Water soaked disks do the same thing. Granted takes longer to dry off drums but
it takes driving in water up to the drums to get them soaked in the first place
but happens on almost every puddle with disks.
Dave Clement
99 SLT+ CC 4x4
In article <BAY9-DAV7exhigX3aCP0003bffa@hotmail.com>, fasstdak@hotmail.com
("Bernd D. Ratsch") writes:
>
>
> Ever water soaked your drums?
>
> - Bernd
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josh Battles" <jbattles@bankfinancial.com>
> To: <dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: DML:Rear brake conversion
>
>
> >
> > how are discs safer? Drums are tried and true, I've never had an issue
> with
> > drums other than the hassle of changing shoes and adjustment. Other than
> > that they've been great for me over the years. I've never owned a car
> that
> > came with rear discs. I converted the stang I had before I bought the
> truck
> > and didn't really notice any diffrerence other than that the rear wheels
> got
> > brake dust on them. it stopped just about the same.
> >
> > --
> > - Josh
> > Lowered 2000 Dakota CC 3.9L
> > www.geocities.com/lenny187/dakota.html
> > www.omg-stfu.com
> >
> >
> > ""Bernd D. Ratsch"" <fasstdak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:BAY9-DAV26YoDK7n0sw00004dac@hotmail.com...
> > >
> > > I look at it from another standpoint - I'd rather have 4-Wheel discs on
> my
> > > truck (for added safety) than the drums. Less problems and less
> > headaches.
> > >
> > > - Bernd
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Josh Battles" <jbattles@bankfinancial.com>
> > > To: <dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 11:02 AM
> > > Subject: Re: DML:Rear brake conversion
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't think I'd go that far. I think what David was trying to
> express
> > > was
> > > > that the swap would only be cost effective if you really need it.
> > > > Personally, It doesn't really matter enough to me that I'd want to
> swap
> > to
> > > > discs. The main reason that I'd do it would be for the "cool factor"
> of
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > - Josh
> > > > Lowered 2000 Dakota CC 3.9L
> > > > www.geocities.com/lenny187/dakota.html
> > > > www.omg-stfu.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ""Bernd D. Ratsch"" <fasstdak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:BAY9-DAV40vsTDWWcuZ0000089f@hotmail.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Uhoh...better tell Chrysler to put the rear drums back on the 03+
> > > models.
> > > > > ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > - Bernd
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: <david.clement@verizon.net>
> > > > > To: <dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:46 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: DML:Rear brake conversion
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMHO, unless you are consistently carrying a load the cost of
> doing
> > > the
> > > > > swap is
> > > > > > going to be a waste of money. In an empty or lightly loaded truck
> > > there
> > > > is
> > > > > so
> > > > > > little traction out back that the rear wheels provide little in
> the
> > > way
> > > > of
> > > > > > stopping power. That's why they all have anti-lock brakes on the
> > back
> > > > > wheels.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your money would better spent upgrading the fronts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dave Clement
> > > > > > 99 SLT+ CC 4x4
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <20040427213358.59283.qmail@web21104.mail.yahoo.com>,
> > > > > > pbatson68@yahoo.com (Phillip Batson) writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Has anyone done the conversion from the drum to the
> > > > > > > disc in the rear? I'd like to get your thoughts on it
> > > > > > > before I head out to the shops.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > 2000 4x4 CC 4.7L
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 01 2004 - 12:00:18 EDT