Is this what I think it is???

 

What do you think it is?

 

Well, it's in Group 4.650, which is brake master cylinders.

 

It is.

Always wondered why it wasn't applicable to 62 Starfire.

 

I figured it had something to do with the Bendix M/C that is integral to the booster, but maybe not. That's more than one year and model, anyway. Same P/N for 62-66. I'd love to see a photo of that complete kit, or at least the instructions. What does it include besides the M/C?

 

So it was a dual reservoir master cylinder kit? Very interesting. '62 to '66 all except Starfire covers a lot of models, model changeovers, and models with and w/o vacuum assist. I wonder when it became available? It does not make reference to a booster. It would have to include the brake lines, a distribution block and maybe a different push rod. If it were available through '72 they had to have sold several.

 

That page is from the Jan 1972 edition of the Parts Book. The package is not listed in the Sept 1968 edition that I have.

 

Do you think it was a retroactive consolidation that caused an upgrade option?

 

The part is listed in my price schedules dated 5/66 until discontinued 6/74. Originally it was in group 4.647, at least through 11/69. From price and name, yes it might be a dual master cylinder conversion to update 66-back to the 67 system, but it is more likely to be a secondary brake system for the passenger side. It would be intended for cars used to teach driving students, giving the instructor on the passenger side some control if the student made a mistake.

 

it is more likely to be a secondary brake system for the passenger side. It would be intended for cars used to teach driving students, giving the instructor on the passenger side some control if the student made a mistake.[/QUOTE]

This was my thought, I was too chicken to post it though...

 

Interesting thought that I hadn't considered, but why stop at 1966? The 1975 Ventura that I took Driver's Ed in had a RH brake pedal for the instructor. And usually, stuff like that was in the Accessories group in the parts book.

 

Perhaps the lack of demand and saturation of the market by aftermarket suppliers killed the availability from the factory. I remember the car that I had used in drivers Ed (in ‘88) had a very generic looking, non factory pedal assembly. It looked like a bolt on. As mentioned, I’m not certain that this is the answer to the inquiry, just a possibility. Probably need to talk to the elder rocket shamans.

 

My point wasn't availability, it was applicability. Why only offer this system for cars with a single circuit M/C? There were Driver's Ed cars long after the 1966 model year. It's telling that this package is for single-circuit cars. I personally have no idea one way or the other, but I'd like to find out.

 

That's a possibility but, since it's listed in the "hydraulic brake control" section of the parts book and specifically for single brake circuit cars, my mind says dual m/c conversion. Nov 73 lists it in 4.650.

Seems the driver ed brake pedal would have been in the Valiant handicapped controls section- which last mention I can find of that is in Jan 65 book for 59-60 cars. I don't know how long Olds continued that program, especially after they pioneered it in late 40s for WW2 servicemen who had lost limbs.

I was a driver's ed student aide my senior year of high school. The instructor brake pedals that were in our driver ed cars always seemed kinda generic to me. They were bent to cross transmission hump and, depending on what they'd been in before, the passenger side pedals were often cocked at a weird angle. You could see evidence the crossbar had been heated to bend it to fit different cars.

I only had to use it once. We had a 1974 Buick Century Luxus sedan on loan from the Buick-Pontiac dealer. 45 minute class, 3 students and aide in each car, each kid got 15 minutes behind the wheel. This one kid didn't want to switch drivers and didn't stop per Coach's instructions. Coach said "Glenn" so I stopped the car. Kid floored the Buick trying to keep going. Next morning, with less than 50 miles on it, the Buick got towed back to the dealer with a blown front trans seal.

 

Speculating. . . maybe the more complicated hydraulics of the 67-up master cylinder made it impractical for Olds to offer a similar system for the later cars.

The price just seems high for a $30 master cylinder (1960s dollars) and some small parts, tubing. If another swing pedal assembly, etc. were also involved, the cost makes more sense.

Back then, GM seemed immune to litigation, etc. They upgraded when and if the feds demanded it. There was no retrofit for the solid steering column shaft, for example.

 

Would be interesting to know exactly what was in this kit. Wonder if it included a power booster?

 

Or a power booster...

 

This setup would not use the kit mentioned if it used control rods to tie into the car's existing brake system.



Wouldn’t it be because after that model year all cars had a dual cylinder anyway? Even if they didn’t it would also eliminate having to issue another part number for a separate kit for use with disc brakes which had different/additional pieces.



Why would it be needed for dual cylinder cars? And, it would kill two birds with one stone if the kit could also be used to equip fleet cars like driver’s education or mail delivery vehicles. It also may have kept the price down and saved package/shipping cost to not include a booster (which could always be added an additional cost).

 

As I noted, the use of passenger-side brakes for Driver's Ed cars continued long after the advent of dual circuit brakes.

Read that in context: "Why would a DRIVER'S ED 'dual brake' system not be offered for cars made after 1966?" I was trying to point out why I didn't think that P/N was the Driver's Ed system but a dual circuit conversion for the 1962-66 cars.

 

EXPORT and for milt. men that brought their vehicles over seas.
Be my guess, a single pot braking on an autobaun would be not the wisest move

 

Many European cars of that vintage used single circuit brakes.

 

I say it was not offered nor intended for fleet vehicles due to the complications presented by disc brake applications used after '66. Think about how many proportioning valve set up/locations and power/non power cars you've seen on different GM brands and body styles. Before '67 they could have a broad brush one size fits all part number. After '66, not so easy.

 

I say that we're all just guessing...

 

My drivers ed 68 Chevelle didn’t have a passenger brake pedal. I wonder what determined what cars got them or not?

 

Yes, but would it be wise.

My other "guess" is to towing, Many vintage r/v and trailers uses hyd brakes.
The dual pot might be so the trailer hyd when hooked to vehicle is separate from the cars brake fluid.
Back then many used cars to tow with.

 

In my 66,67,68 PB the listing is not there nor is in my 70 book.
The Chrysler dealership I worked for back in the mid 80s installed cable actuated second brake pedals for drivers Ed cars.
Bolted them right to the floor. Drove the screws right thru the carpet.
We had a big box of them in the parts dept.

 

Nice research Vintage Chief.

That was my thinking. My guess is that the kit included the pieces that transformed a single master '66 F-85 into a dual master '67 F-85: that's it. Way before this kit was offered the factory knew how superior a dual master was so at some point they decided to offer a conversion kit.

If anyone has them, please show us the instructions from the kit.

 

Why would the 1962 Starfire, specifically, be excluded from the master cylinder conversion kit?

If the kit was for use of dual brake pedals in driver education cars, it would make sense a Starfire console would prevent its use. But why would only the 1962 model year be excluded, and not other cars equipped with a console?

Hopefully someone can shed more light on this master cylinder kit.

 

The '62 Starfire's console was an extension of the instrument panel. The console wiring harness came down from the IP. It is already a tight fit with the heater box, console wiring and a/c manifold. There would not be room for whatever apparatus would be involved with the passenger side pedal linkage.

'63 and '64 Starfire consoles were much lower than '62, and I believe the wiring harness was run under the carpeting. '63 was also the first year for the combined heating and air conditioning system, which may have had some effect on the size of the heater box. There is a lot more room between the dash and console in '63 and '64 Starfires than there is in 62s.

 

I'm pretty sure that the item I pointed out in the parts book has nothing to do with driver's ed cars, so I'm not sure how this line of discussion even applies.

 

Guess that throws out the console theory and explains why only the ‘62 Starfire would be excluded - if the kit is for an auxiliary brake pedal on the passenger side.

If the kit is for a dual master cylinder retrofit, why would only the ‘62 Starfire be excluded?

There have been valid points given as to whether the kit is for a dual master cylinder or an auxiliary brake pedal.

 

Scroll up and read post #5

The Bendix booster incorporated the M/C piston as part of the booster mechanism. It isn't possible to replace just the M/C. Note the piston attached to the booster with the M/C casting removed.

 

There was no double brake pedal proto-linelock drag racing setup with one pedal for each end from Olds, was there?

 

With a Slim-Jim? I sure hope not. That would grenade a Slim-Jim, I'm sure.

The thing about the GM parts catalog is that sometimes it needs to be read between the lines. Sometimes you have to read what's NOT there. Here's a little more information on that part number.

381466 first appeared in the 1962 model year catalog (not the master chassis catalog) in the fall of '61. It was listed as applying to 1962 exc. Starfire. At that time it was listed in group 4.647, a hardware group, not a hydraulic group. The group before it was 4.642 (going from memory) which covered Valiant handicapped controls. The group following it was 4.648 which covered the brake pedal support and hardware.

381466 appeared again in the 1962 master chassis catalog, printed in December '61, in the same group with the same description. There is another entry in the 1962 chassis book - a parts history entry. It states for part number 585550 to use 381466. I have been unable to find a description or an application for 585550.

381466 appeared again in the 1963 master chassis catalog, printed in December '62, in the same group. The description now was 1962 & 1963 exc. '62 & '63 Starfire. This is the newest book that I have until the Thru-75 book printed in 1983, by which time 381466 was discontinued. Apparently '64, '65 and '66 model years were added, the group was changed to 4.650 (a hydraulic group) and the '63 Starfire exclusion deleted.

Some folks interpret the description (control pkg., dual hydraulic brake) to be a dual reservoir brake system. I interpret it to mean a dual control system for the hydraulic brakes, as opposed to the parking brake. This would make sense regarding the Starfire exception. Somehow the console would have gotten in the way of whatever was going on here. Something else to think about - the 1962 Olds was basically a reskinned '61. So much so that only a supplement to the 1961 service manual was issued instead of a full manual. If the '61 and '62 cars were so similar, why wouldn't this package have applied backwards to 1961 (like Cruise Control did)? There are parts bulletins regarding the 1962 cars and the use of Valiant handicapped controls. 1961 and 1962 controls could not interchange because of a change in the steering column mounting. This change may have affected the dual hydraulic brake control package as well. Something else to consider - there is no exception for F-85 models. Would they use the same dual reservoir master cylinder on a full size car as they would on an F-85? Single reservoir cylinders were different between full size cars and F-85. Another thing to consider is serviceability of parts. Should a master cylinder or booster fail and need to be replaced, there are no replacement parts listed. With other accessories, such as Cruise Control, there is a kit part number and then serviceable part numbers listed. One would have to assume that in the event of a cylinder or booster failure, another entire kit would have to be purchased. Price is also a consideration. The control package sold for $72.25 in the 1972 book. A '60-'63 Bendix master cylinder sold for $11.10. A bendix booster was $32.85. What would make up the $28.30 difference? Pipes? Distribution block? A Moraine cylinder/booster assembly sold for $58 and change.

I wish we knew more. I find it interesting that this package is not mentioned at all in Service Guild supplements or technical bulletins. One would think that something so important as a dual reservoir master cylinder upgrade would have been brought the attention of Oldsmobile personnel. There is also no mention of it in the flat rate manual, at least in 1962.

We'll never know unless a NOS package makes an appearance.