Don't get me wrong. In my opinion, On our type cars, the disc front/drum rear, is the way to go. My cars are primarilly race cars. I run a 1/4 mile, at close to 100 mph, make 1 stop with a lot of room, then the brakes have a long time to cool off. So for me, 9 inch drums (in excellent condition), work just fine, and save weight, and cost. I do have a split system, though.

_________________
Charrlie_S
65 Valiant 100 2dr post 170 turbo
66 Valiant Signet 170 nitrous
64 Valiant Signet
64 Valiant 4dr 170
64 Valiant 4dr 225

Split system is absolutely a must for safety no matter what kind of brakes you run. Drum brakes were the norm for a good 75 years and they work well for most normal driving but heavy stop and go, high speeds on crowded freeways and mountain roads all beg for a better system.

I had forgotten about it, but Chrysler used disk brakes for a couple of years in the 50s but they were dropped because pedal efforts were too high for comfort. Improvements in power brake systems made them popular again, and eventually they became the norm.

_________________
David Kight
'62 Valiant Signet, White
'98 Dodge Dakota
'06 Jeep Liberty

Growing older is unavoidable but growing up is strictly optional.

Mmmm...I'm fairly certain that is not why Chrysler's disc brakes of the '55-'56 era were dropped. They were actually a full-disc-contact system (think in terms of a clutch disc, compared to the spot-contact disc brakes we all know) and were self-energising; pedal effort was much lower than an unboosted spot-disc system and the brakes were highly effective. But, they were very expensive to build and offer, and few people understood why they were better, and the tires of the day limited their practical advantage, so demand was low and they were dropped.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

I didn't realise they were that type, interesting. Isn't that the system that Crosley used for a while?

_________________
David Kight
'62 Valiant Signet, White
'98 Dodge Dakota
'06 Jeep Liberty

Growing older is unavoidable but growing up is strictly optional.

Sounds alot like the multi-rotor and disc systems we use on our heavies nowadays. Kinda cool systems actually, but messing around with a three-thousand PSI hydraulic system isn't something I really enjoy....

_________________
'74 Duster w/ HEI ignition, beat to snot suspension, A904, 8.25" 3.55 SG rear, still being tuned up and gets 17 MPG

Know how they always build a better idiot? That's me

That's possible. I don't know much about Crosleys or Crossleys!

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Our 93 Dakota shortbed and 95 Jeep Cherokee both have front discs and 9 in rear brakes and I have yet to lock up the rears on either vehicle. IMHO the Jeep stops better than the Dakota (maybe because it doesn't have the light weight in the rear like the Dakota)

Curious, I did a little snooping and here's what I found: From: http://www.ggw.org/~cac/Crosley_Q-A.html

As near as I can tell these were "spot" systems using a caliper and rotor, not the disc/pressure plate systems used by Chrysler. By the way, Crosley and Crossley are two seperate companies; the former and American company and the latter British.

_________________
David Kight
'62 Valiant Signet, White
'98 Dodge Dakota
'06 Jeep Liberty

Growing older is unavoidable but growing up is strictly optional.