Rear drum brakes.

[A_Harman]

1985 Sunbird Turbo: rear drum brakes. Ran it in autocrosses and track days for 14 years, and 166k miles. Had to replace shoes at ~140k. Never any complaints about rear brakes or brake balance at track days. If only the front brakes were as reliable; way undersized for the work they had to do.

2001 Dodge Ram 2500: rear drum brakes. Huge drum brakes. 271k miles. Still have the original linings on them. May have some diff lube contamination on them, though, because I get occasional hopping from the rear when the brakes are cold.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Originally Posted By: CT8
Drum brakes are nice on the back as they don't pick up gravel.


Hey, that's one of Toyota's excuses for putting drums on the back of the redesigned Tacoma.
I was looking at my wifes superduty this morning plenty of pad left but the rear discs have deep groves from gravel picked up from gravel roads.

 

[stephen9666]

I prefer discs for their ease of maintenance, but I don't dislike drums when they work.

The drums on my Cruze are problematic, so I really wish I had discs on that car. I've worked on drums before, but I would prefer rear discs. Even if they had issues like the drums, they'd be easier to service.

 

[ronbo]

Hate drum brakes. Dealing with those dang springs even with proper tools was a pain. Drums were a pain to remove. Rust in New York added to the problem.

Drums brakes loses braking when wet. Put your foot on the brakes going thru a puddle and no braking with all four drums. In the old days with them had to apply brakes and add throttle to get thru puddles, so you'd have braking when you got thru it.

2016 Toyota Tacoma is inferior for towing with rear drums, with less stopping power.

 

[stchman]

The 2016 Tacoma has rear drum brakes. If GM would have done that on the Colorado or Canyon they would have been called "cheap" and "low tech", Toyota does it and they are making "sound design decisions".

 

[camrydriver111]

I absolutely hate them. They are a pain to work on, and I don't think they perform well.

Since they last so long it just means they are not doing much braking.

I see it as a cost cutting measure unless it's a micro car or sub-compact.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: HangFire
This is BITOG, there's no consensus here!

Drum brakes are fine for car rears since they lower the complexity of parking brake systems. They are feared and loathed by some who don't know how to work on them. Once you learn, they are easy to deal with.


Pretty much this. Plus you can set them for lower drag. Discs have inherent drag.

 

[skyactiv]

I prefer the brake feel on vehicles with four wheel disc brakes. Modern rear drum brakes on modern non commercial vehicles are lousy compared to the best drum brakes of long ago.

 

[stchman]

Originally Posted By: skyactiv
I prefer the brake feel on vehicles with four wheel disc brakes. Modern rear drum brakes on modern non commercial vehicles are lousy compared to the best drum brakes of long ago.


So you are saying that rear drum brakes on modern cars are much worse than drum brakes on much older vehicles?

 

[Chris142]

Originally Posted By: Miller88

We know the real reason.

They are significantly cheaper.
I have heard that before. But how? How can a backing plate,shoes,springs and labor to put it all together be cheaper than a disc brake setup?

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Chris142
Originally Posted By: Miller88

We know the real reason.

They are significantly cheaper.
I have heard that before. But how? How can a backing plate,shoes,springs and labor to put it all together be cheaper than a disc brake setup?


The only precision component is the cylinder, the rest is stamped steel or coiled steel wire. Dirt cheap to mass produce.
And the drum is a much simpler casting than a ventilated disc and it requires much less machining.

 

[wirelessF]

Rear drums almost last forever since they are the "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" part since the mechanism and hydraulics are covered so you can't really take a quick glace of them. TO inspect them you have to pull off the wheel, back off the star adjuster and adjustment ratchet/plate (f-that.) When it's time to replace them it's best practice to replace everything. But in my experience I find the wheel cylinders to go bad sooner and not catching them earlier they will leak all over the still good pads and rotors.

That out-of-mind-out-of-sight thing is real bad though. For the first time in 20 years I pulled the rear drums in my 1990 Toyota 4Runner as part of a brake reconditioning project and found the wheel cylinders weeping but luckily it did not get on the still factory brake shoes and drums which still have a lot of life yet! Also a good reminder to change your brake fluid once in a while. I found what water in 20 year old brake fluid can do.

 

[wirelessF]

Maybe I like rear discs better.

Except when the rear parking brake shoe has to be manually adjusted.

There is something about this design that made GM go back to rear drums for 10 years though.

 

[qdeezie]

Rear drum brakes should be outlawed. I hate them. And that's me being nice about it.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
I don't mind drums on the back. They're long lasting, and the parking brake is much better than rear discs. I don't really see any performance advantage rear discs have over drums either. Drum brakes are capable of locking up the tires in a panic stop; what more can you ask for?
Brakes which can be modulated so they DON'T lock up the way drums do because of the "self application" feature.

 

[simple_gifts]

374K, still on the factory shoes.

 

[ag_ghost]

They were on our recently traded 2000 Windstar after 178K miles. I cannot recall excessive wear issues, tho' I'd have to go back to the logbook to back up this assertion. The drums themselves were never replaced just turned. Am I glad our Hondas have 4 wheel disc? Sure, but it never seemd like a big deal to me either way.
Kevin

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: exranger06
I don't mind drums on the back. They're long lasting, and the parking brake is much better than rear discs. I don't really see any performance advantage rear discs have over drums either. Drum brakes are capable of locking up the tires in a panic stop; what more can you ask for?
Brakes which can be modulated so they DON'T lock up the way drums do because of the "self application" feature.

I'm talking about full panic stop, stand as hard as you can on the brake pedal. If your brakes are incapable of locking up under that condition, then they're inadequate and there's room for improvement. You seem to misunderstand this point every time I make it.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Originally Posted By: CT8
Drum brakes are nice on the back as they don't pick up gravel.


Hey, that's one of Toyota's excuses for putting drums on the back of the redesigned Tacoma.


Toyota is the same company that uses the same window switch, vents, and a bunch of parts for like 20 years to save money.

They use drums for the same reason GM went back to drums before they went bankrupt. To squeeze more money out of their trucks. Than they pass it off to marketing to sell.

Gravel? Please.

 

[clinebarger]

I drove a '69 Chevy pick-up for 16 years & over 300K miles with 4 wheel 2"x11" drums. The brakes worked good, Never hit anything & didn't die.... Several brake jobs were performed & had to weld-up some wear grooves in the backing plates a few times.

Some of you youngsters don't know this, But we used to "Fit" the Shoes to the Drum with a Brake Shoe Grinder...Asbestos flying all over the place!!!

Some of the comments about Drum Brakes are strange....But entertaining.