Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions27,081
- Orphaned Marques
- ↳ Hudson21,146
- ↳ Street Rods807
- ↳ Off Topic574
- ↳ American Motors149
- ↳ Kaiser - Frazer70
- ↳ Nash70
- ↳ Packard163
- ↳ Studebaker122
- Classic American Cars
- ↳ Ford Motor Company956
- ↳ Chrysler Corporation477
- ↳ GM Corporation1,396
- ↳ Post War Chevrolets75
- ↳ Pontiac Forum119
- General
- ↳ All makes1,963
- ↳ Poll Discussions24
- Swapmeets & Events
- ↳ Events130
- ↳ Swapmeets108
- Hot Rod Corner
- ↳ Ford Rods90
- ↳ Lead Sleds67
- Special Interest Groups
- ↳ The Flathead Forum139
- European marques
- ↳ MG Car Company2
- ↳ Mercedes-Benz2
In this Discussion
- hoggyrubber June 2012
- Walt-LA June 2012
Stepdown brakes
-
Help! Am trying to find the length of the front wheel brake linings in the '51 Hornet, and maximum diameter of the front brake drums inner surface. On the Hornets, the Mechanical Procedures Manual gives the total length of linings for the front wheels as 21.32 inches each- which if used in equal lengths for primary and secondary shoes would have them at 10 2/3inches. Did Hudson use equal length shoes? Apparently not all manufacturers did - and I have one set from a '52 Hornet with 9 3/4 in. on one (assumed primary) and 12 in. on the other. Have never seen an original set so...
Mechanical Prodecures Manual also states that the secondary lining was woven, and the primary moulded. As far as I know, woven linings are no longer in use. Would there be any advantage in using if they were?
Found no mention of limit to wall thickness or inner surface to surface diameter of the drums - only caution that if too thin the drums will distort due to lack of material for heat dissipation.
Many thanks!
Walt-LA -
the older sets i have taken off my parts cars the primary shoe lining was shorter like you said. both shoes were the same lenth. this was true on the replacement set i got too. i thought the drum was a 11" drum and did not find any published data as far as max id. i had heard rule of thumb was .060 or .090 over or something like that. seems to be plenty of meat on mine so i didn't worry. i had a hard time finding a place to turn the drums without the published data. i guess that's what it's coming down to, they said they were liable if it was turned too much. sorry i don't know the answers but i thought i would throw out what i did find out. good luck!
-
hoggyrubber June 16 \
The older sets i have taken off my parts cars the primary shoe lining was shorter like you said. both shoes were the same lenth. this was true on the replacement set i got too. i thought the drum was a 11" drum and did not find any published data as far as max id. i had heard rule of thumb was .060 or .090 over or something like that. seems to be plenty of meat on mine so i didn't worry. i had a hard time finding a place to turn the drums without the published data. i guess that's what it's coming down to, they said they were liable if it was turned too much. sorry i don't know the answers but i thought i would throw out what i did find out. good luck! Hoggy Rubber,
Hoggyrubber,
Thanks for the info. Can't add much, but did find a Bendix reference which gives the diameter of their 11 inch drum (for Chrysler) as 11.000 inches, in which case 60 thousandths over makes some sense. Perhaps that info would work with the machine shops. I've seen reference to 60 over somewhere, but haven't found it going through the pile.
Will send shoes to Rayco in Memphis (through NAPA) - let them sort out the proper length.
Again, Thanks, Walt-LA
