Disc Rotor Supplier

[SPF Required]

Hey all. My 1968 300 convertible is getting ever closer to being back on the road. Engine rebuild (check); transmission rebuild (check); brake hoses, calipers and pistons replaced (check). But I did get some advice that the front rotors are likely due for replacement sooner than later. I am having no luck finding a supplier... any advice on where I can pick-up some new rotors for a '68?

Thanks all!

 

[detmatt]

Is it the 4 piston Budd system?

 

[twostick]

If it still has the 4 piston Budd system, The Imperial Club had the rotor hats repopped. You could check there to see if there are any left.

Not cheap as I recall but not NOS stupid money either.

Imperial hubs were different than the C body ones but they used the same hat.

Kevin

 

[detmatt]

Durabrake.

 

[Imperialist67]

My rotors are from DuraBrake, been a while since I got them, hopefully they're still producing them......... the Budd brakes have their headaches (mostly related to unobtainium), but are well worth the trouble......

 

[SPF Required]

I do believe it is a Budd system. Thanks for the leads!

 

[67Monaco]

NOS;
1966 67 68 Plymouth Dodge Chrysler 1969 Imperial NOS MoPar DISC ROTOR Fury 300 | eBay

Repops;

Disc Brake Rotor for 1966-1969 MoPar C-Body & Imperial | eBay

These two are the reason I went the route I did and modified the MKZ rotor and the budd caliper to fit it. The prices are only going to continue to go up.

 

[CBODY67]

MKZ??? What does it take to use that item on the earlier disc brake system? Just curious.

CBODY67

 

[67Monaco]

MKZ??? What does it take to use that item on the earlier disc brake system? Just curious.

CBODY67

The Sheriff

The Sheriff

"Lincoln MKZ.

Have to open the center bore to 3.24-3.25", the backside has to be opened up to about 6.5". Once it's taken to minimum thickness for the car it's supposed to be on, there's only .162" difference between the new and old rotor to deal with. If you have someone willing to cut the rotor down to what the original Budd Rotor width is, you only have to adjust the caliper .090" to the inside towards the engine bay. That's either on the hub hat where the rotor mounts or from the caliper mounts.

Found it by accident. Best part is the rotors are only $27 Raybestos. $16 for the discount DuraGo's."

I took the .162" from the caliper mounting tabs rather than the hub like Mike Petterno's modification. I prefer to modify replaceable parts rather than unobtanium parts like hub, or spindle casting.

 

[twostick]

I think machining a rotor down to minimum thickness or less is a really bad idea. They have minimum thickness specs for a reason and it has nothing to do with what it's mounted on.

Kevin

 

[67Monaco]

Yup.

But I pays my money I takes my chances.

 

[twostick]

As far as I'm concerned, unless you are doing a concourse Pebble Beach worthy trailer queen restoration, there is absolutely no reason to keep a Budd system on a C body. You can buy a complete 69-73 style setup for the price of a Budd lower ball joint or rotor.

If you just have to have those 4 pistons I think there is an article out there about using a Toyota Supra rotor. It needs some machining to fit but it maintains its original thickness as I recall. Google should be able to find it.

Kevin

 

[twostick]

Found the Supra link.

Mike Pittinaro's Supra Rotor Conversion for (Chrysler) Imperial Budd Brakes

Kevin

 

[cantflip]

Yup.

But I pays my money I takes my chances.

OMFG... I cannot believe I am defending this. I followed your thread, and I saw your pictures.

There are 2 huge reasons to not machine a rotor below minimums... 1st is the rotor may become too weak and crack (watch NASCAR and that's an immediate turn into the wall)...

2nd is the dimensions of the brake components have very little room for error. I've seen too many times a worn rotor + worn pads = the inboard pad getting pushed off the mounting bracket and left behind on the road somewhere... or the caliper pistons get to the end of their travel and you lose all the fluid in the circuit very suddenly.

When the pad comes off you usually get both...

I think machining a rotor down to minimum thickness or less is a really bad idea. They have minimum thickness specs for a reason and it has nothing to do with what it's mounted on.

Kevin

Kevin, I agree with you 1000%. The reason I kinda liked Bill's work, the rotors he chose are much thicker than the stock rotor and have a much narrower cooling fin. By my "eyeball engineering" they look to still have more meat than the originals.

I know that's worthless in reality and nobody is going to go through the pains of certifying the over-machined rotors. From a shade tree perspective, Bill's solution looks like it has potential.

There wouldn't be any way I would allow either modification to happen in a shop I ran... so from a professional viewpoint, it's a non issue... YOU are correct.

I also think the liabilities of removing material from any component in the hub/brake assembly will prevent either approach from being adopted by any manufacturer not willing to invest in the engineering to support prove the original or adequate strength remains in the assembly.

I haven't managed to meet Bill yet, but I have faith in his thought process from what I've seen around here. I think he knows what he is doing isn't going to become the solution for everyone's car. I also have faith he will abandon the idea if he gets any inkling of a failure point, he wants brakes that work right.

 

[detmatt]

I love my Budd brakes. I could see doing some kind of conversion if you were going to be faced with multiple brake jobs over the ownership of the vehicle but that’s just not the case and I drive my Imp..
I can’t believe I would have “saved” THAT much money on my complete rebuild and I didn’t have to look for one part I didn’t have or couldn’t get with a couple of clicks. Long live Budd brakes you snowflakes!