""Pindell, Timothy"" <TPindell@OTTERBEIN.EDU> wrote in message
>
> My real question is this: Disks are so much simpler and more effective.
> I'm pretty sure everybody will agree on that point. Why aren't disk
brakes
> used by default on everything? Are drums really that much cheaper and
more
> reliable with all of those moving parts?
IIRC, when GM first started using rear disc (or disk, whatever the spelling
is) brakes, they put them on the Lumina/Cutlass/Grand Prix platform. They
were preportioned at 90/10 and the front pads were almost 1½ times the
normal size, whereas the rears were about the size of a fifty-cent piece.
The rear calipers would freeze and the pads would fall out after about 20k
miles.
Just guessing here, but maybe rear disc (disk) brakes have some little
quirks about them that we might not be taking into consideration, and that's
why Dodge just now is starting to put them on their trucks.
-- - Josh Lowered 2000 Dakota CC 3.9L www.geocities.com/lenny187/dakota.html www.omg-stfu.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 01 2004 - 12:00:18 EDT