Re: Disc brakes and front brakes on the rear?... a couple questions (repost)

[Scott Hinojos <lightsplicer@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that larger rears probably aren't needed, since they don't do
much braking. It was just something I was kicking around, since the
parts would be free, and I'd be tossing them or giving them away
anyway ...and I *do* love a free upgrade...

I want discs because this is my daily driver for now, and it will see
many miles. Also, I feel they are easier to maintain and somewhat
safer. I've also had some sketchy experiences with drums (different
car), like driving in torrential rains and hitting a puddle, then
finding out that one of the brakes is water-logged and won't grab.
That makes for a quick, unexpected lane change when you step on the
brakes, if you're not really on top of things.

Living these days in Wisconsin, steep hills and twisty roads aren't
what one would call common, but I am a believer in discs for any car.
But like you said, the drums work well, and I'll even add that they've
worked well for nearly half a century now.

OK, so you've talked me out of discs for now. Any idea what I should
be looking for in a dual master cylinder? :)

Thank you!
~S~

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ray Bell <raybell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> They certainly will be different front to rear...
>
> I don't know where my earlier message went to, but I posted about the
> lack of need to put bigger brakes on the rear, the rear brakes only do
> about 25% of the braking at the most. I suggested that the best idea
> would be to get some 11" x 2½" rears (common on pickups) and fit them,
> and that you'd probably need to have a limiting valve in the rear
> line, if not smaller cylinders in the rear.
>
> Front brakes will not readily adapt to rear because of the need for
> precisely located holes for the e-brake lever points and the
> difference in the shape of the lower part of the shoes. Way too much
> work for nothing.
>
> Now... why do you want discs anyway?
>
> If the car's just being used for normal driving, a well set up set of
> the best drums you can get (11" x 3" fronts) will do a good job of
> pulling up the car. They will heat up quicker than discs, but that
> only leads to fade problems after several hard stops in a short period
> of time. Like descending a mountain with lots of hairpin bends.
>
> Ray
>
> On Jun 29, 10:29 am, Scott Hinojos <lightspli...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I read somewhere (don't ask where, I don't know - lol ) that the
>> brakes were different front to back. They must have been thinking of
>> the Newport, which, according to the service manual, has narrower rear
>> brakes. Another thing that bolstered my belief that the brakes were of
>> a different size is that the front shoes are $10 more than the rears.
>> Could it be that they are indeed different in some way, or are the
>> companies like Auto Zone just confused? From the way the manual looks,
>> the shoes are essentially the same. Any opinions on that?
>>
>> So, does anyone have an opinion on what WILL fit my car,
>> disc-brake-wise? Six hundred bucks for a kit is too rich for my blood
>> right now, considering all the other stuff I have to get done on the
>> car, like the windshield and the weatherstrip... and paint... and
>> cleaning up the surface rust... lol
>>
>> Thanks!
>> ~S~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:40 AM,  <Dodger7...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I think that you are right, I missed the C body part,,,,
>>
>> > In a message dated 6/28/2011 8:17:36 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> > 62to65mo...@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>
>> > Hum, the parts he mentioned in paragraph one are I think for a B body swap
>> > though. His 1964 Chrysler does not apply to those, does it?
>>
>> > --
>> > --
>> > Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person --
>> > directly to that person. That is, send parts/car transactions and
>> > negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended
>> > recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect
>> > your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the content
>> > signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
>>
>> > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
>> >http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.htmland
>> >http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> > "The 1962 to 1965 Mopar Mail List Clubhouse" group.
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/1962to1965mopars?hl=en.
>
> --
> --
> Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person -- directly to that person. That is, send parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!
>
> 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 1962 to 1965 Mopar Mail List Clubhouse" group.
> http://groups.google.com/group/1962to1965mopars?hl=en.
>

-- 
--
Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person -- directly to that person. That is, send parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!

1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 1962 to 1965 Mopar Mail List Clubhouse" group.
http://groups.google.com/group/1962to1965mopars?hl=en.