RE: [Chrysler300] Whoa, Nelly - additional clarification

["Rich Barber" <c300@xxxxxxx>]

Mike:

 

I wouldn?t pull wheels and drums on an ?H? as it appears the spec?s are
pretty consistent that all 1962 drums are 2 ½? wide.  I find it extremely
unlikely that 2? wide shoes are even available for the 12? drum.

 

The 1962 Service Manual
(http://www.jholst.net/62-service-manual/service-brakes.pdf )   says 300H?s
have 12? diameter drums and all models have 2 ½? wide drums-front and rear.
The 1962 Parts manual (
http://www.jholst.net/62-parts-manual/service-brake.pdf )  shows several
different parts numbers for standard and ?Police? spec brake shoes and
linings but there is no indication that ?Police? brake drums are anything
other than 2 ½? wide.  Standard drums are 11? diameter as it appears
standard wheels were 14? and H?s (probably) had 15? wheels and
tires?allowing room for the larger drums.
http://www.jholst.net/62-parts-manual/wheels.pdf

 

C300K?ly,

Rich Barber         

 

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Michael Moore
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 5:12 PM
To: kmaniak@xxxxxxx
Cc: Rich Barber; TorqueChap@xxxxxxxxx; News4ge@xxxxxxx; d.verity@xxxxxxx;
300
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Whoa, Nelly - additional clarification

 

  

Rich,

Before I go out and start pulling off brake drums, is that scenario (having
1/2 inch narrower shoes than I should) possible with the 300H? 

Thanks,MIke Moore

 

On Jan 13, 2014, at 1:10 PM, kmaniak@xxxxxxx wrote:

 

  

 

I think a little clarification is needed here regarding the standard versus
heavy duty brakes, at least as they relate to the 1964 Chrysler.

 

Standard Brakes -->  11" x 3" front & 11" x 2 1/2 " rear

Heavy Duty Brakes -->  11" x 3" front & rear

 

Standard Brakes were standard equipment on Newport, 300, 300-K (see note
below), and New Yorker

Heavy Duty Brakes were optional on 300 & 300-K, and included in the 300-K
Special Package (with ram engine).  I cannot speak about wagons.

 

Primary Shoe --> brake shoe installed on the side of the axle closest to the
front of the car

Secondary Shoe --> brake shoe installed on the side of the axle closest to
the rear of the car

 

OEM brake linings used in the Standard Brakes were 9-1/4' long on the
primary shoe front and rear (3 black marks) and 12-1/8 ' long on the
secondary shoe front and rear (2 black and 1 white mark)

OEM brake linings used in the Heavy Duty Brakes were 12-1/8 ' long on the
primary shoe front and rear (1 black and 1 orange mark) and 12-1/8 ' long on
the secondary shoe front and rear (2 red marks)

 

Since the Standard Brake lining lengths were more abundant, after market
brake lining manufacturers chose to produce these style of linings and no
longer offer the Heavy Duty Brake lining option.  35 years ago, when I
ordered brake linings at the local parts store, the only option I was given
for linings was either 2-1/2" rears or 3' rears.  Today, if I try to buy
brake linings, they no longer ask the width of the rear shoes and identify
rears as 2-1-2' by default.  So if you are buying new brake linings for your
Heavy Duty Brake equipped Chrysler today, it is best to order two front sets
to avoid confusing the kid behind the parts counter.  There is really no
difference between the brake shoes available for the 1964 Chrysler today, so
trying to order them by a specific model designation will only confuse that
kid behind the counter even more.  If they do insist on a model designation,
just say 300 and be done.

 

One thing that many of you might not be aware of, is that the standard
Bendix brake shoe (metal portion) is universal fit, meaning that one can
install any similar diameter shoe in any position (primary or secondary
position) on any axle.  This is how Rich found 2-1/2' shoes installed inside
the 3' drums of his convertible, and how, I too, found 2-1/2' shoes
installed inside the 3' rear drums of my silver K hardtop.  Whoever
installed these shoes in both cases didn't know there was a difference in
width and just installed the rear shoes the parts store gave them.  Now if
one wants to duplicate the OEM lining sizes on their Heavy Duty Brake
equipped car, you can simply order four sets of front brake linings and
install the eight long lining shoes all the way around.  That is something I
have thought about, but have never done.

 

Now, on the subject of frictional force, it was my understanding from
engineering school that frictional force, as it relates to brakes and tires,
is a uniform force PER UNIT AREA, meaning that the greater the frictional
area, the greater the total  frictional force.

 

That's my "two cents" for what its worth.  Additional comments welcome.

 

Chris the K MANIAC



-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Barber <c300@xxxxxxx>
To: 'David' <TorqueChap@xxxxxxxxx>; News4ge <News4ge@xxxxxxx>
Cc: d.verity <d.verity@xxxxxxx>; Chrysler300 <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 10:59 am
Subject: [Chrysler300] Whoa, Nelly

  

Not to continue beating on old Nelly, but?

Several sources indicate the ?HD? brakes are standard on ram cars and
available as part of an ?HD? suspension option for all other 300?s. The
supplemental 300K manual and the 1963 service manual show the linings on the
F&R primary shoes are only 9 ¼? long as compared to 11.97? (AMA specs) or 12
1/8? (Chrysler specs) for all other F&R linings. Differences in color coding
indicate different composition and/or frictional effects. The 1965 Service
Manual shows 3? wide rear drums on all Chryslers except Newports and the 9
¼? long linings on ?Police Special? only. 

As engineers, we are taught that frictional force is only a function of
coefficient of friction and FPST (Force pressing surfaces together), and is
independent of area. So, the length of the shoes should not affect stopping
force. However, the longer linings produce more brake area and this affects
heat transfer between the linings and the brake drum. Shorter linings on the
primary shoes might let the drums and the brake and brake hardware run a
little cooler or go to fade slower. It might also shift a little of the heat
transfer duty to the secondary shoes and even out wear.

I spent way too much time last night in the 1963, 1964 and 1965 parts,
service and supplemental manuals and with the 1964 AMA specs. With the
result being that I could not rationally interpret or consistently correlate
which of the ?63-?65 Chrysler line of vehicles had or could be ordered with
?HD? brakes. As David noted, the main difference is in the 3? wide rear
drums and shoes. The manuals also indicate the different length and material
of the lining on the primary shoes. Whatever options owners might have had
in the ?60?s are probably long gone. My ram K conv came to me with 2 ½?
shoes inside of 3? wide rear drums. It was a little challenging to find the
proper 3? wide rear shoes, but I did find them. I think they were listed as
for a New Yorker wagon which appears to have come equipped with ?HD? brakes
as standard.

The variance of material and length in the HD brakes for the ?63-?65 years
indicates some work and experimentation had been done to make braking better
for the cars with HD brakes?whatever cars they were on. Perhaps this work
was driven by problems with the HD brakes with standard linings. At this
point, the original molded asbestos lining options are not available, even
if we knew what they were. It seems that we are stuck with 12? +/- long
linings on all 3? or 2 ½? wide shoes. Any better information on original
shoe and lining configuration on ram-engined J?s & K?s and/or current best
sources of brake shoes and linings that work best in these cars would be
gratefully appreciated by those of us driving and stopping these Beautiful
Brutes. 

C300K?ly,

Rich Barber

Brentwood, CA 

From: David [mailto:TorqueChap@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:TorqueChap@xxxxxxxxx?> ] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 5:15 AM
To: News4ge@xxxxxxx
Cc: c300@xxxxxxx; d.verity@xxxxxxx; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] J / ram K

Hi George,

The Ram K has 3x11 brakes (vs 2.5x11 for non ram cars of the same year). 

David Morrison

New Jersey

On Jan 12, 2014, at 11:47 PM, News4ge@xxxxxxx wrote:

Rich Barber and J/ramK owners,

Thanks Rich, for the information. I noticed that in the 64 supplement you
sent the link for, the ramK and non-ramK have different brake shoes. The ram
cars actually have smaller front primary shoes. Does anybody know why this
would be? Also, the shoes that are available now (at least at Rock Auto)
don't distinguish between ram and non-ram cars (or even between 300 and
300K). Has anybody had problems getting the right shoes for a ram K? Would
either or both size shoes fit? 

Thanks,

George Clineman

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Barber <c300@xxxxxxx>
To: 'Don Verity' <d.verity@xxxxxxx>; Chrysler300
<Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; News4ge <News4ge@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat, Jan 11, 2014 7:57 pm
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] J / ram K master cylinders

George:

That?s what we did for our ?64 ram K. However, previously, someone had
replaced the ram engine with a non-ram 383, disconnected the remote booster
and installed a standard power brake booster and MC on the firewall. The
standard booster has a different reinforcing/mounting plate on the firewall
than does the non-boosted MC and I had to obtain the correct plate in order
to install the non-boosted MC. 

Removal of the residual pressure ?check valve? from the firewall MC is
critical in order that the actuating pressure be bled off the remote boosted
cylinder. Otherwise, the brakes will drag and overheat. It was news to me
that this little check valve even existed. It is commonly used on brake
systems to keep a very light residual positive pressure on the brake system
to reduce its tendency to inhale atmospheric air and moisture.

Another ramK owner was trying to modify his brakes to use a dual outlet MC,
but we saw no way to integrate a dual outlet MC into the remote-boosted
system. So great care should be taken to assure all hoses, tubing and
connections are strong, non-corroded and tight as a broken line or hose will
leave you with NO SERVICE BRAKES. I did run into a bad batch of wheel
cylinders and the little MC which seeped from the get-go. Seemed almost like
sabotage by our Asian manufacturers. I suspect poor synthetic material in
the cups and improper finish in the bores, but can prove nothing.

The master cylinder body and guts for a ?63-?64 ram car is actually a common
item and may be purchased new or rebuilt for a 1964 Plymouth, Dodge or
Chrysler without power brakes?then the check valve must be removed from the
outlet. I recall the guts had to be removed in order to poke out the little
check valve wafer. The non-presence of the check valve makes the MC a
technically different item but the body, guts and mounting system are the
same. 

There is a specific bleeding schedule that must be used to eliminate air
from throughout the brake system. The process is defined in the 1964 300K
Supplemental Service manual which can be viewed at: 

http://www.jholst.net/64-supplement/brakes.pdf (Page 2). All readers are
encouraged to visit member John Holst? most excellent website and click on
?Chrysler 300 Resources? to view a wide array of service and parts manuals
and other information for all years of letter cars. John still drives the
300K originally purchased by his father.

C300K?ly,

Rich Barber

Brentwood, CA

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?>  <mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
<mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?%3E> >; ] On Behalf Of Don Verity
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:26 PM
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; News4ge@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] J / ram K master cylinders

>From what I have learned from the guru of K?s Don Cole, just get a master
for a manual brake car and take out the residual valve (the remote booster
has one). I got one for my J, but have yet to install it. Looks good though
and has the studs through the firewall. I got it from Rock Auto. 

Don

From: News4ge@xxxxxxx 

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 5:37 PM

To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Subject: [Chrysler300] J / ram K master cylinders

Hi, 

I have a ram K that has a slight leak in the master cylinder and a leaking
wheel cylinder, so I'm doing a complete brake job. 

I have 3 questions:

1. Are the brake systems on J and ram K identical in every way? I ask
because I may find parts for a J and not for a ram K. Also, there's less
confusion if I ask for something for a J because the K has both ram and non
ram parts.

2. Does anyone know of a good source for a rebuilt master cylinder? All of
the parts houses I've checked either don't go back that far or they have
master cylinders for all Chryslers but J or K. I know there's Kanter, but
their price is high.

3. Anything else I should know, like helpful hints on doing the work,
procuring parts, what mfrs. to use or avoid, etc.?

Thanks in advance,

George Clineman

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

 

 





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



------------------------------------

To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or
go to http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join and select the "Leave Group" button

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#querylangYahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    Chrysler300-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Chrysler300-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
    http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/