|
|
Post by cocacoladodge on Sept 14, 2011 23:41:03 GMT -5
The lines are all shot right now, and never had the brakes changed since i got it, so since i pulled the body, i am redoing everything at once. the more insight the better.
|
|
mpm
Junior Member
Member since 2008
Posts: 51
|
Post by mpm on Sept 15, 2011 4:35:49 GMT -5
Bob,
Go with the Karman Ghi discs, if you want to save yourself alot of trouble.....
|
|
|
|
Post by smyrnaguy on Sept 15, 2011 7:44:44 GMT -5
I don't think the last option is possible. Disk and drum in the back?
|
|
|
|
Post by jspbtown on Sept 15, 2011 8:15:46 GMT -5
Money no option: Disc all the way around. Its a much more efficient braking system.
Money a concern: Drum brakes stop this lightweight car just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyn on Sept 15, 2011 10:46:43 GMT -5
I don't think the last option is possible. Disk and drum in the back? My sons jeep has disk and drums in the back. They could not figure out how to put a ebrake on the rear disk so they used the drum for ebrake and the disk for braking. Wyn  |
|
|
|
Post by centralvalleygter on Sept 15, 2011 10:48:20 GMT -5
Drum brakes work as well as disc, the first couple of times they are applied in a given time period. The reason disc brakes are consider superior is that the stay cooler during repeated braking and thus you have less brake fade during repeated hard cornering.
Seems like I read somewhere that 70%+ of a cars stopping power comes from the front brakes, so it is more important to have the better braking system at the front.
Regards.....
|
|
|
|
Post by jspbtown on Sept 15, 2011 11:15:46 GMT -5
Most cars have all the weight up front....thats why in most cases the fronts do the work (take a look at the disc/pad size from front to rear...MUCH larger up front). Brads however have much more weight in the rear. They need better breaking in the rear as the fronts will have a tendency to lock up from lack of weight (without appropriate bias control)
Another benefit of discs is they don't need adjustment.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobevans on Sept 15, 2011 11:53:29 GMT -5
I have owned GT2s with both configurations...drums all around, drums with discs up front...Have experienced no difference in stopping power...So, with the exception of adjusting I would rate both the same...VW bugs have had drums for years and years and have been stopping just fine..The light Brad should not stop any less efficiently with drums...So, unless you just want to spend the money, why not just stay with what you bought...??
bobevans ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan MacMillan on Sept 15, 2011 12:09:11 GMT -5
Even though a Bradley is light in the front, disk in the front is better. Look at the Ghia. Still a light front end and heavy rear. centralvalleygter is right, on average 70%+ of a cars stopping power comes from the front brakes, This is due to weight shift on hard braking. Drums are fine at times but under hard braking, repeated braking, long down hills [using brakes] and water greatly reduce their stopping power. When I wash my Kyote water gets in the brakes. This car will not stop at all until the water is gone. My GT2 and my Manx have 4 wheel disk, both light cars that I would not change for the world.
Rear disk/drum parking is done to completely isolate the 2 braking systems. It also reduces the chances of caliper hydraulic failure by having less seals on the caliper. Chevy and Ford used this a lot, Their brake bias is closer to 90% front. The small amount of work and movement done by the rear calipers results in the calipers seizing. Having a second rear friction material [shoes in the drums] helps ensure the secondary brakes will work in an emergency. The law states all new vehicles must have 3 braking systems. We have the front hyd circuit, the rear hyd circuit and the mandatory separate mechanical system.
Some call it a parking brake {manual trans} others call it an emergency brake {auto trans} What you call it is irrelevant it's main purpose is to stop the car when all else fails.
The choice not mentioned, drum front-disk rear, must be avoided as it creates a very dangerous situation. The rear brakes will cause rear wheel lockup and cause the car to go out of control.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobevans on Sept 15, 2011 12:46:30 GMT -5
I will certainly bow my limited driving experience,to your superior knowledge... bobevans  |
|
|
|
Post by jspbtown on Sept 15, 2011 13:20:35 GMT -5
Funny...the early Porsche (rear engine cars) had larger rear rotors then front....Wonder why?
Rotor Sizes F/R
911T 69-73 282x20 / 290x20
911S 69-73 282x20 / 290x20
Carrera RS 282x20 / 290x20
Carrera 74-77 282x20 / 290x20
911SC 78-83 282x20 / 290x20
930 Turbo 78-89 304x32 / 309x28
Carrera 3.2 84-9 282x24 / 290x24
As a very general trend with numerous exceptions, typical weight bias for an FR is 55/45 front/rear; for MR, 45/55; for RR, 35/65. Rear weight bias reduces forward weight transfer under braking, and increases rear weight transfer under acceleration. The former means that traction is more evenly distributed among all four wheels under braking, resulting in shorter stopping times and distances.
|
|
rich
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by rich on Oct 25, 2011 18:30:05 GMT -5
My GT standard brakes caused the front tires to skid. Too little weight transfer. So we reversed the brakes (front to back and vice versa). Much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobevans on Oct 26, 2011 9:29:39 GMT -5
My latest purchase had holes in the floor on the drivers side....I wonder if that is where I drag my feet when all else fails....? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by smyrnaguy on Oct 26, 2011 16:27:55 GMT -5
They are there to drain the pee when the brakes fail.
|
|
