The Forward Look Network
The Forward Look Network
Search | Statistics | User Listing Forums | Chat | eBay | Calendars | Albums | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

12" vs 11" cylinders
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forward Look Technical Discussions -> Brakes, Wheels and TiresMessage format
 
alien_bug
Posted 2017-11-13 2:54 PM (#552164)
Subject: 12" vs 11" cylinders


Regular

Posts: 91
252525
1962 300. 12" rear drums. Previous owner redid the brakes. One rear side the cylinders look over extended and are pulling the outer rubber covers off. Other rear side the cylinder came apart but it could be from a botched installation.

My question is are the 11" and 12" wheel cylinders the same? I can find listings for 11" cylinders but the suppliers say those are no good for the 12" on my '62 300. I can find 12" shoes easily though. For example Rock Auto lists the 12"shoes but not the cylinders for 300, yet it lists both cylinders and shoes for the 11" rear on my Newport. Same story all the other places.

Thanks for your help.

Sean
Top of the page Bottom of the page
mstrug
Posted 2017-11-13 4:52 PM (#552176 - in reply to #552164)
Subject: Re: 12" vs 11" cylinders



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5482
5000100100100100252525
Location: Newark, Texas (Fort Worth)
Try:

32555 Napa


Wheel Cylinder Assembly, rear, right or left

http://www.chrysler300club.com/rcmstuff/napaparts/hparts.htm

https://p-s-t.com/i-23160646-rear-brake-rebuild-kit.html#!year%3D196...

https://www.dormanproducts.com/p-23680-w7563.aspx?year=1962&make=Chr...



Edited by mstrug 2017-11-13 5:04 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
alien_bug
Posted 2017-11-14 12:59 PM (#552230 - in reply to #552176)
Subject: Re: 12" vs 11" cylinders


Regular

Posts: 91
252525
Thank you! Napa shows the 32555 cylinders as not a fitting part for the 300, which is so odd. I think I'll just order them and take a look. In my imagination it seems an 11" cylinder would be different part from a 12" cylinder. But certainly willing to admit I could be wrong. Thanks again!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
mobileparts
Posted 2017-11-15 5:51 PM (#552320 - in reply to #552164)
Subject: Re: 12" vs 11" cylinders


Veteran

Posts: 114
100
If you want USA made wheel cylinders --and ++ Asbestos ++ Brake Shoes ----- such that your car will LOVE you -- D O N O T buy this new garbage offered on the internet ----
you will be ripping your HUBS & DRUMS to smithereens with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have the absolutely correct USA made wheel cylinders & ++ Asbestos ++ Brake Shoes........ and a whole lot more.......

Call me ---Craig -- 516 - 485 - 1935..... Long Island, New York.....
Top of the page Bottom of the page
di_ch_NY56
Posted 2018-05-20 12:41 PM (#563697 - in reply to #552164)
Subject: RE: 12" vs 11" cylinders



Elite Veteran

Posts: 1177
1000100252525
Location: ZH, Switzerland

The same story for the 1960 300 as for the 1962 300 at Rockauto. When you look at the NY of the same year, the full table of brake cylinders apears. For the 300 only a fraction.

When I look at the 1960 factory parts catalog (chapter 5), the same part # was used for all 1960 cars and all brake cylinders, from the Dodge to the Imperial independet of the brake drum diameter.

Happy Restoring!

Dieter

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Powerflite
Posted 2018-05-20 2:48 PM (#563702 - in reply to #552164)
Subject: Re: 12" vs 11" cylinders



Expert

Posts: 4455
200020001001001001002525
Location: So. California
If they are over-extending, it is usually caused by using a drum that is too large of a diameter. Your drums may have worn too big. Measure them and see if you need new ones.

Edited by Powerflite 2018-05-20 2:49 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
56D500boy
Posted 2018-05-20 4:23 PM (#563708 - in reply to #552164)
Subject: RE: 12" vs 11" cylinders



Expert

Posts: 3272
200010001001002525
Location: Lower Mainland BC
I checked out which rear wheel cylinders were used on the 56-58 12" brakes. 1409 973 seemed to be the one. Then I googled "1409973 Rear wheel Cylinders" and came up with a few hits, including a link to a FL thread. Looks like the forum has been around this block before. You need to read through the thread:

http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=57103&...

One of the key points seems to have been made by Dieter:

di_ch_NY56 - 2015-04-18 5:17 AM

What puzzles me very much is that back in the time of the FLK era there were two different brake cylinders for the pre 1959 FLK cars and the past 1959 cars (1409 973 for 1956 and up cars and 1857 051 for cars with 3 platform brakes).

When I'm searching at google for each of these numbers I get pages (most of all - even Rockauto) who proposes the W or WC32555 as the proper replacement. Rockauto for example shows in the table that the brake cylinder WC32555 (Raybestos) will fit 1956 to 1962 Chrysler cars - except 300 (only until 1959). No brake cylinders available at Rockauto for a 1960 300 by the way. Another page addresses the W32555 for the replacemet of both old (original) parts numbers.

In my opinion there is a big fault in the cross reference table when I look at the pictures of the issuer of this thread.

Happy Motoring!

Dieter

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread



(Delete all cookies set by this site)