Re: [Chrysler300] Whoa, Nelly HD brake shoes

I have confirmed Rich’s findings as it applies to the 300J as well, except for use of the “HD” shoes. The 300J service manual supplement (unlike the 300K supplement) does not provide brake shoe specs. The 1963 AMA specs indicate 11.97” linings and the service manual indicates 12&1/8”. Go figure. I will postulate, but cannot confirm, that the “HD” shoes listed in the 1963 service manual were really intended for police use (and maybe taxi), and I seem to remember reading something to this effect in a Chrysler tech bulletin either through this club or on the Imperial club site. I cannot validate that the 300J came with the HD shoes. Perhaps someone who worked on these cars “back in the day” would know for sure. There is also no indication in the ‘63 AMA specs or service manual that the wagons came with different length brake shoe lining. The 1963 AMA specs list the gross and effective lining area as the same for all the cars with the 11” by 3” drums. All the wagons had the 11” by 3” drums, as well as NYer, 300 and Imperial. Only the Newport sedan/hdtp had the 11” by 2.5” drums with 2.5” width shoes. Not 300 related, but ‘63 Imperials came with different shoe material than ‘63 Chryslers even though it was the same dimensions. Per service bulletin 63-13 the Imperial shoes came with high strength steel and 10 welds to better handle the additional weight of Imperial models. Chrysler models came with 9 weld shoes.

I was not able to find specific aftermarket brake shoes for the 300J or ‘63 Imperial. The same shoes are listed for the 300J, Imperial and other models, and same for front and rear. That is what I used and they perform well in “normal” use.

Carl B with a J

From: Rich Barber

Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 12:58 PM

To: 'David' ; News4ge@xxxxxxx

Cc: d.verity@xxxxxxx ; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: [Chrysler300] Whoa, Nelly

Not to continue beating on old Nelly, but…

Several sources indicate the “HD” brakes are standard on ram cars and available as part of an “HD” suspension option for all other 300’s. The supplemental 300K manual and the 1963 service manual show the linings on the F&R primary shoes are only 9 ¼” long as compared to 11.97” (AMA specs) or 12 1/8” (Chrysler specs) for all other F&R linings. Differences in color coding indicate different composition and/or frictional effects. The 1965 Service Manual shows 3” wide rear drums on all Chryslers except Newports and the 9 ¼” long linings on “Police Special” only.

As engineers, we are taught that frictional force is only a function of coefficient of friction and FPST (Force pressing surfaces together), and is independent of area. So, the length of the shoes should not affect stopping force. However, the longer linings produce more brake area and this affects heat transfer between the linings and the brake drum. Shorter linings on the primary shoes might let the drums and the brake and brake hardware run a little cooler or go to fade slower. It might also shift a little of the heat transfer duty to the secondary shoes and even out wear.

I spent way too much time last night in the 1963, 1964 and 1965 parts, service and supplemental manuals and with the 1964 AMA specs. With the result being that I could not rationally interpret or consistently correlate which of the ’63-’65 Chrysler line of vehicles had or could be ordered with “HD” brakes. As David noted, the main difference is in the 3” wide rear drums and shoes. The manuals also indicate the different length and material of the lining on the primary shoes. Whatever options owners might have had in the ‘60’s are probably long gone. My ram K conv came to me with 2 ½” shoes inside of 3” wide rear drums. It was a little challenging to find the proper 3” wide rear shoes, but I did find them. I think they were listed as for a New Yorker wagon which appears to have come equipped with “HD” brakes as standard.

The variance of material and length in the HD brakes for the ’63-’65 years indicates some work and experimentation had been done to make braking better for the cars with HD brakes—whatever cars they were on. Perhaps this work was driven by problems with the HD brakes with standard linings. At this point, the original molded asbestos lining options are not available, even if we knew what they were. It seems that we are stuck with 12” +/- long linings on all 3” or 2 ½” wide shoes. Any better information on original shoe and lining configuration on ram-engined J’s & K’s and/or current best sources of brake shoes and linings that work best in these cars would be gratefully appreciated by those of us driving and stopping these Beautiful Brutes.

C300K’ly,

Rich Barber

Brentwood, CA

From: David [mailto:TorqueChap@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 5:15 AM
To: News4ge@xxxxxxx
Cc: c300@xxxxxxx; d.verity@xxxxxxx; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] J / ram K

Hi George,

The Ram K has 3x11 brakes (vs 2.5x11 for non ram cars of the same year).

David Morrison

New Jersey

On Jan 12, 2014, at 11:47 PM, News4ge@xxxxxxx wrote:

Rich Barber and J/ramK owners,

Thanks Rich, for the information. I noticed that in the 64 supplement you sent the link for, the ramK and non-ramK have different brake shoes. The ram cars actually have smaller front primary shoes. Does anybody know why this would be? Also, the shoes that are available now (at least at Rock Auto) don't distinguish between ram and non-ram cars (or even between 300 and 300K). Has anybody had problems getting the right shoes for a ram K? Would either or both size shoes fit?

Thanks,

George Clineman

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Barber <c300@xxxxxxx>
To: 'Don Verity' <d.verity@xxxxxxx>; Chrysler300 <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; News4ge <News4ge@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat, Jan 11, 2014 7:57 pm
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] J / ram K master cylinders

George:

That’s what we did for our ’64 ram K. However, previously, someone had replaced the ram engine with a non-ram 383, disconnected the remote booster and installed a standard power brake booster and MC on the firewall. The standard booster has a different reinforcing/mounting plate on the firewall than does the non-boosted MC and I had to obtain the correct plate in order to install the non-boosted MC.

Removal of the residual pressure “check valve” from the firewall MC is critical in order that the actuating pressure be bled off the remote boosted cylinder. Otherwise, the brakes will drag and overheat. It was news to me that this little check valve even existed. It is commonly used on brake systems to keep a very light residual positive pressure on the brake system to reduce its tendency to inhale atmospheric air and moisture.

Another ramK owner was trying to modify his brakes to use a dual outlet MC, but we saw no way to integrate a dual outlet MC into the remote-boosted system. So great care should be taken to assure all hoses, tubing and connections are strong, non-corroded and tight as a broken line or hose will leave you with NO SERVICE BRAKES. I did run into a bad batch of wheel cylinders and the little MC which seeped from the get-go. Seemed almost like sabotage by our Asian manufacturers. I suspect poor synthetic material in the cups and improper finish in the bores, but can prove nothing.

The master cylinder body and guts for a ’63-’64 ram car is actually a common item and may be purchased new or rebuilt for a 1964 Plymouth, Dodge or Chrysler without power brakes—then the check valve must be removed from the outlet. I recall the guts had to be removed in order to poke out the little check valve wafer. The non-presence of the check valve makes the MC a technically different item but the body, guts and mounting system are the same.

There is a specific bleeding schedule that must be used to eliminate air from throughout the brake system. The process is defined in the 1964 300K Supplemental Service manual which can be viewed at:

http://www.jholst.net/64-supplement/brakes.pdf (Page 2). All readers are encouraged to visit member John Holst’ most excellent website and click on “Chrysler 300 Resources” to view a wide array of service and parts manuals and other information for all years of letter cars. John still drives the 300K originally purchased by his father.

C300K’ly,

Rich Barber

Brentwood, CA

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?> ] On Behalf Of Don Verity
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:26 PM
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; News4ge@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] J / ram K master cylinders

From what I have learned from the guru of K’s Don Cole, just get a master for a manual brake car and take out the residual valve (the remote booster has one). I got one for my J, but have yet to install it. Looks good though and has the studs through the firewall. I got it from Rock Auto.

Don

From: News4ge@xxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 5:37 PM

To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: [Chrysler300] J / ram K master cylinders

Hi,

I have a ram K that has a slight leak in the master cylinder and a leaking wheel cylinder, so I'm doing a complete brake job.

I have 3 questions:

1. Are the brake systems on J and ram K identical in every way? I ask because I may find parts for a J and not for a ram K. Also, there's less confusion if I ask for something for a J because the K has both ram and non ram parts.

2. Does anyone know of a good source for a rebuilt master cylinder? All of the parts houses I've checked either don't go back that far or they have master cylinders for all Chryslers but J or K. I know there's Kanter, but their price is high.

3. Anything else I should know, like helpful hints on doing the work, procuring parts, what mfrs. to use or avoid, etc.?

Thanks in advance,

George Clineman

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]