Notices
General Miata Chat A place to talk about anything Miata

1.6 vs 1.8 brakes

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 03:00 PM
  #1  
Braineack's Avatar
Thread Starter
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default 1.6 vs 1.8 brakes

Front:


Rear:


About 1" larger in diameter F&R, so around 1/4" all the way around. Front pads have signifigantly larger braking surface, although I dont have them yet to compare, so stay tuned.

Old Dec 1, 2006 | 03:08 PM
  #2  
Mach929's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,494
Total Cats: 0
From: lansdale PA
Default

i did the 1.8 swap a while back, i like them better, will eventually change the prop valve too when i get around to it
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 03:34 PM
  #3  
Splitime's Avatar
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,290
Total Cats: 31
From: Chicagoland, IL
Default

Prop valve is different?

I have to get my rotors turned, then my 1.8 upgrade can be finished.
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 04:50 PM
  #4  
Mach929's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,494
Total Cats: 0
From: lansdale PA
Default

i forget which one it is, there's a few different variations, but certain one is the most desirable, direct swap too, adds in a little bit more rear bias for more even braking
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 05:07 PM
  #5  
Splitime's Avatar
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,290
Total Cats: 31
From: Chicagoland, IL
Default

Originally Posted by Mach929
i forget which one it is, there's a few different variations, but certain one is the most desirable, direct swap too, adds in a little bit more rear bias for more even braking
Hurm, I wonder what the stock bias is. I will probably just play with pad compounds in the rear.

I typically have run a race pad in front and a street pad in the rear... but I'm used to FF cars... can't wait to figure the miata out.
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 05:29 PM
  #6  
mxv's Avatar
mxv
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 582
Total Cats: 0
From: South Carolina
Default

hey splitime, who is that dude in your avatar, he kinda looks like the guy off of the powerblocks, Trucks show.
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 05:57 PM
  #7  
Braineack's Avatar
Thread Starter
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

wilwood has a cheap adjustable one.

http://www.flyinmiata.com/index.php?...umber=14-76250
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 07:18 PM
  #8  
brgracer's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,275
Total Cats: 1
From: Ambler, PA
Default

See attached for diff prop valves from diff years.
Attached Thumbnails 1.6 vs 1.8 brakes-propvalve.gif  
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 07:29 PM
  #9  
Pitlab77's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,914
Total Cats: 5
From: Houston
Default

I did several years ago on old 92. It was great. One of the best mod's I ever did to the car.

I have comparison shots somewhere
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 07:31 PM
  #10  
Pitlab77's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,914
Total Cats: 5
From: Houston
Default

front rotors shot

can you tell the 1.6 from the 1.8
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/...4/fd09d5f9.jpg
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 08:11 PM
  #11  
olderguy's Avatar
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (19)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,716
Total Cats: 364
From: Wayne, NJ
Default

Originally Posted by brgracer
See attached for diff prop valves from diff years.
Not quite clear on how to read the chart. What would non-ABS 94-97 be rear, then front? 425 rear then 840 front? or; 600 rear 840 front?
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 08:35 PM
  #12  
Braineack's Avatar
Thread Starter
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

then teach us how to read shock dynos....
Old Dec 1, 2006 | 08:40 PM
  #13  
Mach929's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,494
Total Cats: 0
From: lansdale PA
Default

the straight line represents the front brake and where it branches off represents what the rear brake do at that pressure level. Under that pressure level the rears act the same as the fronts, but when pressure gets high enough pressure to rears are bled off
Old Dec 2, 2006 | 12:37 PM
  #14  
Pitlab77's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,914
Total Cats: 5
From: Houston
Default

i never had brake balance problems. I did have a new master clynder though??
Old Dec 2, 2006 | 01:53 PM
  #15  
Splitime's Avatar
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,290
Total Cats: 31
From: Chicagoland, IL
Default

Originally Posted by mxv
hey splitime, who is that dude in your avatar, he kinda looks like the guy off of the powerblocks, Trucks show.
Heh, thats me... friend took the picture for an old photography class. He was doing a lighting study and had me toss on his sunglasses for the pic.

I typically get comparisons to Jason Lee in person or when I have my goatee.

Prop Valve question... those abs vs non-abs valves... all the same fittings/format? On the hondas, the abs cars use a differently designed valve, ie: its not plug/play. Are they for us?
Old Dec 3, 2006 | 12:51 AM
  #16  
zbossrt's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 108
Total Cats: 0
From: San Jose, CA
Default

I replaced mines about 2 months ago and its day and nite difference. I also got front steel braded lines, did flush and replaced it with DOT4 synthetic. I have colbolt blues front and EBC green rears. Great combo and stops much better. I have confidance in my brakes now!
Attached Thumbnails 1.6 vs 1.8 brakes-brakes.jpg  
Old Dec 5, 2006 | 01:41 PM
  #17  
olderguy's Avatar
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (19)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,716
Total Cats: 364
From: Wayne, NJ
Default

Originally Posted by brgracer
See attached for diff prop valves from diff years.
OK, I'm old and dense and still can't figure out the chart.

Can someone walk me through, let's say, the '94?

They both go up together until they hit about 420?

Then they diverge?

The rear is limited to the straight line pressure from then on up; while the front goes to about 840 while the rear is reaching 600?

When the front reaches 840, is all higher pressure cut off? Front and rear?

I'm confused.
Old Dec 5, 2006 | 07:14 PM
  #18  
brgracer's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,275
Total Cats: 1
From: Ambler, PA
Default

Originally Posted by olderguy
OK, I'm old and dense and still can't figure out the chart.

Can someone walk me through, let's say, the '94?

They both go up together until they hit about 420?

Then they diverge?

The rear is limited to the straight line pressure from then on up; while the front goes to about 840 while the rear is reaching 600?

When the front reaches 840, is all higher pressure cut off? Front and rear?

I'm confused.
Basically, at low pedal pressures, the hydraulic pressure is evenly distributed between the front and rear brakes, but at higher pressures they skew toward the front brakes at a fixed percentage after a specific knee point. As you can see from the graph, in the earlier 90-93 they start biasing toward the front much earlier than later years.

For example, lets say you are applying 1200 (I forget the units of the graph) of total brake pressure then:

a 90-93 the prop valve sends around 700 to the front and 500 to the rear brakes

a in 94-97 car the prop valve would send around 650 to the front and 550 to the rear

a 94-97 abs car the prop valve would still have almost a 50/50 bias
Old Dec 5, 2006 | 07:22 PM
  #19  
olderguy's Avatar
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (19)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,716
Total Cats: 364
From: Wayne, NJ
Default

Originally Posted by brgracer
Basically, at low pedal pressures, the hydraulic pressure is evenly distributed between the front and rear brakes, but at higher pressures they skew toward the front brakes at a fixed percentage after a specific knee point. As you can see from the graph, in the earlier 90-93 they start biasing toward the front much earlier than later years.

For example, lets say you are applying 1200 (I forget the units of the graph) of total brake pressure then:

a 90-93 the prop valve sends around 700 to the front and 500 to the rear brakes

a in 94-97 car the prop valve would send around 650 to the front and 550 to the rear

a 94-97 abs car the prop valve would still have almost a 50/50 bias
So if someone wasn't going to go to an adjustable proportioning valve when they do the 1.8 upgrade, they should at least use the 1.8 valve?
Old Dec 5, 2006 | 07:30 PM
  #20  
brgracer's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,275
Total Cats: 1
From: Ambler, PA
Default

Originally Posted by olderguy
So if someone wasn't going to go to an adjustable proportioning valve when they do the 1.8 upgrade, they should at least use the 1.8 valve?
Not absolutely necessary, but highly recommended from those who have done it. On my ever growing list of things to do.

In fact, as already mentioned some people even just upgrade the stock 1.6 brakes by changing out the prop valve to get less of an aggressive front bias under heavy braking. YMMV.



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:22 PM.