fed up with the 6.7 and bought a 12 valve

[J.BURCHFIELD]

My 98 12v I would not part with. You probably know you can covert to Disc breaks. I did and wish I had done it sooner. Makes a bigger difference than I thought it would. You no doubt have seen EGR's ad in TDR. Costly but worth it. What could be more important than good breaks. If it saves one fender bender it is worth the $1,200. I learned the hard way. I had an old Nissan I just used around town to keep miles off my Ram and a lady pulled out in front of me from a side street. I could not avoid because my breaks were inadequate. Old drum and shoe. It seemed like I did not slow down much. Too old for Airbag so the seat-belt cracked cartilage in my chest and i was miserable for 17 days. I feel sure if I had had Disc breaks on the rear I would have been able to stop in time. The auto industry has been MUCH too slow to use Disc on all 4. I joined the USAF in 1948 and was assigned to a Jet Fighter outfit and that is where I saw Disc breaks the first time. I ask the Crew Chief what the hell do you call that type of break. He explained the F-80 landed at 120 knots per hour and needed them. I don't remember when the auto industry began using Disc breaks but It sure took them much TOO long. That Nissan was a 1990 and only had them on the front. When you tow it is even more important. Hang on to your old 12v they are great. I had experience with Cummins Diesels a while back. I drove 18 wheelers from 1966 to 1982. Altho I liked Caterpillar the best the Cummins is one hell of an engine. The Detroit Diesel was not too good. A 2 stroke just does not have the pulling power you need in hill country. At least the 8 V 71 did not. I never drove the 8 V 92 but they don't make 2 strokes anymore. There was a V 12 Detroit I never got to drive but heard it was too thirsty. Like Caterpillar it could climb the hills at the speed limit but the Cat use 1/2 as much fuel to do it. In 1966 fuel was 20 cents per Gal. In 1976 it was 50 cents and in 1982 was up to 90 cents to a dollar. I guess we will never see it at 2 bucks. When I bought my 98 Ram it was less than a dollar. When it was over $4 I thought I was pretty stupid then realized it was the STUPID agenda of the EPA. the EPA, well never mind, I can't do anything about them even if I tried. I am outnumbered by stupid voters. In time when they get hurt maybe they will get smart. A few more lies and false promises could be enough. I know, I should have SHUT UP a 1/2 hour ago. Politically correct AIN'T fer me nohow noway. Have a nice day.

 

[DPKetchum]

Auto industry basically found that on what I call 'common'vehicles that the braking was not hindered by drum brakes and that they produce no drag where discs do. (digging for every little bit of fuel mileage)Lots of vehicles have been drum then disc and then back to drum on the rear. Most of the stopping is on the fronts.

 

[J.BURCHFIELD]

The Auto industry will look for any excuse they can to keep from spending money. When they are loosing sales or there is noticeable demand they will then upgrade. After driving my 98 Ram for 10 years and then having Disc breaks installed on the rear I saw a very big difference around town not towing and comparing my stopping distance to my wife's Subaru with Disc on all 4 it was so close to the same it was amazing, my Ram being twice as heavy. Then it made a big difference towing. As far as drag I notice no difference in fuel milage. They don't heat up so there is no drag, at least on mine. I can understand a malfunction that causes drag but that is not the norm. When you are standing on the breaks and the so and so won't slow down enough is a fine time to decide to convert to disc. On a light vehicle Disc on the rear may make little difference in how it feels. But then when you just got to stop and it won't quite do it, it makes all the difference. I won't leave home without it. That old saying "penny wise and pound foolish" seems appropriate here. Fender benders don't come cheap. Insurance companies know how to come out on top. They know you won't pay an attorney and loose even more. In case of a total you will wish you had the coverage that replaces your vehicle with new. Everything comes at a price and that is what forces us to gamble we won't need the extra coverage.

 

[DPKetchum]

You won't notice the differance in fuel mileage but when the manufacturers test they are grabbing for every drop. Disc brakes are zero clearance pad to rotor. Drum are not. For the most part I can't ever really remember telling a differance on Jap or Domestics from one year to the next with Disc or drum and ABS etc. A lot of the Nissan's went from drum to disc back to drum and so forth. Same with Gm and all the other manufactures. The rear does not do the majority of the stopping the FRONT do. I don't care as long as they stop. Some year Caddy Eldo's had very POOR braking and were 4 wheel disc. The Sedan Di Villes stopped great and were drum/disc. I knew of Eldos being bought back over poor braking.

 

[J.BURCHFIELD]

I know what works for me and I put it on here when it has been a sure thing. Just trying to be helpful in return for the helpful things I have found on here. You can believe or not believe, your choice. Whether or not I put something helpful on here or not is still my choice and by the response I get I can see I am not believed by some. For those of you that do believe me, not to worry I will continue to try to be helpful, as I see fit. Disc by design are far superior to Drum and always will be. Ask any engineer. Sure the front does more but you need all the help you can get on the back. The more you have on the back the easier it is for the front to handle the load. For those of you that convert to Disc you won't be disappointed. I have no interest in the brake industry. The more breaking power you have the less chance of a fender bender. The drivers here in Florida I have found to very considerate. They most always give me enough time to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting them.

 

[Coalsmoke]

When you are heavy like these new trucks coming up on 8,000lbs with driver and fuel the rear discs are a very considerable advantage. Now, on a 2500lb car, a rear drum setup can work just fine, so long as everything stays within tolerance, which as we know often takes a bit of extra effort with drums vs discs.

 

[J.BURCHFIELD]

You got it right Coalsmoke. Mt wife's 4,000 pound Subaru 4 wheel Disc stops better than my 2,500 pound Nissan did with Drum in the rear. I do keep after my vehicles but just maybe the Nissan rear Drums were not adjusted as well as they should have been. Good little car now in the Junk Yard because the breaks were sub-par. Gives me an excuse to drive my Ram more,

 

[Coalsmoke]

I was always chasing after the drum brakes on my 95 CTD. Too tight and they stopped like they should on the steep mountain service roads, but they would heat up on the highway because they were dragging a bit. When they were set up ok for the highway they stopped so so but didn't drag, but it seemed the the adjusters were always a couple clicks too loose for the steep service roads. There was no happy compromise. It was quite noticeable under panic stops and when the truck had 3,000lbs on it. Now the new truck with discs and ABS front and back it is a dream.

 

[DPKetchum]

I never have had any stopping issues with drum brakes on the rears. This is the first truck I've had with 4 wheel disc(2003). I never had a issue with my other two trucks stopping loaded,towing or what have you. I've owned big block Chevys that stopped well also with disc/drum and Z (240s and 280s)cars also with no complaints in braking performance. My 1998 1500 stops just fine and has 99k on the original brakes. I drove wreckers way back when that also were disc/drum and some of them would stop on a dime with big full size cars/trucks in tow when big cars were really full size. I've stood full size cars up on a sling stopping. Never gave it much thought or cared if disc were on the rear. Worse braking big car I ever drove was old full size Caddy's that the EGR 4 wheel conversion is used from. I saw that conversion advertised when I had my 93W250 and thought what a waste of money. I have asked engineers why some used 4 wheel disc,then rear drums etc. from model year to model year and the answer I got was the minuscule differance in braking and the fuel mileage quest was the reasons. Sounded plausible to me.

 

[DPKetchum]

Just watched the NEW 09 features video on YOU TUBE. Someone has a link to it on a post. One of NEW features is LESS brake drag. Says it helps fuel mileage.

 

[dpuckett]

On Dodge's poor braking performance, I have found the best solution is to bypass the anti-stop valve assembly, giving me dependable, predictable, consistent braking every time. Of course, I learned to drive in a 72 F350 and a 75 F150, neither of which had ABS or any of that other useless junk that tries to bridge the gap between performance and the average motoring public's lack of vehicle handling skills. I had a major pucker power moment at school in the 04 Dakota. Woman pulled out in front of me and went nowhere. I hit the brakes, got 1/2sec of braking, felt them let up. Pumped the pedal, same thing. Pumped it again and finally got some braking. Still never locked them up, but it was better than if I had held the pedal the first time. And sadly, the 04 ABS doesnt stop as well as my 92 with the RWAL still in the hydraulic system, with the electronics unhooked.

 

[DPKetchum]

When I bought my 1993W250 it had horrible brakes. Old springs,hardware,aftermarket pads/shoes,caliper boots cracked etc. Re man calipers,some factory pads/shoes,fresh wheel. cyls,hardware,springs etc. and brakes were more then adequate. Put 70k on that truck towing 8k or so and never a braking issue. Non towing stopped just fine and the RWAL worked correctly. Had a 90 model D350 360 gas. Bought new. Never a issue with brakes on it and towed 90% of the time it was on the road. Sold it with 75k on it and brakes still were in good working order.

 

[rkressg]

My old '99 had horrible brakes. I actually lemon lawed that truck because of the brakes. My '01. 5 has the hydraulic brake booster and 4-wheel disc, and it will stop on a dime. Even fully loaded with a 10k+ trailer (good trailer brakes) the thing still stops like a champ. My old '99 brakes worked only when they wanted to, not when I wanted them to.