The industry is and will be moving back to rear drum because of fewer noise complaints and it is plain cheaper.
...
Really?? It would sure seem that discs would be cheaper to produce. Fewer parts, fewer operations to assemble.
I agree that drum brakes are adequate for these classic 'Stangs, but I don't think they're superior in very many ways, other than that's whats on there in the first place and it's way easier to keep them than change. Like I said, a wider drum is real easy to upgrade to, maybe even without changing the backing plate. But if you need the plates, those doners are getting rarer in the junk yards. Crown Vics and Exploders are plentiful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stangpwr
I have done many disc brake jobs, but as far as drum brakes goes, i find them very complicated. Thats the reason im going with disc all around.
+1. But the initial conversion from your existing drums should be harder than learning about the drums in the first place.
Does anyone know on the 94 Corwn Victoria, do i have to remove the Axle Shaft in order to remove the "Parking Brake Assembly" AKA caliper braket??
Yes. The caliper bracket is analogous to the backing plate on drums. On these brakes, the Ebrake assembly is a little drum arrangement inside the top hat at the center of the rotor. If you're determined to persue this, here's the write-up by Keven on The Classic Mustang mailing list that I used to make the swap. I have a bunch of pictures I'll try to post, too.
HTH,
Dennis
In order for me to remove the caliper bracket assmebly from the Crown Vic i would have to remove the differential cover and figure out how to remove the shaft right ?? i thought i was an easy removal process. Hey Ynned that link you have posted doesnt work. You said you have pictures of the removal ??
Sorry about the link, wasn't paying attention. It should work now. I'll see what pics I took of the removal, but it was real easy and straight forward- remove the back cover, pull the "C" clips, pull the axles, remove the 4 bolts holding the bracket to the axle flange, save the brackets and everything you can get that's attached to them, drink beer.
I can't remember if it's necessary to remove the spider gears to get to the "C" clips, but once the back cover is off it's obvious.
BTW, If the existing drum brakes are too complicated for you, and pulling the axles makes you think the removal process isn't easy, are you sure you're gonna be up to the task of plumbing in the new master cyl, proportioning valve, etc?
Later,
Dennis
Really?? It would sure seem that discs would be cheaper to produce. Fewer parts, fewer operations to assemble.
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.
__________________
The stable:
65 'T' Coupe 302 HO 5 speed (5/65) ~ First Mustang
65 'A' Convertible 4 speed Factory GT (5/65)
65 'A' Fastback 289 4 speed (2/65) ~ Calico driver
65 'A' Coupe 289 Auto Factory GT (3/65) ~ Parts car
66 F100 460 Auto ~ Grandpa's truck
...
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.
That makes sense.
After doing the swap, I kinda wish I'd just upgraded the drums like I told the OP; not that the discs aren't an improvement over the original drums, but it's not worth the effort to change 'em, I don't think. Now front discs are worth pulling out all the stops (so to speak) to get.
That makes sense.
After doing the swap, I kinda wish I'd just upgraded the drums like I told the OP; not that the discs aren't an improvement over the original drums, but it's not worth the effort to change 'em, I don't think. Now front discs are worth pulling out all the stops (so to speak) to get.
+1 on the front brakes. I'm putting the Kelsey Hayes style back on the FB this weekend in the beautiful fall weather.
__________________
The stable:
65 'T' Coupe 302 HO 5 speed (5/65) ~ First Mustang
65 'A' Convertible 4 speed Factory GT (5/65)
65 'A' Fastback 289 4 speed (2/65) ~ Calico driver
65 'A' Coupe 289 Auto Factory GT (3/65) ~ Parts car
66 F100 460 Auto ~ Grandpa's truck
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)
My 07 Chevy went 50K on the first set of pads. They looked brand new. The rotors had a groove in them. Apparently, they use a harder pad than the rotor. I had to do the brakes because of obscene pedal pulsation. At the time, I thought warped rotors and just replaced them. I've since learned about the "DTV" issue caused in large part by tight tolerances, junk hubs and tire techs that overtorque lug nuts. For my second brake job, I borrowed a Procut 9.2DRO and turned the new rotors out in the driveway.
__________________
The stable:
65 'T' Coupe 302 HO 5 speed (5/65) ~ First Mustang
65 'A' Convertible 4 speed Factory GT (5/65)
65 'A' Fastback 289 4 speed (2/65) ~ Calico driver
65 'A' Coupe 289 Auto Factory GT (3/65) ~ Parts car
66 F100 460 Auto ~ Grandpa's truck
My 07 Chevy went 50K on the first set of pads. They looked brand new. The rotors had a groove in them. Apparently, they use a harder pad than the rotor. I had to do the brakes because of obscene pedal pulsation. At the time, I thought warped rotors and just replaced them. I've since learned about the "DTV" issue caused in large part by tight tolerances, junk hubs and tire techs that overtorque lug nuts. For my second brake job, I borrowed a Procut 9.2DRO and turned the new rotors out in the driveway.
While there are advantanges to disc, the problm is that the oems never use components that can be compared on an equal level- apples to apples so to speak. Meaning when disc brakes were 1st available as an upgrade, when you compared the stopping capabilities, it was minimal difference. Why, clamping force, lining material, etc was all to blame- saved a few pennies by using cheaper materials, etc.
but let's look at drum brakes in general. Everything that the cool kids have claimed is new, improved, better is very old school- whether you look at cross drilling the rotors to types of brake material. Drum brakes were drilled in the old days to help cool and relive the gasses.dust/dirt built-up. It was not unusual and even a taught practice, that if the shoes/linings were not "slotted" (groved), you were to take a hacksaw and cut the linings within an 1/8" of the shoe a slot, preferred diaginal, to shift water/dust/etc towords the backing plate- this eliminated/reduced many issues such as brake fade due to water and in racing conditions, helped to clean the contact areas----- Hmm, yeah, crossdrilled & slotted rotors are "new"- grin.
What is happening is 50% of the industry is failing as a result of the penny pinching junk that has been brought to the market as an effort to make money. With regards to rotors, I have previously run Brembo OEM replacement rotors that are cryogenically treated at Diversified Cryogenics, making them almost as hard as stainless steel. Unfortunately, Brembo, Powerslot, Raybestos, Bendix, Hawk etc. are all purchasing their rotors from the same foundary in China (with the exception of the $300 each composite high end units for Ferrari, Porsche, etc). And the chinese drums sold by Wagner, Bendix, Raybestos, TRW/Autospecialities, etc, do not meet any DOT spec- and are DANGEROUS. i had a brand new set of Raybestos drums shatter with only 20 miles on them. Pics and phone messages were sent to Raybestos by myself and the machine shop but not even a return phone call- since 2005. it shows the level of concern. I highly recommend always cryogenically treating any aftermarket rotor or drum and have done such since.
With regards to brake linings, if you ask for the brake co-efficient, you will find 99% of the over the counter replacement linings are rated at around .25- This is criminal since the oems in the 60's spec'd a co-efficient of .30 or higher.
There are numerous manufactureres that produce excellent brake linings with co-efficients exceeding the original oem spec- used in racing throughout the 1970's & 80's in both drum and disc applications (VelvaTouch for example). Today 4-wheel drum is still used in the jalopy circle track racing and are excellent linings for todays drum applications.
A friend of mine who was an EVOC instructor didn't believe 4-wheel drum could stop as fast as his 1980's Camero (4-wheel oem disc). i knew just how cheap the GM oem system components were. We made tow side by side stops- 1 from 50 mph and 1 from 80 mph. Each time I stopped about 1 fender length shorter than him.
Good linings also do not promote brake lock-up and can easily be modulated to bring a car to a very safe stop. VelveTouch lining has been used for many decades and was the original lining used in all Shelby Mustangs in the 60’s (I personally have used the Velvetouch lining since 1960’s until brake lining production ceased in 1986), then switched to Carbo. Wellman has been the builder of braking linings for all of the Formula 1 race teams for more than 30 years and Hawk recently bought the VelvaTouch brake line from Wellman.
__________________
Jeff
Member: Flatheads ain't so bad association
Member: Never trust an over 40 Chevy owner association (They have to cheat to win)
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
