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.
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."
Other cars in the same issue:
Olds Super 88: 159 ft.
Olds F-85: 171 ft.
Daimler SP-250: 194 ft. (2090 lbs. with disc brakes)
In a swiftly warming Chicago
Posted by: "John Grady" <jkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To send a message to this group, send an email to:
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