Neil passed away in September. Here's the thread on the Forward Look
site:
Ron
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 1:20
PM
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Magnum Force
disc brake conversion
Ron:
What do you mean by, "the late Neil Vedder?" Did he pass away and,
if so, when? Do you have any particulars such as cause? This is
quite a shock to me. Thanks.
Dan Reitz
__________________________________________________________________
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