Re: [Amc-list] Cheap brake conversion

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

Peter Marano wrote:
> Availability is certainly a good feature, and as entertaining as I find 
> developing these conversions is, I wonder how practical or necessary it 
> is.  Don't misunderstand me, I designed a rear disc brake conversion for 
> my 1968 AMX in 1974, and I converted to the 1971 vented brakes before that.
> But honestly I don't think that I at least will be needing to replace 
> brake parts on any of my hobby cars. I remember the 1974 Ambassador 
> brakes lasting about 40,000 miles and the rotors didn't need to be 
> turned, but if I did a brake job now I would turn the rotors.  Don't you 
> think that the rotors could be turned twice?  That means the rotors 
> would last 120,000 miles.

It is as you say. But I drive my cars daily, in SoCal you can do that, 
and I rack up 10K miles/year/car. I've had the Classic 20 years, the 
Hornet 4? 5?, the American one, so far, and the 72 Hornet Josh drives 
daily, 4 years. So all get brakes replaced like normal street cars.

The 70 Hornet came with 9" drums -- totally inadequate.

The bottom line is, when presented with a car with shot brakes, it costs 
no more, and often less! to upgrade to more modern brakes than it does 
to repair what's the factory put there.

My 63 Classic's 79 Bendix rotors were bought new, then turned once. I'll 
get another cut on them, maybe even two. The 72 Hornet (K-H) *just* got 
new rotors, so those will last for a decade, short of a dragging 
shoe/stuck slave cyl etc which can happen.

I think rear discs are a luxury for street driving. Sure I'd like them, 
but it's money that keeps priority low for that.


> Hey I just talked myself into keeping the drum brakes on the 1971 Javelin!

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! :-)
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list