Dunlop Brakes - Early 2000 rebuild

Phil Robson

Phil Robson

Well-Known Member
Hi,

I recently aquired a 1964 2000 (to avoid the scrapman) and am going to have to refurbish the brakes. It was last on the road in 1978!

Whilst I knew the brakes were Dunlop, I wasn't aware that the cost of refurbishment was astronomical. Does anyone have any experience of rebuilding such brakes (for less than the price of a good car!) or is conversion to Girling with the associated suspension changes to fit the new calipers, etc, the best way forward? Also, if this is the case, will any later car do - I know of a few totally rotten early 70's 2000s in local scrapyards.

I know a change would make this aspect of the car non-original, but there comes at time when you've got to be realistic. I can always keep the Dunlop bits safe.

Phil Robson (Hull & E Yorks RO)
 
Personally I would suggest moving to the Girling brakes, they are a superior design, and more effective. Plus as you say, rebuild costs are lower, and parts easier to find.

Beware of the totally rotten scrap cars though, you may find the pistons and caliper bores are badly rusted, also you'll be best buying brand new rubber hoses (or braided if you prefer) as I have experienced blocked hoses due to rubber breaking up inside, very common on the rear brakes.

Richard
 
Thanks, Richard.

I suppose a recently mobile car would provide the best 2nd hand set of bits to rebuild, assuming the brakes worked well. Failing that a close examination before refurbishing ones that haven't run for some time.

Another interesting point; My car has had the drive shafts sawn through (presumably to get it mobile on a previous house move). They are solid metal & I've been told later ones are tubular. Does anyone know when they changed? Do they only mate up to Dunlop brake discs?

Phil (Hull & E Yorks RO)
 
Hi Phil,

If you look in the rover workshop manuals it appears that you would need to swap the rear diff over. This is because of the swing calliper mounting points. think also handbrake cable and mechanism differ.

You may be best replacing the whole rear drive train, as it would also save the bother of unbolting all the components to and refiting them

Not sure about the front ones.

Arthuy
 
hi,
if you are going to change over to girling you will have to change the whole of the rear diff as arthuy says as they will not bolt up to the dunlop system. same at the front you will have to change the front leg because the girling callipers will not fasten to the dunlop ones.
 
Hi Gents,

Thanks very much for the info. Sounds easiest (!) to change the lot.

I think it's worth the hassle to have another 1st season car back on the road. There can't be that many about.

Thanks,

Phil.
 
Hi Phil

Do'nt throw your old brakes away !!

If you swap over to Girling, keep the old stuff, there's not much of it about, and oneday you might want a truly original car, or possibly someone else will want to salvage (Buy ?!) the bits.
The stuff I've thrown away, only to need later on.
Once they've gone in the bin they can never come back.
 
Hi Phil, sounds like we have the same problem but are approaching from different angles. I also have a '64 car (chassis no 1670)of the road since 1986. I did think about a Girling swap but have decided to stick with Dunlop, the results of that decision will become apparent all to soon. The only expensive parts seem to be the pistons, I got several rebuild kits and brake/handbrake pads for £5 a set or less and the front hoses are available from S&G Walker for £6 the pair.So overall those NOS parts actually CHEAPER than Girling.Someone was also doing discs on Ebay and I think after the scamble over the first pair the last ones went quite cheap.Remember they fitted Dunlop to Jaguars so some interchangeable parts are cheaper, like for like from Jag dealers rather than Rover ones. Will be nice not to have to endure the nightmare that is Girling swinging rears, in the 10 years I have owned my '73 TC I have done one side or the other at least twice. Oh what joy. :(
Good luck with the swop. ;)
 
Gentlemen,

Again, good advice - thanks. May think twice about swapping though. I don't intend touching the car this year (my daily P6 is crying for some attention), so I'll keep a look out for a while.

My 2000 by the way is chassis 3607. I only got it as mentioned earlier to stop it being scrapped and was wanting to pass it on to someone else to restore (space & all that stuff), but I am getting quite attached to it. My other half doesn't seem quite as keen though!

So I'll see what happens. For those anoraks out there (like me) it's registration is OCC 469 & it's City Grey with Buscuit leather & has all the early bits on it (except the rear lights - it doesn't have any wings on!)

I'm now doing a regular piece in P6 News for 'in the regions' so it will no doubt get a few mentions in there!

Phil.
 
As an aside to the main question, the fact that two such early cars remained undiscovered for so long does make you wonder, "how many more are out there"? Mine was reg 305 BVB on 4th March '64 so IMHO definately worth doing despite the enormity of the task. My biggest regret is not buying a 64 car chassis no in the 500's about 6 years ago.I felt the work required was to much but ironically it was probably less than I have with this one. How a few years can change your view of matters Rover huh....... ???
 
I've now been in touch with Rudiger Wicke, who tells me he is aware of 15 2000's with a lower commission number than mine (3607). That makes it around the 20th oldest know surviving P6! ....& yours, Partviking, is of course even earlier.

The brake issue, by the way, seems to be resolvable with some cunning use of (Jaguar) bits. They won't be identical to the anorak, but easier to service, & I'll keep the original bits.

Phil.
 
Phil Robson

They won't be identical to the anorak
Click to expand...



I've never seen any parts of a Jaguar which look remotely like an anorak. :D :D


Seriously though, am I not correct in thinking that both these 1964 cars should have B registration suffixes?
 
Squashed nose,

'To an "anorak", they won't look identical', is what I should have said...............

I understand that in 1963 & '64 suffix registrations were mainly used in the London area and it took until 1965 for it to become the norm (or possibly mandatory) to use suffixes elsewhere.

Phil.
 
I think you'll find a B suffix was only used where the licensing authority had 'run out' of the available 3 No 3 Letter or 4 number 2 letter configuration. My car was registered in South London on 4th March 1964 and has 3 No 3 letter plate so clearly some of Londons boroughs had a few digits left. I think quite a few early cars are pre suffix, just adds to the rarity which is nice and fortunately no one got it and sold it before me. Is yours the original pate Phil? So important I think when buying and selling. Just my opinion though. ;)
 
Yes, Partviking, it is the original plate. It was apparently registered in Caernavon - is that spelt correctly?- in Wales.
One of my fears if I decided to pass the car on, is that someone would split the car from its number. (It would of course have to be MOT'd for this).
Whilst the plate would be worth probably up to half what the car would be (when rebuilt), I don't think you would lose half the total value if you sold the plate on......which is why I always think someone could be tempted.
Does this mean I will have to restore it & keep it forever...?
I'll have to break that news to the wife very gently!

Phil.
 
Always an emotive issue. I guess its human nature to want to buy a car with its ORIGINAL plate and as a result, transferable plate. However when you own it and the plate could release valuable cash without actually affecting the APPEARANCE of the car (assuming DVLC give you another non-suffix plate)it is very tempting. I must put my hand up and confess to selling a plate from a P4 that was beyond saving but still think a non- original plate must devalue the whole car, though as you say maybe not by as much as you get from the plate so it is very tempting and we're all human with bills to pay etc........ ???
 
Glad to see that there are a few people that are telling you to keep the old brakes! My 2000 is also a '64 model, chassis number 1005 with an A suffux on the chassis plate. I think that it may in fact be a '63 model but I am not sure.
Back to the task at hand I had the brakes on my car rebuilt initially and it cost a packet!! Later on I found a very nice engineer who made a new caliper and pistons as spares. Only cost me a carton of beer!!!!!!
I looked at the girlings on my 2000TC auto and decided that I could not be bothered messing with what works. At the time I was 17 and it was my first car (still have the old dear bless her), and lived in the mountains. I NEVER suffered brake fade on the long hills, and I really used to hustle.
So at the end of the day I feel that the Dunlops, whilst expensive, are perfectly adequate.
PS The brakes on the MK 2 Jags are the same pistons.
GUY.
;) ;)
 
Glad to see there are still some purists among us ;)
I met up with a man who has chassis no in the 900's and his was built in Jan '64 so 'm afraid yours probably isn't a '63 car Guy. No matter its good to see so many early cars have survived and makes me even more cross I didn't take on the chassis no 500 all those years ago. :angry:
Thanks for the caliper info, and the Jag cross reference could be very useful.
 
Interesting points, gentlemen.

I have just got back from holiday & have been advised by a good friend (& P6 expert extraordinaire) that he has aquired a late 2200SC with Rover dealer rebuilt engine & gearbox. I can have the lot with running gear for nowt, so my 2000 will get on the road by substitution in the first instance. (Despite being under cover for the last 6 years, the 2200 has floors you can put your feet through, and that's putting it mildly).
Don't worry, though, I'm definitely not going to throw anything away & look forward to rebuilding the originals in due course. I too am a purist at heart!
I have never rebuilt an engine or gearbox before, so this will give me the opportunity, and then the brakes...
By the way, talking of chassis numbers, my car is an 'A' suffix despite being the (relatively) late build of 3607.

Phil. :)
 
Well, well,

You wait ages for a bus........

Have just seen item 2481130703 on good ol' ebay - noted as an early Rover 2000 (1963) tho' carrying a 'B' plate, near Bristol. Shown as spares or repair, surely too 'rare' to break! Soon there'll be more around than V8S's.....
Wonder what the chassis no. is on that, Partviking? Could be a '63 build.

Phil. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top