Quote:
Originally Posted by sixteenpushrods
The OE manufacturers are really getting their butts kicked by pedal pulsation and noise complaints. Also, the ebrake stuff is so complicated and problematic on true disc setups that most OE systems use disc over drum, which is more expensive that drum itself.
Manufacturing is simple either way. The machines can assemble them in seconds whether we are talking about two shoes, 7 springs and a wheel cylinder, or a complete disc setup.
|
GM, Ford and Chrysler are going back to rear drum mainly because it's cheaper, not better.
(to hear GM talk it's because "we're ignoring a marketing segment that wants a less
expensive truck" - that's what they actually said, I was there)
Noise complaints and pedal pulsation (DTV - disc thickness variation) are largely friction
formulation issues. Don't get me started on that warped rotor BS that everyone claims.
When the truck sales started fading, the first thing GM did was swap to cheaper friction
and that's when the warranty issues went through the roof. After a year or so of that
they went back to their expensive friction supplier. This was right after they started
offering trucks with rear drums again.....
Who's giving the brake seminar you're attending?
I love to hear the stuff that some of the manufacturers "teach"- Federal Mogul, Bendix,
etc.
Rear disc came into vogue mainly because it's "cool" and looks "good." It was purely a
marketing sell. Beside appearance, there are some other advantages, but by in large,
they give you no performance advantage on your average car/truck, driven under
street-legal conditions in the US.
On a street-driven vintage Mustang, a 10x2.5 drum will do pretty much anything you
need on the rear of the car. If you hate to maintenance drums, I could see where
the rear discs might look attractive or if you road raced the car.......
ex-industry insider
(GM, Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Special Vehicle Operations)
