1968 - Chrysler rear brakes -

Would FAQ sections make life easier on this web site?


  • Total voters
    6

Mike McGuire

Active Member
FCBO Gold Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
266
Reaction score
75
Location
new hampshire
Hello C body fans.

My shop manual lists all 1968 rear brake drums as 11".
Newport, 300 & New Yorker shoes as 2.5" width
Imperial, wagon and police shoes as 3" width

Can't help but salivate thinking about swapping my 2.5" Newport set up for a 3" police version....

I imagine it could be a headache. Anyone ever done it?
Could I reuse the same support (backing plate)?
Any tips or traps to watch out for?

Wisdom appreciated.
 
Hello C body fans.

My shop manual lists all 1968 rear brake drums as 11".
Newport, 300 & New Yorker shoes as 2.5" width
Imperial, wagon and police shoes as 3" width

Can't help but salivate thinking about swapping my 2.5" Newport set up for a 3" police version....

I imagine it could be a headache. Anyone ever done it?
Could I reuse the same support (backing plate)?
Any tips or traps to watch out for?

Wisdom appreciated.

Backing plates are different, the 3" brakes have a greater offset to accommodate the wider shoes. Some wagons, police cruisers and most vehicles with the heavy tow package used the 3" rear shoes, usually on cars with front discs. The 3" backing plates are a bolt on, the main trick will be finding a set as they are not all that common in wrecking yards and are gone quickly when they show up. If your car has front drums, this conversion would not be advisable unless you are also converting to discs. FYI, Dodge or Plymouth backing plates will interchange.

Dave
 
The minimal gain in braking would be offset by the extra rotating weight of the drum, and harder to find shoes.

Not worth the trouble. The front brakes do most of the stopping of the car, upgrade them.
 
Backing plates are different, the 3" brakes have a greater offset to accommodate the wider shoes. Some wagons, police cruisers and most vehicles with the heavy tow package used the 3" rear shoes, usually on cars with front discs. The 3" backing plates are a bolt on, the main trick will be finding a set as they are not all that common in wrecking yards and are gone quickly when they show up. If your car has front drums, this conversion would not be advisable unless you are also converting to discs. FYI, Dodge or Plymouth backing plates will interchange.

Dave

Thanks for that. Good advice. I have a set of 3" backing plates from the front of another Newport. How it got there, not being a wagon, who knows.. I imagine with parking brake considerations these would not be game for rear installation, but I will try to dig deeper on that question, unless someone already knows this information.
There is a huge old mopar graveyard not far from me, I can check with them about availability, if I strike out on my homework/research. thanks again. Mike
 
The minimal gain in braking would be offset by the extra rotating weight of the drum, and harder to find shoes.

Not worth the trouble. The front brakes do most of the stopping of the car, upgrade them.


Yes, thanks, already did.
 
Hello C body fans.

My shop manual lists all 1968 rear brake drums as 11".
Newport, 300 & New Yorker shoes as 2.5" width
Imperial, wagon and police shoes as 3" width

Can't help but salivate thinking about swapping my 2.5" Newport set up for a 3" police version....

I imagine it could be a headache. Anyone ever done it?
Could I reuse the same support (backing plate)?
Any tips or traps to watch out for?

Wisdom appreciated.
The best place for you to start when you ponder these ideas is the parts manual. It's pretty easy to see if, let's say the backing plates are the same, if you look up the part numbers for the application and you see what the factory used. Granted, sometimes there are insignificant differences, and parts will interchange, but it gets you started. Even looking at different model years may help.

Parts manuals here: Resource Library – MyMopar
 
The minimal gain in braking would be offset by the extra rotating weight of the drum, and harder to find shoes.

Last time I looked in some of the name brand brake websites, you kind of had to read between the lines to see if they were selling 3" wide shoes or 2.75" wide shoes for the fronts. Might have depended upon what they had in stock? Similar on drums.

Seems, too, that the 3" wide front shoes also fit the rear 3" brakes.

What width shoes are on the car now?

Additional rotating weight can affect acceleration and braking performance, but nobody seems to worry about that when they put wider (heavier) tires on the rear, it seems. FWIW.

The wider rear shoes will also give longer useable life, by observation. IF that might be a consideration.

When I upgraded the front brake pads on my '77 Camaro to the 9Ci COPO pads and then put 11x2 rear brakes (1981 Z-28 Export/'77 Monte Carlo) on it, THEN it stopped as good as our '66 Newport with upgraded (wider) rear shoes on it (with a higher brake pedal on it, too!). So, yes, the rear brakes DO contribute to the whole situation, from my experience.

Just some thoughts and experiences,
CBODY67

Happy salvage yard hunting!
CBODY67
 
Back
Top