TLS conversion on SWB.

[w3526602]

Hi,

I found this information, while browsing ...

Most 'Series' vehicles had one of two types of braking system.  109 inch vehicles, and 88 inch from mid-1980 onwards, had 11 inch front brakes of the twin leading shoe (TLS) type.  This is a pretty good system and when in good condition should be more than enough for most people's needs.  Pre 1980 88 inch vehicles had 10 inch single leading shoe (SLS) brakes, which are a little more marginal.  They will cope fine with a lightly laden vehicle driven at modern speeds, but emergency braking, downhill and fully laden, may find them wanting.  Having said which the 10 inch SLS brakes seem to require less maintenance than the 11 inch TLS system and are a lot simpler to work on. It is possible to convert earlier 88 inch vehicles to the TLS system, but the brake master cylinder will need to be changed to the 109 inch type.

Unfortunately, it does not say whether the conversion is simply filling complete back-plate assemblies, or whether the conversion retains the 10" brakes, but has a NEW 10" backplate that are able to accept the wheel cylinders from 11" brakes.

Regarding the final paragraph above, in bold .... both TLS and SLS system have 2 pistons per wheel. TLS front pistons on  SWB are smaller, at 1.1875" dia, than SLS front pistons, at 1.25", so should not require a bigger LWB master cylinder.... more the opposite.

But, LWB REAR wheel cylinders, at 1.25" dia ARE MUCH bigger than the 1.00" dia pistons on a SWB and DO require more fluid to be pumped

PERSONALLY, I have been very happy driving both LWB (unladen) and SWB trucks, fitted with LWB front brakes and SWB rear brakes, which gave me a nice firm pedal. However, I never tried reversing down hill with a heavy trailer on the hook. (Trailing shoes become leading shoes when reversing)

602

[diffwhine]

Important to clarify in case of any misunderstanding.
Any upgrade or change to original brake systems is a modification.
88" vehicles only got TLS on the front brakes in 1981 with late metricated Series 3. The TLS system only runs on 11" brakes. Do not attempt to fit TLS to a 10" single leading shoe brake system (using existing drums and backplates. That would need extensive modification to shoes and backplates and is a non starter and a big safety issue.
Only upgrade if confident that you can do the upgrade to the specification envisaged by the original manufacturer. Ideally this should include a change to a dual line braking system and installation of effectively an entire Series 3 brake system - lines, brackets, cylinders, routing etc. I think, but may not be right, that the 11" TLS system also was standard with a servo.

Although a potential safety improvement, done incorrectly, this could be a serious safety issue.

Personally, I find for normal use, the standard 10" system, well set up, is more than adequate for the majority of users of vehicles who just have them for fun and pottering about. Maybe if towing or more regular usage, then upgrade to the later spec, but keep the spec as per a later vehicle - do not mix and match systems.

[diffwhine]

602 - Just to follow up on this, I'm not questioning your many years of extensive Land Rover experience, or trying to stifle interesting discussion (which this is!). I just want to be careful that we avoid falling into the trap of potentially suggesting to a less experienced member reading this that certain modifications could be deemed acceptable.

Short wheelbase vehicles should not have 11" brakes on the back, that will over brake the rear. 10" SLS is more than adequate on the rear.

Basically if if its upgraded from early to late S3 SWB brake specification, that would be fine, but not to transpose an entire LWB system - that would be too much.

[GlenAnderson]

A good upgrade is to fit the 11" SLS assemblies from the rear of a 109" to the front of an 88". As the wheel cylinders are the same there's no need to change the master cylinder, and the bigger shoes and drums go longer between adjustment and are less prone to fade.

And yes, there's definitely no need to make any changes to the rear.

[Craig T]

Back in the day when I put a V8 in a series 3, I put 109" twin leading shoe brakes on the front axle and moved the front brakes (larger wheel cylinder) to the rear axle.

I later added a servo from a 109" but as it was series 3 it was a simply swap and didn't require cutting the wing about.

They worked well enough but to be honest, a well setup, working set of 88" brakes are pretty good.

My 109" off course has the 11" drums all round with the twin leading shoe on the front.

Craig.

[2286]

Whilst it may have been something I would have considered at some point or other, I am inclined to be in the if it aint broke dont fix it club on this occasion.

It is is a relatively lengthy exercise and as mentioned specific set ups are designed to work with each other.

Interesting point that glen makes re sls 11" up front.

As mentioned a full 10" set up in fine fettle is up to the task, and if you need more chances are you are moving too much weight or going too fast.

Good luck on both particularly the latter.

I think the post 1980 went dual circuit too, I may be wrong on that.

[Peter Holden]

I run a SWB with 11" TLS brakes on the front and standard 10" on the rear, a LWB CV master cylinder and a remote servo (hidden under the front wing.)

The brakes are more than adequate for keeping up with modern traffic.  I do find though that the brake linings seem to vary.  The current ones (Allied Nippon) seem as good as any and regular adjustment is important

As a comparison try driving a very early Series 1 running 10" hydrostatic brakes, they can be interesting!!

Peter

[2286]

I think that the brakes and steering of an 80" resulted in the me opting for 2a and 3!

[Wittsend]

It is important to recognise that an "upgrade" from 10" to 11" brakes on a (Series 2) SWB model constitutes a modification.

Which means you should inform your insurance company. They won't bat an eyelid or charge you more. But it will be in their records. Should you subsequently make a claim they can't then reject it on that alone, assuming the brakes have been properly maintained etc.

Personally, as many have posted - I can't see any gain. Much better to fit an inline remote servo (again notifying your insurers) which will give a slightly better boost to your braking.


  

[w3526602]

Hi ALL,

Not arguing, just revealing my thoughts.

11" brakes are "exactly" 10% bigger than 10" brakes, so should give you 10% better braking, assuming you fit LWB REAR brakes (which are SLS, and already use the same wheel cylinders as SWB FRONT brakes, so no need to change the SWB master cylinder).

However, LWB FRONT brakes, also 10% bigger, have TLS, which I guestimate have nearly twice the stopping power of SLS, all else being equal.

Doh! Our ladies are demanding my presence in bed, to eat my lunch.
I will return later this afternoon.

602

[2286]

You will be putting Minifins on next 602.

Enjoy your lunch.

[Peter Holden]

I did indeed notify my insurers about the TLS and the servo and there was no increase in premium, they recorded it as a safety upgrade

Peter

[w3526602]

Hi again,

I return ...

Minifins? Its been a long time since I've heard those mentioned.

Personally, I think that is taking things too far. You will be suggesting aluminium discs, next. Er, there is something in my mind about drilling big holes all over discs ... was that ever done? If so, why not drill holes all over drum brakes ... reduce the unsprung weight, and get rid of water after wading?

Should you subsequently make a claim they can't then reject it on that alone,   Hi Alan, I agree. But it is very difficult for our insurers to to reject a Third Party claim, but they are entitled to claim the compensation back from their client ... has anybody here looked up the Insurance Section of the RTAs.

My first ever Insurance claim was against an Old Codger who had parked his Renault 4 in the back of my Minivan, which then hit the car in front (Driven by an RAF officer, who I had to salute, as I was in uniform too.) I learned later that the bloke who hit me worked for his insurers. I quickly started dating his secretary, so not all was lost. 

Quote, from memory ... "Our client suffered a heart attack, of which he had no prior warning, therefore we cannot entertain any claim against him". My insurers accepted that.

That was 1964, which was not a good year for me! Fined £2 for doing 80MPH in my 850cc Minivan (Goods vehicles, then, were restricted to 40mph).

602

[Wittsend]

My motorbike has a drilled disc - helps to better disperse water.

I had Minifins on my Mini 
Not sure about better braking, but it's reduced weight on the wheel bearings.

 

[Bloke]

Hi guys. Reading this thread has made me change my mind on my 88" project's current setup...

For whatever reason when I rebuilt the axles a few years ago I made the decision to go with 11" drums front and rear (TLS on front), 109 master cylinder (and spacer bracket), single line, no servo.

Since fitting all the pipework and cylinders a few months ago I've been really struggling to bleed the system, even though I've modified the TLS setup so the bleed nipple is on the top cylinder. This, together with reading your comments has made me want to change the setup back to standard 10" drums.

I even bought genuine NOS 11" drums and shoes from Blanchard's    So if anyone is interested in a full set of 11" drums and shoes - let me know!

Also, does anyone have 4 10" backplates please? 

Tom