[geeks] car question (RESOLVED)

[doctor obnox son of a bitch]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 10:33:10AM -0500, Joshua D Boyd had the audacity to opine:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 10:16:10AM -0500, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
> 
> > > Consider yourself lucky.  I once paid $350 for REAR-ONLY  drums and pads
> > > on a Volkswagen Rabbit.  That was over 10 years ago, before I knew how
> > > to do it myself...
> > 
> > Although to be fair, drums and shoes do cost more than pads and rotors.
> > Much more complicated metal bits in them (not just a flat sheet of metal =) )
> 
> Under what circumstances are drums better than rotors?  Performance cars use
> rotors all way round. Most braking is done with the front wheels, which are
> always rotors.  So why do car manufactures still use drums?  To subsidize
> people for being able to charge us more?
> 

Drums have several advantages. They're "self engergizing", which means
that as you apply pressure to the wheel cylinder, the rotation of the
drums tends to pull the shoes into even tighter contact with the drum,
and they're self-adjusting (in theory). Rear-drum brake systems require
less-complicated master cylinders than all-disc systems. The parking
brake mechanism is also much simpler in drum brakes. Rear disc calipers
with parking brake systems added on are complicated and less reliable.

> I keep considering converting my '87 jetta to all wheel rotors (rip the rear
> ones from a performance audi I guess), just to keep from having to touch
> drums because I hate working on them so much.

 Make sure you take the master cylinder, too!

Drums aren't really all that bad to work on, once you've bought the
special tools, and done a few thousand of them.



> 
> -- 
> Joshua D. Boyd
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks

-- 

                            "Safety Third!"

Eric J. Gustafson                                   drobnox at visi.com