![]() |
Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Ebay Junky
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: CO
Posts: 893
|
Disc/Disc vs. Disc/drum ?
is a Disc/Disc setup on a truck far superior to a Disc/Drum setup? (front/rear) what are the positives/negatives to having disc's in front and in rear? and what are the positives/negatives of having disc's in front and drums in the rear?
__________________
1972 CHEVY C-10 SWB 2WD - Possible Typhoon 4.3 turbo drivetrain.. 1983 Chevy c10 swb 2wd - possible 350tbi supercharged... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
its all about the +6 inches
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hilliard Ohio
Posts: 2,693
|
![]()
stopping power is increased with discs, that is a fact, however, it isn't by much. I installed rear discs on an 86 Civic Si and my 60 - 0 distance improved by a couple feet. Granted, civic verses truck is apples to oranges, but it is still fruit.
Disc brake pads tend to wear quicker. At work, when servicing vehicles, if it has less than 75K on the clock and has drums, we don't even look at the rears, if it has discs, normally they are gone by 30,000 miles. IMO, and there well be many who argue with me, it is not worth the money. 70 - 80% of your braking is up front, use your money to upgrade the front, then give the rear a well detailed rebuild, and it'll be money well spent. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
All Praise RANDY!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Central California
Posts: 391
|
I agree, go with better stuff up front and possibly add a big brake rebuild from ECE on the back...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
its all about the +6 inches
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hilliard Ohio
Posts: 2,693
|
WOAH! One hr, and not only have I not been flamed...but some one agrees with me!
I guess I can take off this flame retardant suit now huh? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Ebay Junky
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: CO
Posts: 893
|
how much do the rebuild kits run? what if i could get some disc breaks for $250?
__________________
1972 CHEVY C-10 SWB 2WD - Possible Typhoon 4.3 turbo drivetrain.. 1983 Chevy c10 swb 2wd - possible 350tbi supercharged... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
its all about the +6 inches
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hilliard Ohio
Posts: 2,693
|
I'd still pass myself.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Ebay Junky
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: CO
Posts: 893
|
just checked ECE rebuild kits are $290. so it would be cheaper to go with the disc's, so why not? also, what do you mean by "upgrading" the front disc's? you mean like getting cross-drilled rotors?
__________________
1972 CHEVY C-10 SWB 2WD - Possible Typhoon 4.3 turbo drivetrain.. 1983 Chevy c10 swb 2wd - possible 350tbi supercharged... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
its all about the +6 inches
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hilliard Ohio
Posts: 2,693
|
crossed drilled...slotted (I'd get the slotted ones, cross drilled ones tend to crack) better pads, bigger rotors, better calipers...ect.
And anyone who would pay 300 bucks for rear brake rebuild (stock stuff) is a sucker. You could go to NAPA and do it for 100 bucks. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
CCRider
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Olive Branch,MS,USA
Posts: 2,232
|
Rear disc are pretty much a waste of time on a pickup....unless you have it loaded...you could pretty much do without the rear brakes at all...unloaded the front brakes do 90% of the work
__________________
72 GMC Sierra SWB almost finished---- 84 Softail Olive Branch MS |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,191
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
'68 Short Step LS1/T56, Hydratech, Fatman Fabrications Stage III, Baer, Hot Rods to Hell, US Body, S&W, etc |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Geared for Collision
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 683
|
Quote:
__________________
MEMBER OF THE 4 WHEEL DISK BRAKE CLUB 1970 C/K20 3/4 Ton 1996 Collectors Edition Corvette 1977 Corvette Coupe Last edited by Budweis; 10-16-2004 at 04:47 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,191
|
He's figuring that because most of the weight on a truck is in the front. On a car with better weight distribution it is probably around 60/40. Don't know that I agree with his 90/10 statement though.
__________________
'68 Short Step LS1/T56, Hydratech, Fatman Fabrications Stage III, Baer, Hot Rods to Hell, US Body, S&W, etc |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Geared for Collision
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 683
|
basically when setting up a any proportioning valve the idea is to put as much on the back as you can making sure that the front brakes still lock first, as locking the backs first in a hard brake situation can get dangerous. ive done alot of research into proportioning valves and thats basically the low down of them. other things such as loaded and unloaded can factor in so you want a safe margin.
__________________
MEMBER OF THE 4 WHEEL DISK BRAKE CLUB 1970 C/K20 3/4 Ton 1996 Collectors Edition Corvette 1977 Corvette Coupe |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Watch out for your cornhole !
![]() Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Azle, Texas
Posts: 14,162
|
68LSS1 is right. If you can lock up your brakes and slide the tires with your drum brakes, discs are not going to gain you anything. Face it, an unloaded truck with sliding back tires is going to stop just as fast as one with 30 inch Baer crossdrilled unobtainium rotors with intergalactic calipers and holy water for fluid, with sliding tires.
I mean, sliding tires is sliding tires, it don't matter what makes them slide. On a pickup, wieight balance and tire traction are usually the limiting factor. The one concession to this is if the truck is heavily loaded and the rear end is much heavier. Then, discs may help, but only if the stock drums are being overpowered.
__________________
I'm on the Instagram- @Gearhead_Kevin |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
The oddest Todd around
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 1,418
|
The only reason I have considered converting my rear brakes to discs is to eliminate the need to adjust my brakes. For some reason my drums don't want to adjust when I do the braking while in reverse. I therefore have to remove the drums to adjust them. Discs never need adjustment like that.
Also, discs never have a problem getting wet. Lastly it comes down to looks. Disc brakes look a whole lot better behind some rims than drum brakes. Especially if they are cross drilled and slotted. Todd |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Clanton, AL
Posts: 1,253
|
Personally, I still prefer my stock '70 drum/drum. I've replaced way too many warped rotors over the years.
__________________
85' CUCV M1009!!! The newest addition! 6.2diesel, Th400, NP208, & only 36k miles! 70' C-10 LWB Fleetside - Looking good these days! ![]() 05' Dodge Neon 88' Winner Escape Sport 1750 - 4.3v6 94' Seadoo SP 84' Honda TRX200, bare nekkid. Just a frame & tires. Always looking for another project or any good deal! ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Rubber City
Posts: 5,498
|
I am eventually going to go with 4 wheel discs...but from a 4x4er's point of view, the discs make the rearend a lot lighter, and also as mentioned above the fact that they still stop when wet, oh and we can't forget the bling factor.
If drums are more than enough, then why does the big 3 use factory discs on the rearends of all their bigger trucks?
__________________
1969 GMC K2500 ![]() 1996 Honda Accord 2007 Kawasaki KLR 650 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 2,746
|
I guess I'll weigh in with a couple of comments here. One area where discs front or rear are superior is in the wet, also as mentioned they don't need adjusting, they are much easier to inspect and service and under heavy use they will not fade as easily. One thing not to do with discs is to use cross drilled rotors leave those to the ricer crowd(if you don't believe me look at what race teams like Porsche run) they will crack too easily. One disadvantage to putting them on our trucks(unless you use some models of ElDorado calipers) is no rear parking brake.
__________________
![]() ![]() 99 Pontiac S/C GTP, SLP Ram Air hood, GMPP Konis & springs 95 Neon ACR, MP PCM, AFX UDP, 3.0 CAI |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
The oddest Todd around
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 1,418
|
I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a rear disc setup that had mini drums inside of the disc's rotor. The mini drum was the parking brake.
Todd |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Geared for Collision
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 683
|
i agree with brakes locked disc make no difference but if proportioning is changed it can give less nose dive under hard braking and make vehicle more controllable. also definitely bout being wet their better. i think overall disc are better its just a matter of how you use your vehicle and if its cost effective.
__________________
MEMBER OF THE 4 WHEEL DISK BRAKE CLUB 1970 C/K20 3/4 Ton 1996 Collectors Edition Corvette 1977 Corvette Coupe |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 2,746
|
I have those on the Neon, its just finding some that would adapt to our axles easily.
I just went with the eldorado calipers much easier to setup.
__________________
![]() ![]() 99 Pontiac S/C GTP, SLP Ram Air hood, GMPP Konis & springs 95 Neon ACR, MP PCM, AFX UDP, 3.0 CAI |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: East Central, MO
Posts: 11,336
|
I have disks all around and love em. They are lots better imo than disk/drums. Easy to change and less trouble. And they stop better. I do not have aparking brake but it can be had.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Aviano, Italy
Posts: 221
|
I installed discs on the rear of my 77 Trans Am by taking the rear brakes from a 98 Trans Am LS1 car I bough that was wrecked. My rear drum set up was in very good condition before I decided to swap. After much cussing and testing and $$$ I am no better off than I was. I bought a 9" booster and master cylinder and the correct disc/disc prop valve for a 79 Trans Am that was stock rear discs and I installed a manual prop valve to boot. After all the work (I had to fab some brackets as it was not a kit) I am thinking about going back to my drums. Just my opinion but discs on the rear of the car made no difference other that my time and money and I think they are heavier.
Now with that said the cool factor is something else as I have Weld Pro Star XP 16" wheels and the discs stand out and I get a lot of inquiries about the 4th Gen Trans Am parts and how I made them work. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
just can't cover up my redneck
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 11,414
|
Personally I think that the main reason that the "big 3" made the change to dics in the first place was the maintainence factor. Discs are far more forgiving as far as adjustment. If your drums are not exactly evenly adjusted the vehicle will pull under braking. This was a great improvement for folks that were not really maintainence oriented and/or didn't want bother with it.
Keeping a vehicle properly maintained used to be a lot more involved than it is today. So many people just put gas in and drive....... Not to say that there were never non-power discs produced, but there were relatively few......because the discs need some help. Drums are "self energizing" and discs are not. So the very idea that discs stop better needs some clarification. As stated you are far better off with up-graded fronts (larger rotors, better calipers, etc) and better tires to make use of them. If you want to spend some time and money on the bling factor......that's cool too, just don't think that you are going to make huge gains and you won't be disapointed. There may be some more advantage to the 4X4 crowd in the self-cleaning aspect. Mud and gunk don't build up inside like drums would. I don't remember what year they started it, but GM used a load sensitive adjuster on the rear brakes as early as '87. It was an adjustabble prop valve mounted to the rear axle housing that had a lever reaching up to the frame crossmember. As weight was added to the bed, pushing it down, more rear brake was added. Also I'm thinking that the 90-10 ratio is a little off. If you had 90% front braking your truck would spin around every time you hit the brakes in the rain. That being said I think that an adjustable proportioning valve would be nearly manditory on anything where the brakes have been modified. Now if you go the "Pro Street" (or similarly disproportionately larger rear tires) route, then an adjustable valve would be an even greater benefit. Last edited by LONGHAIR; 10-16-2004 at 04:18 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
its all about the +6 inches
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hilliard Ohio
Posts: 2,693
|
If your drums do not self adjust, then get the adjuster kit on your next brake job.
Disk beakes are generallyheavier than drums...that's why the low buck drag racerers want drums...they weigh less, abnd it is unsprung weight so it is theoreticly more of an issue. Drums have more surface area than discs, and that is awsoe on the e-brake. I had discs on hat civic and it had an e-brake to the disc...not an internal drum, and you could sit on the hood and fart and the sucker would move....Ok, maybe not that bad, but you get the idea. Every year, the auto builders have to introduce new safety features...or at least new for said model. That's where the stupid things come into play like press brake to shift from park...and warnings on every flat surface....and...you got it...disc brakes in back. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|