When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Since I was in diapers (and maybe since I was in the womb as my father was rebuilding engines when he was in his teens in the 1940s), I’ve heard and been told that when bleeding brakes, you start at the wheel farthest from the master cylinder and work your way to closest. So that’s right rear, left rear, right front, left front in that order.
This is what it says in both the ‘77 and ‘78 chassis service manuals which I used when I redid the brakes on my ‘77 and ‘78 Toronados.
Here’s the entry from the ‘77 manual.
I’ve been redoing the brakes on my recently-acquired ‘73 Delta 88, and I went to bleed the brakes today. So imagine my surprise when I looked at that section of the manual, and it says to bleed the brakes starting at the closest wheel and working outward. So that’s left front, right front, left rear, right rear. What!?!?!
I also happen to have a ‘67 service manual, and it has the same order as the ‘73 manual.
So which is it? What changed between 1973 and 1977? Heck, in the process of doing the brakes on the ‘73, I found that most parts, the master cylinder and the combination valve, to name just two, are identical to what I used on the '77 and the '78.
I did them in the order the manual says, but which should it be, or which is preferred? I know that most people will simply say to follow the manual, but still....
It does not matter which is first as long as the fronts and rears are done in pairs.
^^^THIS! The order of bleeding was more important for single circuit systems. In a dual circuit system, the front and back are independent, so it doesn't matter which end of the car is done first.
Makes sense.
But within the front and rear systems, is it better to do the farther (right front or right rear) first and then the nearer, other way around, or doesn't it matter?
Like most/many over the years I had to acquaint myself with brake bleeding procedures having done several on my parents 1950-era vehicles while in H.S., then my '67 4-4-2, a couple other cars, a '53 GMC, yadda, yadda. At any rate, some years ago I found this article while researching the history of single-circuit vs. dual-circuit brake systems. It's a good read because it's very simple & accurate.
Interesting. I've always done farthest to nearest too. I seem to recall that the 71 CSM gives opposite directions as well.
Agree. I can't validate at the moment because I sold my '71 CSM when I sold my '71 CS a couple months ago. It always (and, still does) amazes me they (at least Oldsmobile) continued to refer to the alternator as the generator in all CSM documentation & literature. Seriously, no one (editors) had the foresight to make corrections to the literature? Maybe it was because the dash console idiot lights also said GEN even though they were equipped with an ALT?
Like most/many over the years I had to acquaint myself with brake bleeding procedures having done several on my parents 1950-era vehicles while in H.S., then my '67 4-4-2, a couple other cars, a '53 GMC, yadda, yadda. At any rate, some years ago I found this article while researching the history of single-circuit vs. dual-circuit brake systems. It's a good read because it's very simple & accurate.
Unfortunately that article doesn't go into the details of front/rear balance and the fact that not all front disc brake cars use a prop valve. There are many ways to adjust front/rear balance; a prop valve to reduce pressure to the rear is just one way. For 1967-70 Olds just used smaller rear wheel cylinders on disc brake cars to accomplish the same thing. Also, a handful of four wheel drum cars also use a prop valve - the early Toro is one example. I assume this was due to the greater than normal front weight bias on those cars.
I did farthest to nearest on the rears and then the fronts.
What REALLY made the job easy was this. I had bought it some time ago but never had a reason to use it until now. What a Godsend. I had all four wheels done in less than 10 minutes. It would have been faster except that I had to stop the vacuum draw two or three times at each wheel to go back to the master cylinder and refill with fluid. If I had had a helper, that person could have stood by the M/C with a bottle of fluid and added as needed. Then it would have taken only five minutes. The brake pedal on the car is now high and firm, and the car stops nicely.
I did farthest to nearest on the rears and then the fronts.
What REALLY made the job easy was this. I had bought it some time ago but never had a reason to use it until now. What a Godsend. I had all four wheels done in less than 10 minutes. It would have been faster except that I had to stop the vacuum draw two or three times at each wheel to go back to the master cylinder and refill with fluid. If I had had a helper, that person could have stood by the M/C with a bottle of fluid and added as needed. Then it would have taken only five minutes. The brake pedal on the car is now high and firm, and the car stops nicely.
Yes, that is a lower-cost version of the Vacula that I have been using for nearly two decades. Frankly, with that system it doesn't really matter where you start. You don't even need to bench bleed the master cylinder first. It's one of the best tools I've ever bought.
Put the power bleeder on and go It doesn't matter where you start. I will go around it twice tapping the calipers/cylinders & lines with a hammer handle.
