|
Ray Bell <raybell46@xxxxxxxxx>: Aug 12 07:24PM -0700
Gary, is that the same as the C-body part? Ray ...more |
|
<62-65-mail-list-club@xxxxxxxxxxx>: Aug 13 08:16AM -0500
I'm not sure what "that" refers to. But if you mean the lower ball joint, I don't think it is the same as a C-body part. Thanks, Gary H. ...more |
|
Ray Bell <raybell46@xxxxxxxxx>: Aug 13 07:54AM -0700
Yes, Gary, the lower ball joint/steering arm. I wonder if anyone knows? ...more |
|
Jimmy Peavy <peaver63@xxxxxxxxx>: Aug 13 12:06PM -0500
If you're talking about upgrading from std to 3", why do you need a new backing plate. All you should need are the longer brake shoe retaining pins, and 3" shoes, and 3" drums. Jimmy ...more |
|
Bill Parker <hemirr@xxxxxxxxx>: Aug 13 03:05PM -0400
The wheel cylinder will not be spaced out to match the shoes. That puts the actuating pins on a sideways angle to the shoes. ...more |
|
Ray Bell <raybell46@xxxxxxxxx>: Aug 13 03:19PM -0700
Does that mean there were 11 x 2.5" front brakes on some models? We didn't get all models here, we went straight from the B-body Dodge of 1964 with 10 x 2.5" fronts to the C-body ...more |
|
Bob Turner <bojaturner@xxxxxxxxx>: Aug 12 10:49PM -0700
Has anyone ever used Hooker Super Comp headers # 5101 on a 64 Belvedere ? Had a good time at the Nats. Thanks ...more |
|
Ray Bell <raybell46@xxxxxxxxx>: Aug 12 06:21PM -0700
Not too hard, they came on pickups... I think you'll find that even pickups (and vans) fitted with the 9¼ rear ends have brakes that fit, they use the same backing plate bolt pattern. ...more |
|
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to 1962to1965mopars+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. |
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network