Supplemental Vacuum

[dave lowry]

I seem to be alone in my advocacy of installing a tank instead of a pump.
We've field tested ours, and it works as advertised. The tank in under the
maximum vacuum the engine generates and has a check valve that holds it's
until needed by the brake booster.

Can someone clue me in if there's a flaw in the logic?

TIA,

Dave (advisor/navigator & Dege, pilot etc.), '76 Royale, Santa Barbara, CA

 

[gene]

The problem is not how many pumps you get, it is what do you do when it is
all gone ????

With the electric vacuum pump, you can drive down the whole mountain if you
need to.. and one day you will need to.

gene

>I seem to be alone in my advocacy of installing a tank instead of a pump.
>We've field tested ours, and it works as advertised. The tank in under the
>maximum vacuum the engine generates and has a check valve that holds it's
>until needed by the brake booster.
>
>Can someone clue me in if there's a flaw in the logic?
>
>TIA,
>
>Dave (advisor/navigator & Dege, pilot etc.), '76 Royale, Santa Barbara, CA
>
>
>
Genef -- 77PB/ore/ca
GMC MOTORHOME INFORMATION
mr.erf
http://www.california.com/~eagle/

 

[gene]

I think this is a great idea

gene

>In a message dated 5/4/2000 5:33:39 PM Central Daylight Time, lowry
>writes:
>
> We've field tested ours, and it works as advertised. The tank in under the
> maximum vacuum the engine generates and has a check valve that holds it's
> until needed by the brake booster.
>
> Can someone clue me in if there's a flaw in the logic?
> >>
>
>Why not use both??
>
>
>Lanier
>Jackson, MS
>'73 GMC Excalibur
>'29 Mercedes SSK Toad
>'94 Tracker Toad
>
>Reality Check:::::
>There's no free lunch;
>You get what you pay for;
>And Nothing's gonna come in the mail !!
>So, Go Back To Work !!!
>
Genef -- 77PB/ore/ca
GMC MOTORHOME INFORMATION
mr.erf
http://www.california.com/~eagle/

 

[dave lowry]

>In a message dated 5/4/2000 5:33:39 PM Central Daylight Time, lowry
>writes:
>
> We've field tested ours, and it works as advertised. The tank in under the
> maximum vacuum the engine generates and has a check valve that holds it's
> until needed by the brake booster.
>
> Can someone clue me in if there's a flaw in the logic?
> >>
>
>Why not use both??
>
>
>Lanier
>Jackson, MS
>'73 GMC Excalibur
>'29 Mercedes SSK Toad
>'94 Tracker Toad
>
>Reality Check:::::
>There's no free lunch;
>You get what you pay for;
>And Nothing's gonna come in the mail !!
>So, Go Back To Work !!!

Lanier, In my case, using both seemed like overkill. Choosing just the tank
was not just a matter of money (though I do pay $50 to $65 / hr to do this
kind of "R & D" work on the coach). It was also the simplest, most reliable
and least costly solution to the problem. As I understand it, the only
advantage in the pump is its ability to provide an unlimited number of
stops as opposed to the tank's being limited to 8 to 10.

There's no way we'll continue down some mountain road without power
steering, and I wouldn't advocate anyone else do it either. And if we can't
get it pulled over with 8 to 10 brake applicatioins, we've got problems
that little pump won't cure.

Nobody can spend enough to be 100% safe. Prudent driving and a healthy dose
of faith must offset some risk.

Like Arch says, it works for me.

Dave (advisor/navigator & Dege, pilot etc.), '76 Royale, Santa Barbara, CA

 

[k7ujx1]

From: Dave Lowry
Subject: GMC: Supplemental Vacuum

I seem to be alone in my advocacy of installing a tank instead of a pump.
We've field tested ours, and it works as advertised. The tank in under
the
maximum vacuum the engine generates and has a check valve that holds it's
until needed by the brake booster.

Can someone clue me in if there's a flaw in the logic?

TIA,

Not at all in the early days GM used a small tank usally mounted on the
inner fender skirt to hold the Vacuum for just that reason.

Gary Duvall WA.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

 

[dave lowry]

Tom, my highly trustworthy mechanic tested it by running the engine for 30
seconds or so, turning off the ignition, and then pushing (hard), then
releasing the pedal until there was no more boost. The 1st time he got 10
"stops", and the 2nd time he got 8. Thus the "8 to 10" stated in my earlier
post. We've not tested it by actually shutting down on a downhill grade,
but see no reason we would get a different result.

Any thoughts?

Dave

>How many times can you apply the brakes after the engine has quit?
>
>
>

>>>In a message dated 5/4/2000 5:33:39 PM Central Daylight Time, lowry
>>>writes:
>>>
>>>>> We've field tested ours, and it works as advertised. The tank in under the
>>> maximum vacuum the engine generates and has a check valve that holds it's
>>> until needed by the brake booster.
>>>
>>> Can someone clue me in if there's a flaw in the logic?
>>> >>
>>>
>>>Why not use both??
>>>
>>>
>>>Lanier
>>>Jackson, MS
>>>'73 GMC Excalibur
>>>'29 Mercedes SSK Toad
>>>'94 Tracker Toad
>>>
>>>Reality Check:::::
>>>There's no free lunch;
>>>You get what you pay for;
>>>And Nothing's gonna come in the mail !!
>>>So, Go Back To Work !!!
>>
>>Lanier, In my case, using both seemed like overkill. Choosing just the tank
>>was not just a matter of money (though I do pay $50 to $65 / hr to do this
>>kind of "R & D" work on the coach). It was also the simplest, most reliable
>>and least costly solution to the problem. As I understand it, the only
>>advantage in the pump is its ability to provide an unlimited number of
>>stops as opposed to the tank's being limited to 8 to 10.
>>
>>There's no way we'll continue down some mountain road without power
>>steering, and I wouldn't advocate anyone else do it either. And if we can't
>>get it pulled over with 8 to 10 brake applicatioins, we've got problems
>>that little pump won't cure.
>>
>>Nobody can spend enough to be 100% safe. Prudent driving and a healthy dose
>>of faith must offset some risk.
>>
>>Like Arch says, it works for me.
>>
>>
>>Dave (advisor/navigator & Dege, pilot etc.), '76 Royale, Santa Barbara, CA
>>
>>
>>
>>