Dick -
You bring up some interesting points, particularly about kits, and the
frequency of needing them. The length of the slave cylinders for both
Girling and Lockheed replacement are the same, so I assume the stroke is
too. The improvement that I've noted in the Lockheed design is the rubber
boot and how it is attached to the body of the cylinder. The old Girling
(which I tried to rekit and found pits) had its rubber boot secured with a
small stainless wire around the circumference holding it in place, installed
there by the last mechanic. The boot in both the Girling origninal and the
rebuild kit are fairly flimsy. The Lockheed's is substantial and very
securly attached. Since this is where dirt can enter the bore and cause
problems, it would appear that the Lockheed will require fewer rebuilds in
its lifetime, assuming, as you point out, you can find the kits.
Jerry Shaw
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally or Dick Taylor" <tr6taylor@webtv.net>
To: "Jerry Shaw" <jcs104@home.com>
Cc: <6pack@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: Girling vs. Lockheed Hydraulics
>
> Jerry---I for one would have to know what areas are "improved" between
> the Lockheed and the Girling units. My own Girling MC and SC have been
> on for 28 years, and other than a half dozen seal replacements and a
> rehoning to clean up the bore, I don't know what could be improved.
> Be sure that rebuild parts are available, and the stroke length is the
> same at the clutch arm with the Lockheed.
>
> DT
> '73
|