Dear Nigel You are correct about the brakes , the car must have been an earlier one , I do know that chrysler in America did not believe that an Imperial of that year existed and came over to see it , sorry I am vague about it but it was before I knew Mr Barfield so the story is a bit second hand. David >From: PNigelW@xxxxxxx >Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: IML: 1929 Imperial >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:33:06 EST > >David, > >That surprises me, had it been an earlier car with externally contracting >brake shoes I could understand it as I believe these can be hairy in the >wet....but a 1929 car with (modern!) internal contracting should not be a >problem...of >course the age of the tyres on a 29 car could also give poor braking >characteristics in the wet...if the rubber had become too hard... > >Regards > >Nigel _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo