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]
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap