Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Pickups Pickups - Archived Discussions Midsize Pickup Comparo 
751 messages, Last post on Nov 28, 2007 at 10:44 AM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is kcram
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Pickups Host for directions! discussion.
|
Replying to: 2005lekc (Dec 19, 2006 8:04 pm)  Yep, and it is kind of Ironic. The frozen pistons may have been the reason the pads needed replacing.  Kip |
|
|
|
Discs are inherently less complicated, transfer heat better, and thus, resist fade better. The only reason Toyota is using drums in the rear is to trim costs.(Their official reason is that is helps hold the vehicle on a hill when parked) Anyone ever tried to clean drums caked with off-road debris? I rest my case.
|
|
|
Replying to: countsmackula1 (Jan 07, 2007 8:33 pm) If given a choice I would prefer disc all around. Kip
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Jan 08, 2007 7:41 am) Drum brakes offer a significant increase in contact area over a disc brake. In addition, most drum designs will assert far more contact pressure from the parking brake than anytime the foot brake is used. Another advantage of rear drums is the parking brake designs are far less complicated and less expensive to repair than a rear disc set-up. Regards, Dusty
|
|
|
|
| This thing seems dead! | |
|
Replying to: dustyk (Feb 11, 2007 7:04 pm) You might wish to re-read and comprehend what I said! In addition, most drum designs will assert far more contact pressure from the parking brake than anytime the foot brake is used. Wonder why they went to all that expense to create hydraulic brakes when a simple cable design is more effective? According to your statement.  Kip
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Feb 12, 2007 5:42 am) Yeah. I read and comprehended what you wrote. Doesn't change my opinion nor the law of physics. As pointed out by a few other posters, disc brakes have their advantages over a drum design. However, that does not mean that a drum brake design is deficient when used within the the capabilities of the design. Depending on the vehicle platform, since rear brakes contribute between 15 and 20% of the vehicles braking needs, the lower manufacturing cost of the components and design is perfectly suited for most rear brake applications. For a rear braking system the cost-benifit ratio is in favor of the drum brake. Today, most vehicles using a rear brake system are on trucks, including those that go far beyond the 18,000 GVW limit. On a truck especially, where the vehicle can see a very wide difference in axle loading, drum brakes perform very, very well while offering a lower cost for components and reduced cost at maintenance. Yes, if a vehicle is driven in deep water a disc system will most assuredly perform better. At higher payloads, however, drums systems are designed for the weight rating of the vehicle and except in very rare situations perform more than adequately. There is a downside to rear discs on light duty pickups, besides the complexity caused by the parking brake configurations and subsequent increased cost of replacement parts. And that is an increase in maintenance. Unfortunately in actual practice, rear discs will require more repair because the design does not lend itself to the light application required by most vehicles. Our company has run various vehicles that came in both configurations, and we experienced far more repair on the rear disc systems caused by stuck or frozen pistons or parking brake components. Rear discs are not exercised enough to ensure adequate piston movement to prevent becoming stuck in position. On some systems, like F150s, their parking brake design for the rear disc often stops working due to corrosion. As to why some manufacturers use rear disc designs, well in most cases its because they know that many people think that "more is better" and that rear discs are inherently more effective. Regards, Dusty
|
|
|
Replying to: dustyk (Feb 14, 2007 2:14 pm) Your explanation of the whys and whats was interesting and seems reasonable. Despite the laws of physics and other things you mentioned, "Seems to me that rear disc hold a parked vehicle a little better if the front of the vehicle is up hill, than drums do!" Kip
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Jan 21, 2006 8:45 am) http://sporttracclub.21.forumer.com/ Thanks! |
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Feb 15, 2007 4:50 am) A rear drum parking brake is much more effective at holding a vehicle than a rear disc brake, by design. But in reality most rear disc braking systems utilize a rear drum for the parking brake anyways. In any system I've seen or worked on the drums and shoes are about 1/4 the size of a conventional rear drum brake. It's referred to as "drum-in-hat" and I'm having a little trouble thinking of a vehicle that doesn't use it at the moment. The US Department of Transportation actually specifies holding force requirements on automobile and truck manufacturers for parking brake systems, and ANSI has a test procedure for evaluating them. So in actual practice, regardless of the system, they both must meet minimum requirements. Dusty
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Pickups Pickups - Archived Discussions Midsize Pickup Comparo
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Honda Ridgeline
2010 Nissan Frontier
2011 Toyota Tacoma
2010 Chevrolet Colorado
2010 GMC Canyon
2010 Dodge Dakota
2010 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
