I figured that since the rears don't lock, adding a valve to the rear line would be pointless.
I concur and I gutted my valve as well; But I run big and littles. 295/50-15 on the rear and 235/60-14s on the front. She is the best-stopping car that I have ever had a ride in, except for an old Corvette back in hi-school, in the early 70s, man that BB car could decelerate!I figured that since the rears don't lock, adding a valve to the rear line would be pointless.
I can only attest to manual and vacuum boosted brakes. I wasn't able to get the Hydroboost setup to work. The HB unit never built up pressure despite several attempts to bleed it. Either the HB was defective or I was an idiot and couldn't figure out the right way to bleed it.Kern Dog, which way do you prefer for power assist, H/Boost or vacuum?
Source? I want some lightweight rotors!!Doing the math, the 2.75” calipers resulted in a 3.36 to 1 brake bias. This setup is closer to 2 to 1.
The 13” brakes netted a 7 lb weight reduction on each side!
The Dr Diff 13" kit comes with an aluminum hub. The calipers are aluminum and the bracket to attach the calipers are steel but they are far simpler than the heavy cast iron caliper adapter. I weighed everything that I changed while I had the car apart. The Borgeson steering box saved 12, the return from Fast Ratio steering arms to stock shed 2 lbs.Source? I want some lightweight rotors!!
Increasing the bias should help. Right now you've got more of the rears helping slow you down. Yuck.
I would think that you could dial this in and be able to stop just fine on a strictly manual system.
Many OE 4-wheel disc setups have larger dia. discs in the rear, if the piston dia. & proportioning are correct, they work perfectly. Usually they are thinner, and many have to accommodate an internal parking brake drum setup, so the diameter is needed.Why on God's Green Earth do you think you need 11.7 in rear rotors? That's DUMB. How big are the pistons on those calipers?
ETA OK I see it now. Yeah, your rear brakes are literally as big as the front.
I'm betting those pistons are also ridiculously huge [confirmed], and you can't build any real system pressure because you're moving so much fluid. Something like 70% of your braking occurs from the front, so your brakes need to be sized accordingly. i.e. 70/30 would be 70 percent on the front, and 30% on the rear.
I'm betting your car would stop harder AND faster with smaller rear brakes. Think about how insanely small a wheel cylinder is compared to a front brake piston. With the setup you have, you're sending half the braking force to the wrong end. I'm amazed that car doesn't swap ends every time you stab the pedal.
One of these days I think you guys will realize that just because Dr. Diff (or anyone else) sells it, doesn't mean Dr. Customer needs to buy it.
Have You done a temp check on the rotors?I figured that since the rears don't lock, adding a valve to the rear line would be pointless.
I am wondering if we're talking about the same bias. I'm talking about braking bias, but it almost sounds like you're talking about weight bias?Regarding the bias....
The goal was 2 to 1. Prior to the changes, I was really front heavy to the tune of around 3.3 to 1.
The rotors on my Ram 1500 are this way....same diameter but thicker on the front with larger calipers on the front too.Many OE 4-wheel disc setups have larger dia. discs in the rear, if the piston dia. & proportioning are correct, they work perfectly. Usually they are thinner, and many have to accommodate an internal parking brake drum setup, so the diameter is needed.
There is some confusion here but I thought that I was clear. Maybe I wasn't.I am wondering if we're talking about the same bias. I'm talking about braking bias, but it almost sounds like you're talking about weight bias?
There is some confusion here but I thought that I was clear. Maybe I wasn't.
The common belief I've read and heard is that the front takes on the majority of the braking and numbers between 60/40 and 70/30 have been tossed around. In between that is 66/34. Do the math.....that is a 2 to 1 ratio. The front number is double the rear.
The theory caries over to caliper sizing. The front caliper surface area is suggested to be approximately double the sizing of the rear.
With the 12" setup, the caliper surface area was 3.3 times the size of the rear.
With the 13" setup, the caliper sizing is just over 2 to 1.
OK,There is some confusion here but I thought that I was clear. Maybe I wasn't.
The common belief I've read and heard is that the front takes on the majority of the braking and numbers between 60/40 and 70/30 have been tossed around. In between that is 66/34. Do the math.....that is a 2 to 1 ratio. The front number is double the rear.
The theory caries over to caliper sizing. The front caliper surface area is suggested to be approximately double the sizing of the rear.
With the 12" setup, the caliper surface area was 3.3 times the size of the rear.
With the 13" setup, the caliper sizing is just over 2 to 1.
The 12" caliper had 2.75" pistons, the 13" caliper had two pistons that were 1.58" each (which was less area than the 2.75" caliper)Not sure that is related the "surface area" so much as it's related to caliper piston diameter front to back. With drums it's wheel cylinder size.
What I'm not understanding is how 12" has more surface are than the 13" setup.
Are the caliper pistons bigger on the 12" setup than the 13" setup?
The 12" caliper had 2.75" pistons, the 13" caliper had two pistons that were 1.58" each (which was less area than the 2.75" caliper)
Since you have the tool, measure your pressure at each caliper.
[/URL]
Check out this article.