2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission So the brake shop is telling me...

[jwdeeming]

Does this story make sense?



I was tired of going through front brakes so fast. After well over 100,000 miles it was finally time to do rear shoes as well. Thanks to posts elsewhere on this site, I specifically requested that the brake shop upgrade my rear wheel cylinders to the ones used on 3500s, so that the rear brakes would do a bigger share of the work. They obliged, but now one of those shoes has "crumbled" after only 9000 miles.



Their explanation is that the master cylinder must have a failed seal between chambers causing it to apply uneven brake pressure. Therefore the LR must be getting too much pressure and ruining the shoes. So, I'm out $70 bucks for prorated shoes, plus $290 for a new installed master cylinder. I don't have time to screw with this and take it eleswhere, but I told them I will expect to see the old master cylinder torn down so they can show me the failure.



Anbody else? Or are they taking me to the cleaners? I love this truck, but the brakes sure have been a money pit during the first 116k miles. And I even have an exhaust brake to help out with the heavy stuff...

 

[Thomas]

Originally posted by jwdeeming

I specifically requested that the brake shop upgrade my rear wheel cylinders to the ones used on 3500s, so that the rear brakes would do a bigger share of the work. They obliged...

The model year 2000 Factory Service Manual shows all series of Ram trucks with one inch drum brake cylinders and all 2500's and 3500's with 12. 125" X 3. 5" drums. Ram 2500's and 3500's have the same rear brake cylinders and drums in model year 2000! I imagine they were no different during the first part of model year 2001, prior to the mid-model-year change to rear disk brakes. Earlier years saw the 2500's with smaller rear wheel cylinders than the 3500's. Perhaps someone else can add to my story.

 

[Nigel]

Just my 2 cents worth. If you are happy with how the truck stops but are unhappy with how quick the front pads wear, try using a severe duty or long life pad. All the major manufacturers (Raybestos, Wagner etc. ) make them although each brand will call it something different. On my 99 Dodge Tow Truck we could chew through front pads in about twelve to fifteen thousand miles with the standard pad but get about double the life with the severe duty. The difference in price was about 10%.

For what it's worth

Nigel

 

[SMorneau]

To much pressure to the brake shoes??? Sounds like the cleaners to me.

 

[DF5152]

i think you should find a new brake shop last time i checked there was only one line going to the junction block on the rear axle so both sides should get the same pressure. sound like they adjusted one side to tight... .

 

[Lsfarm]

You're getting BS'd

Don't believe it, it is BS. One of the shoes was bad, or one dragging. If you had one side getting different pressure you would have been locking one of the rear wheels every time you braked.



I'm amazed that you have such high brake expense. The 2001 front brakes are very good, mine are due for their first set of pads at 50K, and I drive aggresively! The earlier trucks ate front brakes.



With your exhaust brake and SmartBox, I would have thought you could go much closer to 100K on shoes and pads.



Find another brake shop, they have you paying their mortgage!!



Hope this helps, Greg L

 

[B.G. Smith]

Cleaners! bg

 

[dseabaugh]

They are feeding you crap/ also I think the rear wheel cylinders I put on my truck were 1. 125 dia. that fixed my eating front brakes. You need to keep rears properly and reguarly adjusted. they might have tightened the one side too tight.

 

[Midnite]

Originally posted by Thomas

The model year 2000 Factory Service Manual shows all series of Ram trucks with one inch drum brake cylinders and all 2500's and 3500's with 12. 125" X 3. 5" drums. Ram 2500's and 3500's have the same rear brake cylinders and drums in model year 2000! I imagine they were no different during the first part of model year 2001, prior to the mid-model-year change to rear disk brakes. Earlier years saw the 2500's with smaller rear wheel cylinders than the 3500's. Perhaps someone else can add to my story.

For what it's worth, the specs on my 2000 2500 show 2. 5" rear shoes. I don't have a service manual for the 2000 yet, but my 1992 truck and service manual differed on a couple of small things if I remember right. I wonder if this could be the case with the 2000 model year as well.



MIke

 

[MCummings]

What you really want is the cylinders from a ~'96 Era Chevy 3500. They have the biggest cylinders of the big 3. Bigger than the Dodge.



If you are chewing through front pads, you might want to tear down, clean, and re-lubricate the sliders (or pins). When those get dirty they will hang, and make the brakes stay partially applied 24/7. That's not too good for brake life.



Merrick

 

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Midnite

For what it's worth, the specs on my 2000 2500 show 2. 5" rear shoes. I don't have a service manual for the 2000 yet . . .

What "specs" are you referring to? The Factory Service Manual, the Brake Specs Page at the great Dave Fritz site, as well as observations of my model year 2000 Ram 2500 all support 3. 5 inch wide rear brake shoes. I believe the only difference to be found model year 2000 (and likely pre-rear-disk 2001) between Ram 2500 & 3500 brake systems is the inclusion of a height sensing proportioning valve on Ram 2500's not equipped with 4-wheel ABS.



My original post was intended to help answer the question "are they taking me to the cleaners?" by showing that the 2500's are not "upgraded" by switching to 3500 parts since they start out from the factory with identical parts.

 

[Midnite]

Originally posted by Thomas

What "specs" are you referring to? The Factory Service Manual, the Brake Specs Page at the great Dave Fritz site, as well as observations of my model year 2000 Ram 2500 all support 3. 5 inch wide rear brake shoes.

Dave almost certainly got the info he posted on his site from the service manual, so it's no great surprise that the two say the same thing.



The specs I'm referring to come from the equipment identification tag on the underside of my truck's hood, close to the grill. It clearly says:



"BKB 13x2. 5 inch rear shoes"



Dave's site gives 3. 5" as the width of the drum, not the shoe. To my knowledge, both the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks have always had the same size drums--it's the width of the shoes that have differed.

My original post was intended to help answer the question "are they taking me to the cleaners?" by showing that the 2500's are not "upgraded" by switching to 3500 parts since they start out from the factory with identical parts.

Yup, and I don't believe that's the case, which my post was intended to illustrate. It definitely isn't the case on my truck since it came from the factory with 2. 5" wide shoes. That's not to say that other 2500s couldn't have come from the factory with the same wheel cylinders and shoes as 3500s though.



Mike

 

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Midnite

. . . That's not to say that other 2500s couldn't have come from the factory with the same wheel cylinders and shoes as 3500s though.

Nothing would surprise me either.



The Equipment Identification Plate on mine is inside the glovebox, not on the inner hood panel as you describe. My plate also shows the BKB 13x2. 5 inch rear shoes, not the 12. 125 X 3. 5 brakes the truck is actually equipped with. In my case the Equipment Identification Plate has the incorrect info and the FSM is correct. The model year 2000 Parts Catalog has no listing for the 2. 5 inch shoes. Just 2. 25 on the 1500's and 3. 5 on both the 2500's & 3500's. The Parts Catalog also shows the same cylinders used on the rear brakes of 1500's, 2500's, and 3500's.

Do you have the OEM forged alloy rims that appeared model year 2000 and won't fit the 1994-1999 2500's because of their larger rear drums?

 

[Midnite]

Originally posted by Thomas

Nothing would surprise me either.



The Equipment Identification Plate on mine is inside the glovebox, not on the inner hood panel as you describe. My plate also shows the BKB 13x2. 5 inch rear shoes, not the 12. 125 X 3. 5 brakes the truck is actually equipped with. In my case the Equipment Identification Plate has the incorrect info and the FSM is correct. The model year 2000 Parts Catalog has no listing for the 2. 5 inch shoes. Just 2. 25 on the 1500's and 3. 5 on both the 2500's & 3500's. The Parts Catalog also shows the same cylinders used on the rear brakes of 1500's, 2500's, and 3500's.

Do you have the OEM forged alloy rims that appeared model year 2000 and won't fit the 1994-1999 2500's because of their larger rear drums?

I have the forged alloy rims.



Keep in mind that the 12. 125x3. 5 is the dimensions of the drum itself--ie, a diameter of 12. 125" and a depth of 3. 5". The shoe has a length of 13" and a width of 2. 5". I think the dimensions of both are correct, it's just that they're for two different things.



Mike

 

[Thomas]

Actually the Equipment Plate on mine doesn't mention "shoes" at all, but rather "BKB BRAKES - 13 X 2. 5 REAR DRU" . I'm assuming that "DRU" is a clipped form of drum. I have yet to see a brake shoe size that considered length of shoe rather than drum diameter.