Brakes, Again

["Don Verity" <d.verity@xxxx>]

Hi everyone,
Well it's time for me to put my 2 cents worth in. I just had my G out for a good ride last night, and while I was out I was thinking of all these arguments about the brakes being "inadequate". I was doing some relatively fast driving on some back roads in the 50-70 mph range. The performance of the brakes (on my car anyway) is certainly more than adequate. They stop straight and smooth, with little pedal effort. How many times do you really need to stop from 100 mph or more. If you are doing that many panic stops in a row from high speed, maybe you need to address your driving style. As far as I'm concerned, anyone doing "140" on anything but a race track is just plain reckless. Around here on the east coast going that fast in a Viper would be dangerous with all the traffic. As far as 63 and up Chrysler brakes are concerned, the J's and ram K's had 11 by 3 brakes all around. My 66 Imperial has the exact same braking system minus the remote booster. It also stops straight and smooth, and the brake system was rebuilt 14 years ago! If a 300 which weighs about 1000 lbs. less than my loaded Imperial can't stop adequately, there is something wrong with your brakes. I for one will go with the KYB's, springs, and alignment, and leave the brakes stock. Don't put them down as "inadequate" just because you drive a modern car with disc brakes, and the old 300 doesn't stop the same. 
300ly,
Don


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]