| From | Message |
01dakota355
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/21/2004
12:45:00
|
 Subject: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
I've been checking out some of the 2005 model Dakotas. Dodge went back to rear drums on them! Why would they do such a thing, when 03 and 04 models had rear discs? I'm guessing to save money? Anyone know?
|
Noltz
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/21/2004
23:35:09
|  RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
The surface area on a drum is usually greater than a rotor, so the potential stopping power of a drum is roughly equal. Drums are just as effective as rear discs, and give a better pedal feel to the driver. The advantage of disc brakes is the ability to shed heat quicker. Rear brake heat isn't, or shouldn't be, a factor for a pickup truck where 90% of it's life it's unloaded.
Besides, it's usually much less expensive for you and me to replace shoes, spring kit & drum than a seized caliper and rotor, when it comes time for brakes.
|
RadioMan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/22/2004
07:35:27
|  RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
You gotta be kidding, 01dakota255! I knew they
went to disk on the 03 and 04's so I never even
bothered to look when I took a (I thought) close
look at a 05.
Noltz, I disagree with your statments 100%. I have
driven a few trucks with rear disks. By far, the
stopping power is WAY better with rear disks over
drums.
I'm really beginning to think that I have bought
my last American made truck or car. Jap made are
looken better and better.
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/22/2004
11:31:10
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
I can't recall the source (maybe pickup trucks.com), but D-C used the lame excuse of 15 pounds weight savings as reason for canning the rear disc setup. Yeah, right; and the new CC is ONLY 300 lbs. heavier than the GenIII anyway, sans rear discs. Where's that BS repellant?
|
Hurl
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/22/2004
11:59:22
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
Noltz...?!?!?!?!?
I think you've made some rather untrue statements. Regardless of the "surface area" you claim you're forgetting how the brakes act on the surface. You must have never driven a 4 wheel drum vehicle... I had a 65 mustang with 4 drums and it was hell with respect to braking. Just try going through a rainy day with 4 drum brakes.
I just bought an '04 dak and was deciding between the 04 & 05. Aside from the fact that I was not crazy about the looks of the 05, the rear drum tipped me over to the 04 hands down.
I guess we'll be getting new complaints about front rotor warpage in the next few months here on the board.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
9/22/2004
12:47:35
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
Don't forget how as the auto adjusters get any wear on them the drum brakes will no longer be even. It's been a while, but I've driven a 4 wheel drum a few times. They suck a$$ to adjust all of them brakes to be even. You have to manually play with the adjusters form time to time to keep any descent braking.
I've got the 4 wheel disc brakes. They are as big on the rear as the front too. And they say BOSCH right on the dual calipers.
Anyway. I tow and those brakes stop like a mo facker whenever I need them to. I would hate to go back to drum brakes. Not too mention disc are so much easier to work on. Maybe the caliper will cost you more than the cylinder does for a shoe set up, but who cares!
I have noticed pretty much ALL of the new Ford and Chevy trucks seem to all have 4 wheel disc. Dodge had seemed to gone to that as well. Now if they go back to drums as standard, well that is just dumb sh*t thinking there!
|
rivermaniac
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/23/2004
01:30:00
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
chevys are going back to drums in 05 also .......
here's what I found ............
1. Price
2. Parking brakes
Let me deal with these in turn.
Price: it's an accepted fact that drum brakes are CHEAP. Cheap to manufacture, and cheap to install. This is a free-market economy & all that, so the cheapest effective solution wins. But, you might argue, they're not THAT much cheaper these days, right? Well, you're right on that point - the driving issue here isn't necessarily just the pure price of drums vs. discs... which segways nicely into point 2.
Parking brakes: every car's got one, right? It's mandated by some highway safety regulation. A car must have a parking brake. So what does this have to do with the disc vs. drum issue? Everything. Turns out, a parking brake just has to be a manually operated brake system that can function when the engine is off. Now, since modern brakes are all hydraulically assisted, when the power goes out - and the brake pump with it - braking becomes VERY hard. Go ahead, try braking sometime when your engine is off. Not much fun, is it? And what if there's an emergency and you need to stop the car, but the engine's off? Enter the parking brake. (Sometimes referred to, logically enough, the "emergency" brake.) Since it needs to be manually operated (i.e. no power assist), and the simplest method of doing that is via a cable attached to a lever or foot pedal, you need a brake system that can be operated by a cable. And the simple fact is, you can't work disc brakes with a cable (at least not easily - and certainly not CHEAPLY). So you see, the reason we still have drum brakes on the rear wheels of most cars & trucks is because it's more expensive to put 4 discs on a car vs. 2, and because even if you DID put 4 discs on the car, you need to come up with some way to operate the parking brake manually - and although there are a few different ways of doing it, none of them is simple or cheap (relatively speaking). And since in a car with the engine up front (as in almost every car), under hard braking the front wheels do something like 60-70% of the braking, it seems like an almost logical decision to put the "good" disc brakes up front, and keep the inferior drum brakes in the rear, which not only saves you the cost of putting more discs on the car, but allows you to have a cheap, simple parking brake solution.
Who woulda thunk it?
And don't even get me started on why big trucks (I'm talking BIG... semi-trailers & buses) use ONLY drum brakes... because I STILL don't know for sure, but it seems to be price (again), combined with the logistics of operating brakes on air pressure vs. hydraulics. But that's a topic for another day - or never, since I don't drive a car with air brakes!
I could chew your ear off with more discussions of drums and their mechanical shortcomings; something about what happens to the brake under hard braking, due to inertial forces, heat, and a whole bunch of other technical mumbo-jumbo... but I won't, because I hardly understand it myself. I'm just satisfied to know that there is a reason (albeit not a great one, but at least one I can understand) why drums are still on so many cars today.
|
RadioMan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/23/2004
07:32:26
|  RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
The simple fact is rivermaniac, the big three
shove SAFETY on the back burner and could care
less about the people behind the wheel of their
JUNK!
As long as their shareholders get what they want,
SAFETY goes to the wayside.
Those of us that have driven Dakotas or any other
car or truck with four wheel disc brakes, know
that is 100% better than rear drums, period!
And I also could chew your ear off for hours about
a lot of mechanical shortcomings all the auto
makers have done for the last 100 years!
It's ALL ABOUT MONEY, NOT PEOPLE or SAFETY!
Ralph Nader is the only one I know of that got GM
to stop making a unsafe care. It sure looks like
we need more like him to continue.
|
Hurl
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/23/2004
08:45:47
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
Rivermaniac... You should only have one bullet point and that's price. Rear disks use two main methods to operate a cable driven emergency brake. The first is a mini drum inside the hub of the disk and the second is a mechanism which forces the rear callipers to twist out. Both of these are simply more expensive. All rear disk vehicles that I know of (modern cars) have cable driven parking/emergency brakes.
|
confused
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/23/2004
16:06:48
|  RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
What unsafe car did Nader ever get GM to stop making ? It was the Mustang that killed off the Corvair...
|
Rear drum
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/23/2004
17:30:03
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
For normal use I could care less. However, I towed a 5,000 pound trailer with my '03 Durango and disc brakes are way better. You don't notice until you put a load on the truck, but it is a big difference.
|
3mopars
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2004
10:26:33
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
My 04 Dak RC SXT has rear drums. The brochure states 4 wheel disk. Of course they reserve the right to change spec from the brochure. I would rather have the rear disk setup. It seem to stop just fine though.
|
Hurl
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2004
11:57:34
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
The lowest end trucks don't get rear disk in 2003 or 2004.
|
04sport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2004
12:13:42
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
I have an '04 Dakota Sport that is decently equipped (power windows, locks, keyless entry, bucket seats etc.) and it has rear drums. It's not "just the low end" trucks, it's the trucks without 4 wheel ABS and just rear wheel ABS
|
Hurl
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2004
12:18:19
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
Untrue my friend. I had an '03 SLT with only rear anti lock and it had rear disk. I have an '04 with 4 wheel anti lock and it has rear disk.
|
Hurl
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2004
12:20:54
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
Actually, I believe the 4 disk were standard on 4x4 '03 & '04. Both my Daks are 4x4.
|
Hurl
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2004
12:31:10
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
The order package for non 4x4:
-------------------------------------------------
BRR Brakes, F&R Disc
(Std 4WD Models) (Std w/GVWR-Z1R) Includes
Rear Anti-Lock Braking System.
-------------------------------------------------
GVWR PACKAGES
--- 4700-lb. GVWR Std. Std.
(1270-lb. Payload) (N/A Base & Sport 4WD or SLT) (See Std. Equipment Listing)
Z1R 5900-lb. GVWR • Base 2WD 273.00 310.00
(2160-lb. Payload) (Req's QOP-2*W on Base) (Req's QOP-2*B on Sport) (Req's QOP-2*G on SLT) (Req's Axle-DSA & EHC 3.9L Engine on Base) (Req's Axle-DSA When in Combo w/EVA 4.7L Engine & Auto Trans.-DG4 or EHC 3.9L Engine on Sport & SLT) (Req's EHC 3.9L or EVA 4.7L Engine on Sport) Sport & SLT Include 3.92 Axle Ratio.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
9/25/2004
11:17:12
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
Interesting. My 4X4 has rear ABS and 4 wheel disc. They stop like a mo fo for me. Big improvement over drums.
What I don;t get is why my 4X4 with the tow package, etc etc came with 3.55 gears?
That's going to be one of my up coming mods, changing gears to 4.10's.
|
Nick
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/25/2004
18:05:26
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
The new 05 Tacoma uses rear drums too.
|
drums times 4
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/25/2004
18:41:37
| RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
some old cars with 4 wheel drums are cool, all you have to do is move the e-brake cables to the front wheels, and you have cheap and easy line locks!
|
RadioMan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/27/2004
08:44:24
|  RE: 2005 rear drums??
IP: Logged
Message:
Did anyone watch Car and Driver on Spike TV over
the weekend? They had a spot on the 05 Dakota.
I didn't know that it was a little longer and
wider.
So the 05 is bigger in all respects and yet DC
removes the rear disc brakes.
NOW THAT'S THINKING SAFETY!
What the hell am I missing here? dah
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
