mopar_earl Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 I noticed my front shoes were full lenght lining on the shoes. My rear shoes have 2 short linings on 2 shoes and full lining on the other 2. It's like modern shoes with primary and secondary linings. From my understanding the front and rear shoes are the same and all full lenght linings. Correct? No idea where these short lining shoes came from. Also they were installed backwards as far as primary and secondary. They are new with no wear. Anyone else come across this? I may pull them and put the front shoes on the rear as I installed disc brakes. 1952 Dodge Coronet Club Coupe D42 11" brakes Thanks, Earl Quote
Plymouthy Adams Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Earl I do not have a Dodge manual for those years but the Plymouth shows exactly what you are describing as correct...and it is backed up in my Motors Manual for the Dodge as correct...as stated, any brake set having a long and short lining, the long lining must face the front of the car Edited October 13, 2015 by Plymouthy Adams Quote
mopar_earl Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 So your saying the car should have primary and secondary shoes? I haven't research it much but I know when u buy new shoes they show pics of full lenght lining on all shoes and that they fit front and rear. If it suppose to have primary/secondary linings I will leave it. I did reinstall them correctly. Earl Quote
Plymouthy Adams Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) on the rear assembly yes...Lockheed brakes have the shorter lining to the rear....PER THE BOOK...that is my only source and the Motors manual here...Lockheed show the shorter to the rear and states the longer shoes always goes to the front...same with Wagoner.. Bendix is confusing but does show short shoe rearward on one and front on the other.... electric trailer brakes show short shoe to the front. What does your repair manual show. I have earlier Dodge book that mimics the pictures of the Plymouth of the same era you working. Look close at the picture of the rear brakes, there is a note and arrow point that states that this is the top of the rear shoe..look closer..the rear shoe in both instances is the shorter shoe. If both shoes are equal in length to the rear set...it is my understanding on reading that a long camfer is cut on the rear shoe source is both 1946-54 Plymouth and Dodge D24 manual and the Motor Manual brake section, Lockheed going to throw out my DISCLAIMER here...PER THE BOOK...lol Edited October 13, 2015 by Plymouthy Adams Quote
Plymouthy Adams Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 when looking at pictures in the rear that have rear drum e-brake..the orientation of the cable tell the entire story of shoe location.. Quote
mopar_earl Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 Ok cool. Thanks! My manual is 5 hours away and my buddy has the car and manual. He was the one that actually installed the brakes. They are probably backwards if that's the case as I'm sure he installed them as normal with the short shoe forward. When we took it apart we both said they were on wrong. Lol I'm going out the last weekend of the month and I will look at the manual than. Odd that the aftermarket shoes are being used as both front and rear. Guess to save money. Earl Quote
Robert Horne Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 On my 38 Coupe, all the shoe linings are full length. My wheel cylinders have different size cups, a larger cup facing forward, and smaller cup to the rear. My front wheel cylinders have larger cups, (1 3/8 x 1 1/4), than the rear wheel cylinders, (1 1/4 x 1 1/8), I believe. Compared to more modern, full lining/short lining, equal wheel cylinders cups, my guess. it is all about lining wear at a more equal rate. Quote
Plymouthy Adams Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) more I look at Bendix stuff the confusion increases..seems they have cases of both application's...looking at serveral other books it seems the Bendix has the short shoe to the front...which probably has caused all the confusion over on other model cars using other set ups the GM's used Bendix and would probably seem more apparent in operation to most mechanics as they are forever in need of repairs......it is what it is.. Edited October 13, 2015 by Plymouthy Adams Quote
mopar_earl Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 Typically you install the short shoe forward unless the manual says otherwise. Majority of modern drum brakes have the primary (short lining) forward. At least from my experience. I also do what the manual says unless I don't have one. Than I put the primary forward and if it was different than that, I Google it. Earl Quote
mopar_earl Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 On my 38 Coupe, all the shoe linings are full length. My wheel cylinders have different size cups, a larger cup facing forward, and smaller cup to the rear. My front wheel cylinders have larger cups, (1 3/8 x 1 1/4), than the rear wheel cylinders, (1 1/4 x 1 1/8), I believe. Compared to more modern, full lining/short lining, equal wheel cylinders cups, my guess. it is all about lining wear at a more equal rate. Yes I've seen wheel cylinders like that. Earl Quote
mopar_earl Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) The differences maybe if the brakes are duo servo or not. Our cars are not duo servo. Duo servo are mondern where the shoes are linked together. Our Lockheed brakes aren't linked together as they are locked to the backing plate with the anchor bolts. So this is probably why they use the shorted lining to the rear. I am looking forward to see what my manual shows. Earl Edited October 13, 2015 by mopar_earl Quote
Plymouthy Adams Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 I SHOULD NEVER HAVE COMPARED to the other systems...it is LOCKHEED and their design of locking the shoe to the adjusters that dictate to operation of the brakes as they make contact and why the shoe position is what is it..These shoes do not float... 1 Quote
mopar_earl Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 It's all good man. My buddy and I both said they were wrong when they weren't. We just never worked on this type of brakes and just assumed they'd have the short lining forward like your everyday modern duo servo brakes. Lol but we didn't know that nonduo servo brakes aren't anything like duo servo. I will confirm what what manual says when I get out there. Earl Quote
Plymouthy Adams Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 In looking at many styles of brakes common to the era...Lookheed stood pretty much alone with the set up they used..and the couple variants of that system. Quote
mopar_earl Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 I'm not a fan of the Lockheed brakes on these mopars. Fortunately I did score an Ammco 1750 brake tool. I also put disc and dual circuit master on. I'd really hate to have Lockheed on all four! Lol Eventually I may swap in a modern rear axle with modern self adjusting brakes. Just need to see how much, how far and how I drive it. My major concern is the 3.90 ratio for the highway. To get anywhere in my area, you need to jump on highways that are 65/70. Earl Quote
mopar_earl Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 In looking at many styles of brakes common to the era...Lookheed stood pretty much alone with the set up they used..and the couple variants of that system. From what I read, Chrysler corp claimed to have the best brakes with the shortest stopping distance of the time and with low effort pedal. Earl Quote
Plymouthy Adams Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 that was a common position with the old timers but with the added note...such a pain to set up... Quote
desoto1939 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Everyone complains about the Lockheed brakes. Yes without the proper tools, either the Miller MT19 or the Ammco brake gage they can be a pain to get them set properly. But we allhave to remember that when these cars from Chrysler hit the road to the general public as compared to the Fords and other cars of that era that had mechanical brakes these Lockheed brakes were the best available. And the dealers and the local garages were equipped to keep these brakes at the best performance levels. In some states we had every 6 month car inspections and they had the brakes adjusted on a regular basis. The average speed was 35-50 at that time and most people did the speed limit. We have forgotten that life was slower then as compared to what we are in now. Now we have cars will 4 wheel independent suspension, rack and pinion steering, power assist disc brakes that with very little pressure permit us to stop on a dime at the last second. So since we are now driving our modern cars everyday we want these 50+ year old cars to act, drive and brake like a modern car. This is the issue, not the cars. They are driving and braking like they were ment to. We are the custodian of these cars need to reorient ate our selves everytime we get behind the steering wheel. You need to remind yourself that your are driving a car that will pull because of bia ply tires. the lights are not as bright as our current High Def lights. The tail lights are smaller and the braking distance is greater because of horseshoe old technology brake shoes. We need to anticipate and be aware of the cars and situations around us when driving. If you want to go 70 mph in car then just go modern but you are in a car or truck that was designed to crusie around 50mph comfortably all day long. Yes you can put modern brakes and a modern rear end on the cars to help but you are still driving an old car. I personally like the feeling and experience of these old cars and to slow down the fast pace of life. I do travel on roads that have 60+ speed limits but alwasys stay to the right lane so people can pass. I let them go by me and then eventually meet them down the road about 5 minutes later and I am having fun. Just my 2 cents. Rich HArtung desoto1939@aol.com 5 Quote
Plymouthy Adams Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 not only has the car survived..but so did the drawbacks in the design...as you state...when all shops were on equal ground with tools common to the era...yeah..not a problem...no one has ever said they were bad brakes..only that they need to be done RIGHT 1 Quote
mopar_earl Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 I dislike they aren't self adjusting Earl Quote
desoto1939 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 I dislike they aren't self adjusting Earl True, but self adjusters did not come in to being used until if I remember around the 50-60's hartung Quote
Dodgeb4ya Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 I used to drive a 1951 and 53 plymouth every day for 20 years. The brakes were great on these cars too. I only needed to adjust the brakes twice a year! That's a pretty simple low maintenance thing to do. Also it was a good thing as it caused me to get under the car and look out for any other possible issues needing to be addressed. Quote
TodFitch Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 . . . Also it was a good thing as it caused me to get under the car and look out for any other possible issues needing to be addressed. That could also be a reason for keeping any other "feature" of the older style engineering: When you are under the hood looking at something for the relatively short scheduled maintenance you can also look for issues with leaks or bad belts or hoses, etc. I found when I bought my first "modern vehicle" in the 1990s (one with fuel injection, electronic ignition, etc.) that I did not have the hood open often enough to notice when something was going wrong. 1 Quote
_shel_ny Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Wife's new car. Had hood open twice in 10 months. Once to pull the oil filter and mark it before the "free" oil change included in the purchase, and again to check to see if the filter had been changed. 1 Quote
jcmiller Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 The manual for 1936-42 Plymouths shows the longer lining on the front shoe. brakeSpecs.pdf Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.