Just a FYI<
A lot of the fitment differences for a total upgrade are because they changed at various times the lower (at least) ball joint OD , how it fits, (press or screw in to lower arm) and the size of that ball joint taper that goes into the steering knuckle. I know it was long ago, details not 100% clear tonight , , but I put 67-68 Dodge police car package steering knuckles, discs and ball joints into 57 Dodge control arm by reinforcing the end of lower control arm with added ring of 1/4” steel and then boring that out for what I think was the larger (than 57) 67-68 lower ball joint. I think top 57 one fit the knuckle or spindle ok, or found one that fit. . That let us put on stock 67 or 68 police car disc brakes, the “big discs”-- hot set up long ago --before disc kits--- on 57 Mopar.
Now they have kits that fit the old knuckle…and leave the small ball joints. Two kinds of kits?? ..special adapter knuckle-- or not . By way of awareness, not comparing. But insight into why some years and not others.
This change to discs on my 57 was made , really, because I had frankly screwed up more than one total contact brake setup, through not knowing what I was doing, after buying all new parts, , and was fed up with “all the problems”. They are real problems. But is it the brakes?
I had a brand new 60 dodge , in 60, manual brakes , bought then because I liked two leading shoes on the manual, had heard and seen many horror stories about power brakes in general 55-60, --60 Dart was a great set up! I beat it unmercifully. It was perfect in every way , brake wise; used to laugh at best friend’s GM 57 Pontiac power brakes with on-off feel. Beating unmercifully, was street drag racing several nights a week to 100 mph + ,= going was the problem, not stopping. No pulling no grabbing..
The basic torsion bar suspension design is about the same across these years ; all this by way of info, not advocating doing it, but good to think or know about. .
Do you need discs?? Sort of falls out of it? Idiot proof as far as assembling the pads….
I am in the middle of doing some discs, but still ambivalent. Not if drums are working right, is one answer. They worked right at the beginning.
Also looking back, many of the problems with total contact , or other Chrysler brakes are errors caused by experts (who are not) in putting them together right, especially arcing the new shoes to a turned drum. If you do not, with all new parts, the brakes do not work. Discs get into front/rear balance, another possible can of worms, despite that balance “valve” . They have inherently different actions..
They won all those NASCAR races with them, stories about “fade” on the street leave me cold. Worse than fade--- -------if the shoes are not touching the drum , most of the way around!
Sure , not as good as modern discs, but awfully good brakes.
Did you know GM put MOPAR total contact brakes on the racing Corvettes with Buick drums about 1960?? they watched the 300B race, brakes and all, and win . . So would I. On a light corvette? Bulletproof . And the “fading after 3 panic stops from 120+ mph” in contemporary 300 tests is not exactly how we use our cars today. What reminded me of all that , was seeing that 300B race clip a few weeks back , on this site . No disc conversions , yet racing competitively for real, in 2015? Braking hard on corners over and over….. (he did have Buick drums too..which have aluminum fins on them. 60 to maybe 62. That forces a wheel change too ). Before discs, that was the hot setup. Rods, Bonneville etc . The brakes we take off.
My problems with these brakes on 300F over the years was not fade..they were pulling, grabbing, low pedal , poor stopping rate, squealing etc etc . 300 B or 60 Dart was not like that …. Why?
Just sayin….there is a disconnect here somewhere. Others see it?
John
I sent them an email. I'll report back with what they send me.
Bob J
From: John Nowosacki [mailto:jsnowosacki@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:22 PM
To: Bob Jasinski
Cc: Chrysler 300 List
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Magnum Force disc brake conversion
pictures say 57 to 61, but when I click on the link for picture or part number, it says 65 to 72?
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap