55 Fargo

Well you ain't me....LOL I do whats best at the time, not saying it's best every time....LOL All I am saying is you do not need a disc brake conversion for decent brakes, not saying its better or because I think 1 way so should you...

Okay so here we go, yesterday a friend dropped off his 1983 S 10 NWC T5 trans, now I am going to help him put this in his truck, as he is very determined to do so. But it needs a going over, and the shifter plate bolts 3 out of 4 were broken, so he wants me to fix this.....LOL So I try heat, no way, then I weld on nuts, no way, not enough to get a good weld into, but man was the nut and bolt shaft red hot. I then ground 2 down flat, and made my center punch ,ark, my smaller bits were dull yuk, but got reasonable starter holes, and got them drilled out, and threads cleaned up, the final hole the bolt is broken well inside, so drill it out, but not as well, had to tap up to 9M, no big deal I suppose. Now this isa 4.03 1st gear trans, and .86 5th, and his rear gears are 3.55 we think. The shifter has no stops, the trans is super light duty rated to 275 ft lbs of torque, sorry guys so far not sure what I think of these trannys, but will say a Chrysler A833 is far more robust. This trans is missing the outer speedo gear assembly and hold down bracket, he doesn 't know where it is, and does not know where to find one...again ...LOL The pics, I will help him with his, not sure yet if the clutch housing is being pulled or whether we will do it in truck, but that means the flywheel doesn't come out either. So far he has had a bargain as I charged 30 bucks to do the broken bolt job...

46 - 48 Chrysler had an optional Power brake booster under floor. The imperials and T&Cs you could have this option. I have pics at home, at work right now, but yes it was available. I enjoyed your memoirs, and once again drum brakes can and do work well. I say this, and am not saying they are better than disc brake, only that disc brake conversions are not the be all end all....

No not my motivation for the foundation of this thread, but if you think it is, okay by me. Interesting on the HAMB, many many HAMBERs like and prefer drum brakes, for a myriad of reasons open fender hot rods, lighter builds etc, Ford trucks of the 50s, and whole lot more. But a real support for drum brakes over there. Now another old car friend of mine locally had this to say today. He has a 32 Chrysler with a 54 251 engine, T5 tans and 3.90 gears, all the rest stock except its a 12 volt up grade. He has driven the car coast to coast in Canada and the USA, this summer he is off to Indiana for a meet, about a 1000 miles from here. He says his brakes have been great and saf, they are very effective, and he is not driving 45 mph, I have been in this car and cruises at 70 mph with ease. He once hauled a 16 foot camper trailer back from the west coast over the rockies home to Manitoba, about 1500 miles no problems. 1 of his a other builds though, a 30 something Graham, it has a 251 Mopar engine, T5 trans, but front disc, rear self energizing drums and a dual MC with power booster, so he is not against upgrades. I hope all will share there experiences and thoughts, and Knuckle, I have no issues with whichever brakes systems people may favor over another, what I do isn't the "best" cuz I say so, so the same gos for what others say is the "best", isn't always the fact...

So far only 2 have showed up in praise and preference of a disc brake conversion. I would like to here from those who run drum brakes and feel they work well and are safe.

Why not, if the parts are free or cheap, I do not see a need for disc brakes sorry..

Then something is wrong with your brake setup and/or adjustments, they should work great. Did you arc the shoes to the drums after your drums were freshly machined? If not these shoes might have to wear in a bit and be adjusted as per. I find it odd that so many cannot get these brakes to work well, they are not as easy to set-up as Bendix type drum brakes, but they should work just as well. You can't get em to work, then you outta buy a disc brake kit, but you should be able to drive this car with stock brakes without a worry for the most part. How many more have not been able to set up these brakes?

Are the 40 Plymouth front brakes dual wheel cyls? Cuz on my 47 Chrysler, the brakes were as good as my then 05 Caravan with front disc brakes. Well at least it you were okay, and you never can tell when some cell phone carrying idiot is going to cut you off and hit the brakes.

I can get brake shoes and drum as well as wheel cyls for my rear modern brakes anywhere, the fronts not so easy, not worried about shoes and drums on the road, a wheel cyl could blow out though. Disc brake parts are not any easier too source than any other later model drum brakes...

Your stock brakes, were not up to parr? So you went to a disc conversion, now your brakes are great? In that accident, most likely you would have hit him with your disc too, if it was super close and very fast, otherwise we wouldn't have any accidents with our modern vehicles I suppose. Glad it is working better for you

Hey all, like to start an thread on braking systems, whether you are stock, or more modern drum, or conversions to disc. I often think these Lockheed drum brake systems get a bad rap, and lot of people have no idea how to set them up or deal with them. I am like a lot of other Guys on the HAMB, who like drum brakes, think they wrok great, have there positive and negative aspects, but do not resign to the fact that only disc brake conversions provide a safe and good stopping vehicle. Beginning with a car I used to own, a 47 Chrysler Coupe, had all stock brakes, in fact the fronts were 10 inch, as the backing plates and brake drums etc, came of a 51 Dodge, the back were 11 inch stock drum, single wheel cyls, on the back and the duals up front. At first when I rebuilt the entire brake systems, everything new or rebuilt, drums machined, and the drums needed very little to clean them up, they were well within specs. The brakes once all was together, I adjusted the brakes as per the manual, and proceeded to bleed the brakes, using DOT 5 silicone, once the brakes were all bled, I focused my attention to the brake adjustments and kept an eye out for any leaking parts. For the first 500 miles the brakes were so-so, they needed to wear in and seat, after about 2000 miles and further minor adjustments they were great,. I could put a front seat passenger into the windshield no problems, they stopped the car and worked very well, pedal nice and high and firm. Now onto my 55 Fargo, stock front brakes, singles wheel cyl Lockheed style brakes, and 10 inch rear bendix self energizing modern drum brakes. All new brake lines, hoses components and machined front drums and new rear drums. I opted to use DOT 3 brake fluid this time. Once everything was installed, brakes bled, and the fronts adjusted, they were okay brakes, not super great in the front, again until they had a chance to wqear in and seat, they were not arced for the drums. My front brake shoes were relined locally with a Kevlar based ling a d good quality product. Lockheed front brakes are good, the dual wheel cyls types are better than the singles cyl type in my opinion, for the obvious reasons. The truck locks the brakes up, the truck stays nice and straight on course. Now the disc crowd will no doubt mention the superiority of the modern disc, and the fact they have much less issue with "brake fade", but comparing a well adjusted and peak performing drums brake, might not be no worse than a disc,conversion, I am not talking about super hi-perf disc brakes with 4 piston calipers. I am not bringing into the thread a discussion on single pot MCs versus dual MCs, that is another discussion, dual and separate MCs certainly have their merit, in the old days, some would run dual jelly jar MCs and a linkage to make it all work. So there we have it , I am not the type to think I have to convert to disc, to get decent brakes, nor just because 2 people said it's the only way to go, but again I march to the beat of my own drum. I am very tempted to go my own route and convert my front brakes to more modern bendix type brakes, rather then do the cookie cutter disc brake conversion. Gentlemen Start Your Engines...

I do not see why a hopped up 230 woild not respond to 3 carb intakes, again an engine design with 3 siamese intake ports. Thus 3 balanced intake runners feeding the 3 ports for a better balanced atomized fuel mixture. The later 230s some were nearing a 140 hp stock, so not slouches. As Per Tim Kingsbury's Blog, For Decades I have listened to people talk about Flathead Mopar 6 Cylinder Engines in terms of intakes, what is the best carb configuration for their particular situation. Discussions on putting two carbs and those who claim to be sure that is too much carburation or that it will use to much fuel. Then every once in a while the discussion of 3 carbs comes up, and that almost always sparks the debate on how it would take a race motor to need it, or how the engine will bog, or run poorly. In the last 20 years with a good friend of the AoK boys coming across a huge stash of 2 barrel carter weber carbs which were designed for slant six engines, the discussion on utilizing a 2 barrel instead of two singles comes up. I just smile, but then I know that when the stash of 2 barrel carter webers were found, its finder handed once opened up a flathead mopar. Its amazing how a market can be created and how quickly – “this is the way to go” spreads like rapid fire, without as much as any background check into something. But 1st, let me go back to the 1st time I heard the discussion on multiple carbs vs a single multi-barrel carb, or but another way comparing that “old technology carter ball and ball vs a modern 4 barrel carb”.. It was about 45 Years ago that was the 1st time I heard someone in a conversation with my Grandfather and my Dad, suggesting they knew a lot about Flathead Mopars and were sporting a 4 barrel carb on a homemade intake. This gentleman had played with flathead ford v8s and had came across a Dodge 2 door sedan from the mid-50s. He was suggesting he had built the ultimate flathead Chrysler Engine and were one of those guys that whatever they had at the moment was just the best. Well after my Dad explain he had far from the ultimate flathead Chrysler, but his wife’s daily driver was good enough to kick his ass, Dad pulled out my Mom's pickup. It was sporting a bored out 265, with a cam, a factory dual intake and exhaust with a pair of carter ball and balls, an a833 4 speed tranny. After a little bit of fun that really wasn't much of a contest, licking his wounds sort of speak, Mr "Ultimate Flathead Chrysler" started down the road of excuses when Grandfather shook his head and cut him off at the pass. Grandfather like my Dad were automotive Engineers, and Grandfather literally knew more about Chrysler Flatheads than any person alive. Given he saw the very 1st flathead roll of the line in Windsor in 1935 and saw the last block cast in 1959 he had some pretty good credentials to give a lecture. What is explained in a few minutes was not only how the flathead engine worked, but why the engine this gentleman had came with only1 carb. Most think that 1 carb was put on the engine and that it has sufficient carburation for the engine, and if it needed more ChryslerEngineers would have put more on. On a basic level that is true, but what engineering was building was an engine to a specific HP, torque and fuel consumption target and not to get the most out of the engine, make it as efficient as possible or even have it run to anything close to 100% optimum performance. By Optimum performance I am not talking maximum hp or maximum rpm. Grandfather then explained that in fact Chrysler faced with the need to meet a 5 ton truck specification for dump/plow trucks asked for by Canadian municipalities during the winter of 1950, had filtered to engineering in late 1950. They developed the 265 ci motor which was 3 7/16" bore and 4 3/4" stroke and have dual carbs and dual exhaust on them which is what was in Mom’s pickup. Few realize that that engine actually had more hp than any other engine on the market. I will attach the picture of the poster that was on Grandfathers office at the time. I gave it to George years ago. In any case you can see the hot v8 mopar had in 1952 was 133 hp and the flathead 6 had more hp. That engine and the fact it had a factory intake, immediately became a stock car favorite in the 1952 season, when Mopar dominated stock car racing everywhere it landed. In any case Chrysler didn't just put on a second carb on it because they needed more carburation. By then Chrysler already had Carter building Ball and Ball carbs from 85cfm - 425 cfm each and we now know they had a 625 cfm carter ball and ball single barrel carb if they needed it. The reason for two was the basic issue, some would call flaw, but Grandfather would call basic restriction to taking the engine to the next level. I say that folding back to the earlier point that Chrysler was building engine to a spec of "x" hp, "y" torque and "z" fuel consumption. The flathead 6 build by Chrysler has 3 Siamese intake ports, each of which feed two cylinders. Setting aside the exhaust for a second, and keeping in mind that an engine is really just a giant vacuum pump, putting 1 carb in the middle of the block, basically over the middle intake port feeding cylinders 3 and4, means that if all cylinders are the same in compression ratio and ability to create vacuum and suck in a fuel mixture coming from the carb, that cylinder 3 and 4 are going to get more fuel than the intake ports feeding cylinders 1 and 2 or 5 and 6. Yes Chrysler made intake modifications to help that, but they again were not trying to make the perfect engine, just have it meet specs required. Now if we add the exhaust component which depending on what year engine and what vehicle, has the single exhaust exiting at one of a few different locations. For this discussion lets say it exits at the back as does the post ww2 cars. What you find is as the cylinders push out exhaust there is almost no restriction or back pressure at cylinders 5 and 6, where there is a great deal of back pressure atcylinders 1 and 2. So here we have the most back pressure making it tough to push away the exhaust and actually the front intake port receiving the least amount of fuel. While the engine meets specs with no problem, its clear that if you can balance the exhaust, by having 3 exhaust cylinders exit through 1 exhaust pipe and the other three the same, you can better balance back pressure. We sort of glossed over the face that while there are only 3 intake ports, each cylinder does have its own exhaust port. Something that changed with the introduction of the slant 6, which had 6 equal intake runners each feeding a cylinder. Back to the flathead, if we can better distribute fuel to balance the opportunity for each of the 3 Siamese ports to get fuel, the better theengine will run. So if you were to take a big block 25 1/2" engine, and anyone of them, not just the 265 and put the factory dual carb and dual exhaustsetup on it and then put on the appropriate carter ball and ball carb on it, it will gain hp, torque and improved fuel mileage. The reason is it runs more efficient. If you take it one step further putting 1 carb on top of each intake port, you can provide the optimum amount of fuel efficiency for theengine. Back to our 4 barrel friend, putting on a large carb just provides a further opportunity to over fuel the center siamese intake port. When he hammered the throttle it was actually not able to burn all of the fuel in the middle two cylinders and was “bogging” until it could gain enough RPM to use some of the fuel. When he was running against Mom’s pickup, it had more balanced back pressure, and a better distribution of fuel. Years later when we created the AoK triple intake, we placed the 1st on an almost rock stock 201 ci motor. It had been rebuilt stock, although required to be bored out 10 thou to clean up cylinders. With 3 of the smallest CFM carter ball and ball carbs on board, and headers made from a stock exhaust systems, the car ran smoother, had better acceleration and got 6 miles per gallon better highway mileage over the single carb and single exhaust. In the end, it is just a myth that you need some bored out and cammed up engine for 2 carbs and a full race motor for 3 carbs. The reason why Chrysler didn't run 3 carbs was simple. 1) The cost of 3 carbs was no inconsequential and 2) They could meet the HP, Torque and Fuel useage targets with 1 carb. The exception was when there was a time window where the dual carb, dual exhaust 265 ci motor was released, but with overhead valve v8 and Hemi's coming shortly after the multiple carb flathead life-cycle was short lived. There is a bit more it than that. I have glossed over a bunch of the engineering parts of why you don't just put a carb directly to each intake port, but I am sure you get the drift. Unlike a v8 where you might try and make carbs progressive because your feeding a intake plenum feeding a v8, either 2 or 3 carbs on the flathead 6 you want them to produce the exact same fuel. Its not progressive in terms of additional barrels or carbs, its progressive by pushing on the gas peddle. The key is making sure both or all three carbs are identical and then you want to have linkage that operates all of them the same. Its a common misconception that they must be hard to keep synced. We have engines with tens of thousands of miles on them with multiple carbs and are never adjusted. George Asche's 1929 Desoto that he has owned since 1950 likely has an unbelievable amount of miles on it and likely carbs only touched when George has done the engine over. I vehicles with 100,000 + miles on them and the linkage for the dual carbs have never touched. That has a lot to do with just how good Carter Ball and Ball carbs are.. We also get asked quite often about modifying the block to provide 6 intake ports, or using webers or other carbs, or running fuel injection. Dad and Grandfather with too much time on their hands as my mother would say, did modify a couple of engines to provide 6 intake ports. There were several intakes made including one with an 18" runner set on it, one with 6 side draft webers and one with modified hilborn fuel injection. At the end of the day, with various levels of success, nothing seems to outperform an Edmunds triple carb intake with riser blocks and 3 matched 1952-56 Truck carbs with some jetting changes. Of course, since then we have developed a couple of new cam profiles and of course or AoK triple which utilizes better and modern casting technology, as well as better flow bench testing and computer modelling. Have we thought about digging out the 6 intake port block that is still in Dad's shop, well yah we have, but that is another project and a blog entry for another time.

Hmm interesting query, is there some story behind this question?

My steering is very good, zerks are not plugged, but somewhere in the inner cavity, there is dried or rusty grease no doubt. The truck handles and steers well, and I do drive rougher roads a lot so a damper might be nice, not sure though till I try it. I hope to change all shackles and bushings, pull spring packs and get everything nice and clean, and see what it does. The king pins I shall work until the 2 bottom zerks take grease. I am not the type to just try and grease em and go onto the next, I pull the zerks clean things out, use a torch and penetrant, and go at like that. In the end new components are the usual best answer, my tie rod ends, idler arm and shocks are all brand new. I have never had any uneven tire wear patterns to date...

Thanx Doug, have tried your method, but zerks all shoot grease fine, but will replace them and try again. The shackles need to be replaced, but would like em greased up in the mean time. The king pins turn and do not have play, so really want to get them taking grease....

55 56 there the same, a tailgate from the early 50s should work too. High side or lowside? Lemme know, I will get one if she has the dough...

Paul, I am going to do exactly what you did, but most likely will replace shackles and bushings while I am at it. I did a big assessment under the truck today, I still cannot get grease into the lower zerks on the kingpins, the pins are tight and spin well. I could not grease into a few of the leaf spring zerks either. I tried everything, heat removed zerks, penetrating oil inside of the zerk holes, only 1 opened up. I need to add a few springs to the drivers rear pack, as whats there are mismatched, I did not do that. I am considering a steering damper, my steering is pretty tight, but this would make it more solid I think..

Good luck on that 1. The last time I found 1 and was negotiating a deal for someone on this forum, they didn't follow through. I will find her 1 it's going to be $1000 cdn dollars...only joking, but seriously can find them, but it will not be cheap. If she is even remotely serious, have her contact me through you via PM BTW Hawaii, Colorado, she related to Dog the Bounty Hunter by chance...

Okay out for another drive last night about 40 miles worth, all went flawless. Issues that still bug me, my throttle linkage hangs up a bit, have had it apart, and tried different springs, so need to find a permanent solution t this matter. Truck rides like a truck, ore like a big truck empty, the bounce you get, don't mind it, but want to do springs bushing and shackles this year. At 60-65 on a decent flat surface, all is great, not as much fun around town, with throttle hanging up a bit....LOL

Okay great, yes running a 228 or 237, why you ask, its a long block 4 1/4inch stroke, but bore is not known yet, so either a 3 3/8= 228 ci or 3 7/16= 237. I know Canadian motors... Actually peak torque is not the same on all of these engines, some are as low as 1200 rpm and others higher at 1650 rpm. Peak HP is developed a way after 1500 rpm, and is usually measured at 3600 RPM...

Really 1500 RPM on the highway @55-65 mph would be a good powerband range? Can you explain? I would think any resistance would cause , "bog" and poor fuel economy, but what do I know... If this low of RPM is good range, then I should look into an overdrive with my 3.23 diff gearing. Thanx

Just a thought on the topic of trans gearing, diff gearing, and optimal engine RPM. I think a lot of us are accustomed to modern vehicles with automatic overdrives, and super low RPMs at highway speeds. For example my Hemi Ram 6 spd, 1500 @60, and running on ECO 4, designed to run like this, and for best fuel economy. Now take a Chrysler flathead 6, it sure would not be the best RPM range @ 1500, do not care what speeds its running at. max torque is on the lower RPM scale, this varies from engine to engine, depending on bore and stroke. I am in the school of thought, where 2200 to 2500 is a optimal range for these engines. I think if you are running below 2200 any wind or grade might be a problem, over 2500 RPM fuel economy may of course start to drop. Now there are those who run their's @ 3000 all day long, but is it really that good, and is the fuel economy suffering, I am in not saying it's bad, but is it best. My engine seems to like 2200-2500, is quiet enough, and is not working too terribly hard. Now share your thoughts and experiences on this Gents? PS won't be long and we can kick around " Vapor Lock" as we do yearly.....LOL I really think I am wiring in an electric fuel pump this year...

George just got home and is on the mend, submit any or all of your questions to Tim Kingsbury at this time...

Hey all, mounted a back up lamp, and installed 2 fog/driving lamps up front. All 3 are vintage stock from used tractors/combines. They work great, the back up lamp is awesome, and the fog lamps really work well with low beam. My driveway is very long and dark, I could see to back up very easy now... I wired these on 1 circuit, 12 gauge wire, in line fuse, 25 amp spdt on-off-on toggle switch, works slick....