i have a 47 dodge pickup that i need rear disc brakes on. i currently have a 8" ford rearend in it. drum brakes on the front. what years will interchange with the ford 8". thank for any help. i will try to get pics. not very computer savy.
Search comments about discs in the rear and you will see that quite a few of us think that they are a pain in the rear. I put them on the 8" under my '36 pickup and although I finally got them working OK, I wish I would have just used the stock drums.
Drums front...discs rear. Not logical at all. Besides, with discs on the rear you have to rethink a new parking brake system when in all likelyhood the drums were set up WITH a parking brake.
well as of right now i have nothing on the back! Bought it this way. it has the drum on the front. but i would like to put disc all the way around. i have been looking at some newer cars that have the 8" ford rearend that have disc brakes. i can get these with the complete emergency brake also. I currently do not drive this truck. way to scary! way to much power and it barely weighs 1000 pnds.
When you say "Newer" cars with the 8" how new are you refering. I am wondering if you are getting the 8" and the 8.8" rear ends confused. the 8.8 has a removeable cover on the diff, the 8" is like a smaller version of the 9" with removable third member. The are not the same animal.
Well with nothing but front brakes even a banger powered tank would be scary. I think that you will find if you throw drums on the back and then spenmd your hard earned cash for discs on the front if you must be trendy you will be fine. You will also find that if you run drums all around and make sure that they are working properly you will be fine as well. It probably weighs more than 1000 lbs by the way you will have 1000 in drivetrain alone.
How can you have a '47 Dodge Pickup that weighs "barely a 1000 pounds"?? To meet that it would have to have no fenders, no bed, no seat, etc. ??? Heck, the stock frame probably weighs 300 pounds, plus axles springs, wheels, tires, engine, trans, driveshaft, radiator coolant......you get the idea..........perhaps you meant 2000 pounds.......as the original configration would have exceed 3000 pounds. In any case, brakes on most any street vehicle need to be more powerful on the front for a couple of reasons. First of all, more than half the weight is usually on the front axle in static load.....then, when stopping, weight transfer places even more toward the front....and lastly, the vehicle is more directionally stable with the greater braking action on the front......if the rears lock up.....the rear of the vehicle will almost always skid sideways......not a good thing. Sounds like you need a bit more thoughtful, and informed, planning before going after any one part of the system. Ray
here's a good example of how little work the rear brakes do my buddy has 240,000 miles on his mini van, replaced the front discs many times and still has the original rear drum brakesl
Maybe this can get you started? http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358587 http://www.summitracing.com/parts/rsd-zdcrd02/overview/ http://www.summitracing.com/parts/rsd-zdcrd01/overview/ http://www.summitracing.com/parts/rsd-zdcds03/overview/
Nothing wrong with drums in back. you need a master cylinder to match. first see if you can get disk up front,then find out what ranger 8" you have. this may help find what you need. Representative for comparison purposes only Ford Outside Width Year Model 56.50 1969-1977 Maverick 8" 57.00 1974-1978 Mustang II 8" 57.25 1965-1966 Mustang 58.00 1964-1965 Falcon 58.00 1977-1981 Granada/Versailles 59.25 1967-1970 Mustang, Fairlane, Comet, Cougar 60.00 1967 Cougar
The Jalopy Journal
