Just a FYI<
A lot of the fitment
differences for a total upgrade are because they changed at various times
the lower (at least) ball joint OD , how it fits, (press or screw in to
lower arm) and the size of that ball joint taper that goes into the steering
knuckle. I know it was long ago, details not 100% clear tonight , , but I
put 67-68 Dodge police car package steering knuckles, discs and ball
joints into 57 Dodge control arm by reinforcing the end of lower control arm
with added ring of 1/4” steel and then boring that out for what I think was
the larger (than 57) 67-68 lower ball joint. I think top 57 one fit the
knuckle or spindle ok, or found one that fit. . That let us put on stock 67
or 68 police car disc brakes, the “big discs”-- hot set up long ago --before
disc kits--- on 57 Mopar.
Now they have kits that fit
the old knuckle…and leave the small ball joints. Two kinds of kits??
..special adapter knuckle-- or not . By way of awareness, not
comparing. But insight into why some years and not others.
This change to discs on my 57
was made , really, because I had frankly screwed up more than one total
contact brake setup, through not knowing what I was doing, after
buying all new parts, , and was fed up with “all the problems”. They
are real problems. But is it the brakes?
I had a brand new 60 dodge ,
in 60, manual brakes , bought then because I liked two leading shoes
on the manual, had heard and seen many horror stories about power brakes in
general 55-60, --60 Dart was a great set up! I beat it unmercifully. It was
perfect in every way , brake wise; used to laugh at best friend’s GM 57
Pontiac power brakes with on-off feel. Beating unmercifully, was
street drag racing several nights a week to 100 mph + ,= going was the
problem, not stopping. No pulling no grabbing..
The basic torsion bar
suspension design is about the same across these years ; all this by
way of info, not advocating doing it, but good to think or know about. .
Do you need
discs?? Sort of falls out of it? Idiot proof as far as
assembling the pads….
I am in the middle of doing
some discs, but still ambivalent. Not if drums are working right, is
one answer. They worked right at the beginning.
Also looking back, many of
the problems with total contact , or other Chrysler brakes are errors caused
by experts (who are not) in putting them together right, especially arcing
the new shoes to a turned drum. If you do not, with all new parts, the
brakes do not work. Discs get into front/rear balance, another possible can
of worms, despite that balance “valve” . They have inherently
different actions..
They won all those NASCAR
races with them, stories about “fade” on the street leave me cold. Worse
than fade--- -------if the shoes are not touching the drum , most of the way
around!
Sure , not as good as
modern discs, but awfully good brakes.
Did you know GM put MOPAR
total contact brakes on the racing Corvettes with Buick drums about
1960?? they watched the 300B race, brakes and all, and win . .
So would I. On a light corvette? Bulletproof . And the “fading after 3 panic
stops from 120+ mph” in contemporary 300 tests is not exactly
how we use our cars today. What reminded me of all that , was seeing that
300B race clip a few weeks back , on this site . No disc conversions , yet
racing competitively for real, in 2015? Braking hard on corners over and
over….. (he did have Buick drums too..which have aluminum fins on
them. 60 to maybe 62. That forces a wheel change too ). Before discs,
that was the hot setup. Rods, Bonneville etc . The brakes we take off.
My problems with these brakes
on 300F over the years was not fade..they were pulling, grabbing, low pedal
, poor stopping rate, squealing etc etc . 300 B or 60 Dart was not
like that …. Why?
Just sayin….there is a
disconnect here somewhere. Others see it?
John
I sent them an
email. I'll report back with what they send me.
Bob J
From: John
Nowosacki [mailto:jsnowosacki@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:22 PM
To: Bob
Jasinski
Cc: Chrysler 300 List
Subject: Re:
[Chrysler300] Magnum Force disc brake conversion
pictures say 57 to 61, but when I click on the link
for picture or part number, it says 65 to 72?
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap