heads-up on handbrake cable mislabelling

Phil Rose pjrose at frontiernet.net
Tue Jun 24 11:17:14 EDT 2003

At 9:32 AM -0400 6/24/03, DasWolfen at aol.com wrote:
>[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
>  The block style mounts were a running change for the 1990 model year. They
>are otherwise identical to the 1989 cables. There was no change to the car. 5k
>cables are identified by having 3 grommets on the left, 2 on the right and a
>barrel shaped tip, the early 100/200/V8 have 2 grommets on the left and 1 on
>the right with a ball tip.

The cables in my GEMO bags had ball tips with two grommets on the
left side (didn't actually inspect the right-side cable that
closely). However I'm confused about what you mean by "early
100/200/V8". Which cable mount style would "officially" apply to a
'91 200q? The old cables (that were removed from my car) had the
block style mounts. Does GEMO simply not make this kind any longer
(although my shop had them)?

I agree with your analysis of failure mode (it's what I had assumed)
and now suspect the shop (unwittingly) did me no favor by not using
the cables I supplied. BTW, if the cars themselves have had no
change--what accounts for the difference in cable lengths that are
specified for the MC vs 3B cars? Must be because of different
rear-caliper design?


>  IMO the early round grommet is a better design. It allows the cable to flex
>over a much larger area as the wheel moves. With the block mount most of the
>flex occurs where the cable enters the block. Eventually the plastic sheath
>cracks, water enters  the case, and the clock starts running.
>  I'm not advocating either style, just an FYI. =0)
>200q20v mailing list
>200q20v at audifans.com


Phil Rose
Rochester, NY
mailto:pjrose at frontiernet.net

More information about the 200q20v mailing list