a nasty habit of wearing out only one shoe, and they're difficult to keep in adjustment. You would need the full setup, backing plates, shoes and hardware, and drums, however.
Jerry

Jerry,
I think I'm going to investigate the bendix swap.....Year correct is not a big concern to me.

Bendix parts are much less expensive than Huck. Both of them will require periodic adjustment to work properly.
Carl

Carl, is the original master cylinder for the Huck brakes compatible with both systems, or would it need to be upgraded also? I've seen the manual-adjust Bendix brake systems converted to self-adjusting with some relatively minor hardware changes.
Jerry

Jerry,
I have already fabricated a bracket and installed dual reservoir master cylinder for a 1967 chevy c-10.
Will the mixed brakes with this master cylinder be OK?

As long as the M/C piston bore diameter and stroke is a close match to the original cylinder, the dual cylinder should perform the same. Hydraulic brakes are a simple application of physics- - - -a certain bore piston displaces a specific volume of fluid, and the leverage of the pedal provides the correct piston stroke. Dual outlets and stacked pistons inside the master cylinder just provide a safety factor in case of a leak instead of losing all the braking effect.
Jerry

Jerry, I have dealt with '52 Bendix, '50 Huck, and '49 Huck (all 3100 models). The only difference in the master cylinders was the plumbing coming out of the back of it. This had more to do with a 1951 and later change in front brake line routing rather than any difference between master cylinder design used on trucks equipped with either Huck or Bendix.
I am currently driving a '50 with a '50 master cylinder, Huck front brakes, and whatever Nissan Xterra put on their rear ends. The truck stops like a modern vehicle.
Carl

https://www.stovebolt.com/ubbthread...00_Various_Parts-_all_n.html#Post1166955 Would these backing plates and drums be compatible? I am only an hour away from the seller!

The MC I have has a 1 inch bore.

Huck brakes work if properly adjusted. However you are correct that the parts are getting expensive. Drums are over 100 dollars a pop. Changing to Bendix makes sense some times. But, the whole system from backing plate out needs to be changed. Actually easier to do the fronts. The rear has housing issues. The backing plates will not interchange. Not too hard to do just get every thing in one place and take your time. My truck had some PO change the rear end out for an older one. I have a banjo that will work, but it means pulling the whole rear end apart to change over to Bendix in the back. The only good news is the torque tube will bolt up, and the axles are the same.

Wouldn't it just be easier and less expensive to go to discs?

Ed

Probably but I am wanting to experience some of the OH-S*** nostalgia stops before I go to discs.

I'm currently running Hucks front and back on a 49 3100 w/a stock 216 3speed. They work fine for THIS setup but when I upgrade the engine (235) I'll also be going to disc's in the front. Probably power but definitely disc's......

My Hucks need periodic adjustment and you have to adjust both shoes on each wheel. I made a cheat sheet that I use when under the truck adjusting as each shoe's adjuster spins opposite from the other shoe and it can get connfusing at times.....
Like's been said, one shoe will wear more than the other but both still need periodic adjusting.
Dave

If you want pucker factor nostalgia, try Model A Ford brakes (aka Push and Pray). Mine worked better than most (but you still had to plan WAY ahead) as I hard-faced the roller tracks that usually got hogged out and made the shoes hang up instead of expanding.

Model T's are even more fun- - - -one brake band in the transmission, no brakes in the front, and a "parking brake" with cast iron shoes and tiny drums on the rear. It was not uncommon to lock up the driveshaft and experience the rear wheel with the least traction spinning backwards due to the action of the spider gears!
Jerry

The one thing about Model T's was that in a panic, you could push any of the three pedals and at least slow down.
Everything on them and the Model A was mechanical (rods and levers). The Model A's parking brakes actually worked pretty well in a panic, although locking up both rear wheels isn't a good idea.

Well I do have a lead on a set of 51-54 bendix backing plates and drums so I may not get the chance to adjust the Huck style!

I have Huck all around on my 49. Parts are not too bad except drums. Got wheel cylinders of the shelf at NAPA. Shoes and flexible lines are available from NAPA or FLAPS. You can access the Bendix part numbers on-line.
I have been considering changing out the from for Bendix and have backing plates already. It is a very simple swap requiring the drilling of two spindle holes.
http://www.stovebolt.com/techtips/adbrakes.htm