tm9-801.com

I read a thread about converting larger Chevy trucks (3/4 ton and up) to disc brakes and how to do it. They guy forgot he needed a booster so his attempt performed like shit... he basically had simple hydraulic brakes trying to stop 6000lbs of truck. Yeah.

Like ZDDP disk brakes seem to be a magical performance part that people try out without much understanding (as they guy in the thread who removed his booster for disc brakes in order to get more.. whatever the hell he though he could get).

Since my G506 will be a daily driver I though about upping the brakes from drums to rotors (ie get new axle housings)... but ruled it out after reading NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 806 359 regarding brake improvements in US vehicles and the pure cost involved. There are the two stats that really surprised me: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/ ... 06359.html

Dual master cylinders annually prevent 40,000 accidents that would have resulted in 260 fatalities, 24,000 injuries and $132 million In property, damage. They add $17 to the lifetime cost of owning and operating a car (in 1982 dollars).

Front disc brakes annually prevent 10,000 accidents that would have resulted in 64 fatalities, 5,700 injuries and $32 million in property damage. They add $21 to the lifetime cost of a car.

So it seems that statistically I should look at dual brake loops (front/rear) and not replacing drums with discs. If you think of it... HAVING brakes is more important than HOW you brake.

A dual loop system is not difficult, and a proportioning valve is not expensive... the only real issue would be a dual circuit brake booster.. again, not a huge obstacle. As opposed to trying to hack together an axle/springs/shocks for front/rear.

Motor homes solve this quite simply with a second booster while cars use a single booster with dual circuits. A vac is less than $300...

I have definitely ruled out disc brakes... to expensive, to much of a hack, the performance benefit is just not there. But a dual loop brake circuit.. that is easy to do and does not make a significant change to the engineered parts of the truck.

Here are some more stats from the above report... quite interesting:

Disc brakes

Front disc brakes appear to have been effective in reducing accidents due to brake failure.

Front disc brakes do not significantly reduce the numbers of accidents due to brake fade or exposure to water, relative to drum brakes of the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Disc brakes do not appear to have had a significant effect in accidents that did not involve brake defects. The better "feel" and handling qualities of disc brakes did not result in a measurable safety payoff.

It is tentatively concluded that the primary benefit of disc brakes is a reduction in accidents due to severe side-to-side brake imbalance.

Disc brakes increase the cost of owning and operating a car primarily because their repair and maintenance costs are higher than for drum brakes.