Just curious...doesn't brake fading refer to the expansion
of the drum due to heat ? So calling linings 'fade resistant' may not be a
correct description.
The late Neil Vedder used to talk about a company called
Firm-Feel for relining brake shoes. Has anyone had experience with them
?
Ron
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:51
PM
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Magnum Force
disc brake conversion
Regarding the drum brakes on the early 300's, I had an excellent upgrade
through Porterfield in California. I had the drums ground out just
enough to remove any grooves or irregularities, using the local NAPA store.
I measured the exact diameter of each drum with a large digital caliper
and shipped out the old brake shoes, taking care to mark each one so they
could be dedicated to the correct (resurfaced) drum. Porterfield
installed new linings with a modern metallic/ceramic compound they call R4D,
which has not only excellent high-temperature fade resistance, but also very
good initial "bite" when cold. Using my measurements of each drum
diameter, they custom-ground (arced) each shoe so they could mate with the
dedicated drum.
Sent from my iPhone
Bob:
Ten years ago I was able to
get the new shoes on our ’55 C-300 ground at Clutch and Brake Xchange in
Stockton: http://clutchbrakexchange.com/
Had to, the drums would not go on over the new shoes. I took the drums
to them after a very light cleanup cut on the drums. Worked very well
with occasional adjusting for wear.
Rich Barber
The brakes on my 300G are bone
stock and I plan on keeping them that way. The shoes were replaced
back in the '70s when you could still get shoes arced, and the wear on the
shoes at this point is maybe 25%. I do adjust them every couple of
years, I don't drive it much, and I purge the brake fluid about every 5-7
years using silicone fluid. The master and wheel cylinders are all
brass sleeved. The car stops straight, no pulling, and has adequate
stopping ability even from freeway speeds at the off ramp. The only
issues I have had are from brake fade, like when driving back from Reno,
West bound through the Sierras, they can get a hot and fade. I suspect
this is less of a problem with a G than it would be with an F because the G
has 15" wheels and vented wheel covers.
My interest in disc brake
conversion kits is not for my own car, but rather those that contact me with
questions about converting their 300G or similar car to discs. They
want a modern brake system in a box that shows up at their doorstep and can
bolt on, I get that. Also, many want a dual master for redundancy, and
that can be very challenging with a ram manifold. Another alternative
I have heard of is to convert to later Bendix self adjusting, self
energizing types like those used on '63 and later. I've read they work
pretty well and are not as drastic a conversion process, but you need to
source the parts carefully and probably used.
I guess what I'm saying is
that if it ain't broke don't fix it, but if you do fix it, fix it
right!
Right on
Andy..this year getting into these pretty good. As much understanding the
technology --and the why , as any repair effort. I am so impressed with the
300B winning like that, over and over, in Nascar on these brakes.
Fact. Almost 5000 lbs on NASCAR tracks at 100 mph for hours? Yet “bad
brakes”?
We should
have asked Vicky about this!! Maybe we can!
But, like
many of us in the past, first thing I did many years ago, was take the brake
drums to the local auto machine “to turn them” and then buy “new shoes”.
Most of my grief was started right there ; the shoes and drums were
different sizes!. That simply will not work with these brakes. Not even
close. The carefully and beautifully designed dual self energizing fronts
depend on precise diameter fit 360 , for the degree of self energization
they exhibit.. It can go either way from weak brakes that barely stop the
car to erratic violent grabbing. But not knowing that , at the time, and
thinking “they will wear in” led to thousands of miles of grief, hundreds of
adjustments etc etc..and occasional lockups,-- so one was soon getting
afraid of what the car might do. Who needs this, starts up. Why the 68 discs
on the 57 Dodge. ( has a 480” 440)
That grief
leads to metallic linings, riveted vs bonded , new drums, all that stuff.
Waste of time. Each time you go new on the shoes you reset the “fun party”
miles to zero. I am convinced, and it is just my opinion, that turning drums
that are round , no matter the grooves etc hurts them a lot in 2016,--- if
you have the matching half worn shoes reuse them. . .Mass is gone, by
grinding (fade!) they are more prone to warp (weaker structurally) and
they are the wrong size . And many of our drums, the 12” ones have
probably been turned several times trying to fix “bad brakes” . And
that positive experience I had with brakes working fine for 50k from
new in 1960,---and you saying 100k off a set put in correctly on a G just
affirms all this. George said the exact same thing..but often not as nicely
(smile) . None of his cars had disc brake upgrades, although if he had done
so he would not tell you, and probably paint them with a cover to look
like rusty drums. (I miss George..that cam is stock,
John---honest).
The new
300G tests in 61 reflect what they do new. When put together
right.
Thanks
Andy!
Yes, John, I agree. One of my mechanic mentors who opened
a service station in 1957 always told me the problem with these brakes was
with the mechanics and not the engineers.
He always arc ground. (In fact, I have his arc grinder
now.) The linings he ground for me in 1990 are still on my G after 100K+
miles.
Other things I have published in the club newsletter the
newbies wouldn't have seen:
Paul Mallwitz, a Chrysler engineer who spoke at a club
meet in 1982 was asked: "How did you get the brakes to work on these
cars?"
Reply: "With great difficulty. Those Center Plane brakes
had to be put together like a watch in order to make them work
properly."
Next, in the April 1961 issue Motor Life magazine tested a
300-G and recorded a 60 to 0 of 131 feet. That's average for today's cars.
Mistake? Don't think so. Dart D-500 in the same issue: 125
feet!
Other cars in the same issue:
Daimler SP-250: 194 ft. (2090 lbs. with disc
brakes)
In a swiftly warming
Chicago
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?
__._,_.___
Posted by: "Ron Waters" <ronbo97@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or
go to https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/all/manage/edit
For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang
![]()
__,_._,___
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap