T fitting instead of prop. valve, what is the rational? Options

[DanT]

Ok, I know this has probably been discussed in many threads before. But, what is the reasoning for replacement of the Prop. valve with the "T" fitting for the rear brakes. Does the prop. valve cause more line pressure to the fronts or the rears when it is operating properly? I want to understand the engineering aspects of this modification.
I will be running "M" calipers with mythical billet hubs in the front and stock 914-4s in the rear.
thanks (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/unsure.gif) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wacko.gif)

[Eric_Shea]

First Post... (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

QUOTE

This same process is used on some late model carreras like the C2 when you upgrade to big reds or big blacks...all of the brake gurus say remove the stock P valve.

Carrera's went to a P-Valve in 84 or 85 (I think it was 84) when they switched to larger 43mm pistons for the first time in ages on the back of a 911. Up until 84 the piston size was 38mm. This is why I don't really recommend the 914 fronts (43mm) back there unless you've got some serious brakes up front.

With M-Calipers on the front and stock rears I would use a "T" like Rick has in the Alien. Many people have echo'd that here.

I'm not a fan of pulling the P-Valve just because the brakes are spongy. If there spongy there's probably another problem (like proper bleeding or the heat fade that Trekkor is talking about). I'd say, stock brakes, keep the P-Valve.

Pete, for-Pete's-sake, I'd probably put a T-in there. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wink.gif)

Mine are exactly the same as JP's w/o the adjustable p-valve. I used Pagid Oranges up front and regular Jurid's in the rear. Basically a 911RS/First Year 930 system. There was another thread where Davep's buddy proved the theory that those are the ticket for the 220-250hp range.

You can get a T-fitting at www.cip1.com or from James here I believe...