The Stovebolt Site Forums The Parking Lot Big Bolts 1954 4100 front brake issue, questions

Hi folks — looking for a little help with some front brake issues on a 1954 4100. Sorry if this is a repeat, been having posting issues.

Just some quick background — the truck originally had a “grabby” front driver side brake. I disassembled both front brakes, finding newly lined shoes, turned drums with virtually no wear, and new cylinders. The driver side front brake was excessively tight — it required 2 hands to turn the wheel. I properly adjusted the brakes, now it does not grab but it sure does squeal! Sounds like metal on metal — very loud screech. Truck brakes beautifully — in fact it feels like it has too much brake. Need to go gently on the pedal, very easy to lock the wheels up.
So now I am trying to correct the squeal/screech. I know I might be looking at re-lining the shoes in case of contamination. I would like to try a couple tricks if you can suggest any prior to doing that. I have a local antique truck show on Saturday that I would like to attend — just do not want to drive truck if it is unsafe.
Here is the kicker᠁ take a look at attached photo. I’ve never seen the shafts on wheel cylinder pistons on an angle like mine are. Has me thinking either the cylinders are wrong, or the shoes are wrong. Previous owner did tell me the wheel cylinders were replaced but they could not get proper ones for a 4100. Does anyone think the wheel cylinders could be the issue? Passenger side brakes just fine, and looks the same.
On the topic of wheel cylinders, are the Raybestos WC19090 and WC19091 suitable replacements for this truck? I do understand that the inlet angle from brake hose is different from original, but hose has plenty of slack for that.

Thanks for any help and wisdom you can impart on me!


[IMG]https://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i397/stouchton/4100%20brakes.jpg[/IMG]

I wouldn't worry about the noise as long as they work for now, check out proper cylinders at your convenience. Just keep using them.

ED

The brake rods should not be on an angle like that. I would think the shoes or something else is the wrong part. With an angle like that the pistons are going to wear on one side. The force should be straight on. Personally I would not drive it like that.

Hy Stouchton, I agree with truckernix, something isn't right about the way the activating pins are at an angle. My books call for lining/shoe set number 109 for your application, that set was used up into the late seventies. However there were other shoes of the same size set 60 and 63 are both also 14" X 2 1/2" in size. It is hard to spot differences in my book of illustrations, but something is not correct, either the wheel cylinders are not the correct ones or the shoes are not correct, the activating pins should go straight to the shoes, not be at an angle as they are now.

Ed and Truckernix - thanks for your replies. I understand and appreciate where you are both coming from.

I discovered I will need to pull the wheel back apart for I have been reviewing pictures I took several months ago of the brake system and think I spotted a cracked brake shoe. The actual metal structure, not the lining. My picture resolution is not the best, so it will come apart for a closer look. Of course this nixes the antique truck show this weekend.

Thanks 3B for the info - and I agree something looks just plain wrong. I am currently trying to source correct shoes so I can figure out what is really wrong. Can you clarify what the number 109 means? Is that the tail end of a larger Chevy part number?

I do know that the wheel cylinders are not original - but I believe they follow the substitution of 5453989 for the original 5454387 in some applications. The original wheel cylinder (5454387) had a 7/8" diameter. The substitution is larger - most likely 1 1/8". I would think the activating pins stay on the centerline of the cylinder, so doubt that would cause the upward angle?

Right now I am trying to find replacements for the 5454387 (7/8") without much luck - would be nice to find something modern that would work but I just can't seem to find the technical info that would let me know they are 7/8".

just as a followup - figured out Raybestos WC19090 and WC19091 are 7/8" bore. Just not sure they mechanically fit. Anyone use them in 53 or 54 1 1/2 ton or larger?

OK... I'll answer that last question myself shortly. Found the WC19090 for $9 online shipped free. So I will take a look at it. I will be changing brake hoses anyway, so real easy to mount up cylinder and take a look.

Hy stouchton, I wish I was better with the confusilator, but alas I am not, I believe I ran into the problem of the original wheel cylinders being no longer available a long time ago, I did some research and came up with Raybestos part numbers WC19091 and WC19090 these wheel cylinders are the same in all respects as the originals except the port for the hose attachment is at an angle rather than straight out as the original cylinder was. The person who I researched this information for ordered the WC19091 and WC19090 wheel cylinders and installed them with no major problems and as far as I know they are still on his truck performing their function perfectly. The shoe numbers I quoted are a brake parts industry identity number that the industry recognizes, hope that helps.

3B - the cylinders fit just fine. I'm still buttoning things up and need to bleed the system.

I'm still confused on the wheel cylinder activating pins being on an angle - wheel cylinders of course had no effect. The pictures in the shop service manual do show them being on a slight angle. Also, the action of the brake shoe centering can take them on an upward angle depending on which way the shoes need to move. The activating pins are designed to meet the cylinder piston on an angle. I do have to admit my angle looks excessive. I would be very interested if someone could find a good picture of the mounted brake shoes on a 53 or 54 1 1/2 ton or 2 ton truck. I scoured the internet and found nada.

As far as I can tell from the shoes, they are most likely Chevrolet 3723922 which was the recommended substitute for the original 3703510. I found a picture of the 3723922 on line, and they look identical to what is mounted on my front brakes.

I'll post back as to how this all works out.......

Just wanted to close this thread with the solution - I changed the cylinders per 3B's recommendation. This is actually a smaller cylinder so I have less braking force up front - which is the way Chevy designed it and I like it better too! I also sanded the drums and shoes, and used a very good brake cleaner on drums and shoes. I now have perfect brakes.

Hy stouchton, great news, thanks for letting us know.