1965 Barracuda Disk Brake Kit? Or Keep the Drums?

[Motard Matt]

Hey y'all. I got a 65 Barracuda about a month ago. It still has the old drum brakes and they have started to break down and its got some leakage. Im pretty sure I'm gonna have to replace the master cylinder, shoes, and the wheel cylinders. Being that its probably gonna be expensive to get the after market parts for the drums for this fix anyways, would it be reasonable to just go ahead and spend that money for a good disk kit conversion. It's 10'' x 1 3/4''. Maybe SSBC?

 

[hellfirechrome]

GO DISC. When you need to stop, you won't give a hoot about the $ you saved keeping drums. I am about to do a stock SBP disc setup on my '66 Valiant; too many freeway "close calls" told me to DO IT.

 

[nerd racing]

I'm in the process of a BBP swap with front disc brakes. I pieced it together to lower the sticker shock. If you can get used spindles and control arms and caliper brackets the cost is significantly lower.

 

[R3dplanet]

I used the Scarebird front disc setup on my '65 Barracuda, which is fantastic and inexpensive. Especially when coupled with a vacuum or hydroboost brake booster.

On the rears I first went with 10" drums which worked great - far better than the ridiculous tiny 9" original drums. But eventually I migrated to a rear disc brake kit from SSBC.

Do yourself a favor and get rid of the crappy original "jelly jar" master brake cylinder and replace it with a much safer dual reservoir unit from a '73 Dart.

I've always been astonished how crappy the original drum brakes were. Horrible in every way if you're interested in stopping. And even reviews I've read from way back when say the same thing. I think that's especially sad when Chrysler had disc brakes as an option and larger drums they could have used. It was just cost-cutting in the wrong place.

When I first bought my 'Cuda, this was the first upgrade I did. I've never looked back.

-m.

 

[Motard Matt]

Thanks y'all. Yeah, R3dPlanet, I was having a difficult time trying to justify spending good money just fixing the ole 'dumb-drums' knowing it'll work but won't really be par for the course. I am definitely just gonna save up and hook it up with a safer disc kit. Thanks for the advice on the parts! A dual-res would be excellent! The "Jelly-Jar" has gotta go!

 

[R3dplanet]

Matt, rock it. It's time and money well spent.

You know what keeps me awake at night? The utter lack of safety on all of my classic car projects. No air bags, no side impact beams, no shoulder belts, no headrests, no ABS, no collapsible steering wheel, etc. The front seats don't even lock into position. I think the only less safe vehicle would be a motorcycle sidecar attached with rusty bolts to a motorcycle that formerly belonged to a circus.

I prefer to think of it this way: the only safety equipment on the car other than the lap belts (and arguably the solid steering shaft that will hopefully ensure a quick death as it torpedoes through my chest cavity in the event of a collision) are the brakes. So if that's the only safety equipment aboard, then that's where the money goes before anything else. I had no problem investing on my brakes when thoughts like this kept me from sleeping.

I'm not lecturing you. I'm congratulating you on taking this seriously.

-marcus

 

[BillGrissom]

Scarebird is much cheaper, easier, and parts will be easy in the future (GM & Toyota). I don't agree that drum brakes are unsafe. They will stop your car once from 70 mph fine w/ no fading. Best one can brake is just before the tires skid and who claims drum brakes can't skid the front tires? Poorly maintained drum brakes can be worse for unbalanced braking than disks. Disks brakes are much better for continual braking (downhill, if that stupid) or repeated braking from high speed (road racing or risking your life driving hard on mountain highways).

I agree that factory seats are unsafe w/ no head restraint or shoulder belts. That is why I put Sebring seats w/ integral belts in my 65 Dart. The factory seats do look nice, but new seat covers for them cost much more.

I understand that air bags were intended to protect un-belted drivers, as were collapsible steering columns. But all that is for idiots that run into things. I have never come close, and never tail-gate. Side impact is a concern for a 2 door hardtop (most here). I have seen such a Dart with the driver's door caved in. A 4 door or 2 door post is much safer.

 

[SSVDP]

"I understand that air bags were intended to protect un-belted drivers, as were collapsible steering columns."

This is not true, air bags are designed to work WITH seat & shoulder belts.

 

[72bluNblu]

I don't agree that drum brakes are unsafe. They will stop your car once from 70 mph fine w/ no fading. Best one can brake is just before the tires skid and who claims drum brakes can't skid the front tires? Poorly maintained drum brakes can be worse for unbalanced braking than disks. Disks brakes are much better for continual braking (downhill, if that stupid) or repeated braking from high speed (road racing or risking your life driving hard on mountain highways).

There are a few major points here that are flawed with this argument for drum brakes.

First off, just about any braking system can cause a pizza-cutter-thin, bias-ply, hockey-puck hard tire to skid. The OE 9" drums were capable of that, and I think most of us can agree that those brakes are borderline dangerous. If you upgrade your tires significantly you will find that your stock drums will no longer lock up your brakes. There's no way the stock drums are going to skid a 275mm wide tire with a 300 treadwear compound. Not happening. And while that is the extreme case of the biggest tire you can fit up front, the reality is it probably won't take that much tire to overrun the stock drums.

And of course, the point isn't to lock up the brakes anyway. A single rapid application of the brakes that locks the front wheels is not the goal, and takes much less braking capability. To continuously brake at the verge of lockup will stop the car faster, retain control of your direction of travel, and create a tremendous amount more heat then just locking the front wheels. And the more you upgrade your tires, the more you will increase your braking needs/capabilities.

Plus, the drums have to be much more closely maintained than disks. If they're not adjusted perfectly, your braking performance will be even worse in comparison to disks. And given that many of the parts for the front drums on these cars are no longer being made, its just going to keep getting harder to have them properly maintained and functioning to their best.

And of course the reality check- when these cars hit the road everyone ran around with drum brakes, and the braking capabilities of the cars around you were similar. Ie, even if the car in front of you went into a full panic stop, your car had a stopping distance that was somewhat similar, meaning your reaction time was all you had to worry about. Now, with one of our classics out on the road, you can be assured that many of the cars out there can stop in a MUCH shorter distance with their large rotors, ABS, traction control, etc. Especially if you're rocking the original drums. Which means that not only do you have to account for your reaction time in your following distance, you have to account for the additional distance it will take you to stop. And if you drive in any kind of traffic, there's no way that your fellow motorists will allow you to leave that kind of space without cutting in.

Mopar Muscle did an article in their August '12 issue on converting a Dart Sport to rear disk brakes from drums, it already had front disks. The conversion shaved 11 feet off their stopping distance, with no other modifications. Since the rear brakes only do about 20-30% of the total braking, changing the fronts over should be an even bigger gain than that. Even 11 feet is a BIG difference, although it may not sound like much. That's almost a whole car length you won't be buried in someone's rear bumper.

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/suspension/mopp_1208_rear_disc_brakes_all_bound_up/

 

[BillGrissom]

Those of us old enough to recall, remember the federal mandate was either air bags or automated seat belts (1989+ cars). Many manufacturers chose the later for a few years, but buyers hated them and air bags got cheaper. Certainly an air bag helps a belted passenger, but the feds didn't consider it helped enough to mandate. Reg FMVSS 208 was modified for 1998+ cars to require dual air bags, but continues to require that bags be engineered and calibrated to be able to "save" the life of an unbelted 50th-percentile size and weight "male" crash test dummy. Seach "Air Bags" on wikipedia for more info.

I never suggested that one should skid the tires in trying to stop fast, just that the capability is there with both drums and disks. Hard to believe one couldn't lock up any tires if the pedal is pushed hard enough, particularly with a booster. You can't compare old stopping distances measured with thin bias tires with what our cars can do today with modern rubber. Front drum parts are very easy to find, the standard Bendix design used in most cars. Most bad experiences people have with drum brakes are due to faulty brakes.

Re the Mopar Muscle article, that is the first time I have heard any claim that rear disks give any significant improvement. My first thought is that in switching to disk brakes they also did a better proportioning between front & rears, which is more likely where the improvement came from.