Author Topic: 10x1.75" or 10x2" rear shoes & drums (Read 443 times)

cmayna · « **on:** September, 18, 2008, 12:41:19 PM »

What is the norm for a 68 that has power front disc brake? I swear Shag had 1.75" shoes and yet the drum is 2"????

Midlife · « **Reply #1 on:** September, 18, 2008, 01:19:53 PM »

My shoes are 11.5 W. ~rey

napaguy · « **Reply #2 on:** September, 19, 2008, 10:31:12 AM »

funny my cataloging skips right over 68...

Starfury · « **Reply #3 on:** September, 19, 2008, 11:24:42 AM »

wow, that's odd, it does.

I'd ask the guys over at http://fomoco.phpbbnow.com

cmayna · « **Reply #4 on:** September, 19, 2008, 11:34:00 AM »

OK How about using 1.75" shoes in a 2" drum for I think that is correct. Though the inside surface of the drums are infact 2" only the center 1.75" is used, leaving 1/8" of unused area on each side. Shag's old shoes are 1.75" yet the drums are 2". I don't see how a 2" shoe would fit in a 2" drum without rubbing.

Now this is assuming that what I call a 2" drum is infact noted as being a 2" drum. Maybe it is actually called a 1.75" drum yet the total inside surface width is measured at 2".

huskinhano · « **Reply #5 on:** November, 24, 2008, 03:34:36 PM »

I seem to recall back then that disc brake equiped cars got wider shoes, I believe the reasoning was as follows. When cold, the disc brakes didn't offer as much stopping power so the rears brakes were widened. Not sure how accurate this is. On my 66, when I put new front drums, I noticed there was only one number for both small and big block cars but big block cars got a 2.5" vs a 2.25" for small block. As a cheap upgrade I used 2.5" big block shoes in the front with no issues, just use big block hold down spring kit for the shoes.