Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244511 is a reply to message #244478] |
Fri, 21 March 2014 07:47   |
Jim Bounds
Messages: 842
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
To be honest, I wouldn't even try to break it down. We in America feel it's our right to do things that are dangerous as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else-- like bungie jumping but if you try that off the Golden Gate Bridge you will be arrested.
I swear guys, you can get good brakes from the original system and given the cost of maintenance, availability of replacement parts why change things? There is a reason though to do it, if this is your ethusiast hobby and you "wanna do it" then that's the best reason for you to do so. My rub is lurkers and others here will feel it's something they MUST have because you guys generate so much chatter about those things.
If you are not doing this because you are exercising your mechanical prowess, in other words you want to drive your coach, have your wife drive it and not have to be the only one who will work on it--- guys think carefully before you get committed on some of this stuff.
One here who posts often told Jim G. he should not own a GMC in that he's not that mechanically incluned. He loves his Anne, he has used it for over 10 years and the coach has been very good to him. Something happens to the coach, he calls me and we fix what is going on and again, he drives the wheels off it.
He's not caught up in having the most complicated, powder coated, Titanium doo-dad. He uses his coach and if you are a GMC owner like him-- I say again do not get caught up in some of the stuff you read here. You do NOT have to be an ASC mechanic to maintain and enjoy a GMC.
The bigger issue is alienating those that are trying to help the community by offering parts and services. I have no idea why Jim K. spends soooo much hard earned money to go to the convention and sit there while people say he is too expensive and does services wrong. What is his motivation for putting up with all that? He is even more an enthusiast than most any of you. He truly loves working with these things like I do. I am not here to make a killing. What work did you do to be able to retire and have a good income to sit around and whine about these motorhomes? The GMC dealer network is not trying to duplicate your retirement bonanza, we are just living day to day hoping to sell a product or service to a person who owns 1 of some 8000 motohomes left in existance.
Think about this a minute, what is your motivation and goal in having one of these. If you want to use your coach there are people to help you. If you want an object for your frustrations, do not call me-- fact is you probably will not! Also, do not change things on your coach without thinking hard about it. If it blows your dress up then do it but don't wrap others up in some stuff you do just because you do it and want others to as well.
Bottom line, I will not drive a coach that I cannot fix out on the road by someone other than me! You want to, go for it brother...
Scott, I'm still that duck paddling...
Jim Bounds
---------------
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:43 PM, mike foster <mafoster1@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Jim Bounds wrote on Thu, 20 March 2014 14:37
> If you want to experience marginal brakes....go ride a 1958 Sportster XLCH!!!! Fred Flintstone could stop faster and with better control.
>
> Original brakes are not marginally sufficient as someone put it, original maintained and adjusted bone stock brakes will put you into the windshield-- if yours won't go get them fixed.
>
> If you wanna do something different, you have been informed. If you have to change something, change your oil...
>
> Jim Bounds
> ----------
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Owen Strawn <owenstrawn@yahoo.com>
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH
>
>
>
>
> It seems to me that several important liability questions are being ignored here:
>
> 1) What if some component of your modified brake system fails and causes or contributes to an accident?
>
> 2) What if improper installation or adjustment of your modified brake system causes or contributes to an accident?
>
> 3) What if your modified brake system functions perfectly, but it still isn't good enough to save you from some idiot that comes out of nowhere, swerves in front of you, and hammers the brakes? Will you have to prove that the stock brakes wouldn't have saved you from the accident?
>
> Personally I am always in favor of improved brakes, but I don't think these questions can be just dismissed.
>
> Owen
> http://instantlobster.com/uv500
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244527 is a reply to message #244511] |
Fri, 21 March 2014 10:13 |
GMC_LES
Messages: 569
Registered: October 2009
Location: Montreal
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jim,
You are one of the reasons i chose a GMCMH. You are one of the few remaining vendors that continues to provide valuable support and innovation for these machines. I respect and appreciate your opinions and commentary and encourage you to continue. I also understand and agree with most of what you have to say but I do feel compelled to comment on something that you do way too often, possibly to the detriment of your reputation.
To quote you:
"My rub is lurkers and others here will feel it's something they MUST have because you guys generate so much chatter about those things."
The above statement is one of the many recent examples of the position that you often take when others have recommended a solution to a problem.
Well i think you need to consider some of the products that you often push as a MUST HAVE.
- The roller cam you state as the only solution to low ZDDP oils.
- The Quadrabag rear suspension you push as the best and only safe alternative to the original air bags.
- Quality paint work rather than an economy job.
Well my beef is that none of the above are a MUST HAVE, as proven by the many coaches on the road that are surviving quite reliably without them. They are indeed quality items that are a valuable improvement to a coach but far from a MUST HAVE. Jim, we accept you pushing your strong opinion towards most of this stuff, but often you fail to include yourself in the category of people that you complain about.
As i see it, the only MUST HAVES for a GMCMH is the desire to have a good time, patience, a mechanically safe and sound coach, and/or a reasonable budget to get you to that state. All the rest is totally an individual choice. As has been stated many times, we do what we do because we can.
Les Burt
Montreal
1975 Eleganza 26ft
A work in Progress
On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jim Bounds <gmccoop@yahoo.com> wrote:
To be honest, I wouldn't even try to break it down. We in America feel it's our right to do things that are dangerous as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else-- like bungie jumping but if you try that off the Golden Gate Bridge you will be arrested.
I swear guys, you can get good brakes from the original system and given the cost of maintenance, availability of replacement parts why change things? There is a reason though to do it, if this is your ethusiast hobby and you "wanna do it" then that's the best reason for you to do so. My rub is lurkers and others here will feel it's something they MUST have because you guys generate so much chatter about those things.
If you are not doing this because you are exercising your mechanical prowess, in other words you want to drive your coach, have your wife drive it and not have to be the only one who will work on it--- guys think carefully before you get committed on some of this stuff.
One here who posts often told Jim G. he should not own a GMC in that he's not that mechanically incluned. He loves his Anne, he has used it for over 10 years and the coach has been very good to him. Something happens to the coach, he calls me and we fix what is going on and again, he drives the wheels off it.
He's not caught up in having the most complicated, powder coated, Titanium doo-dad. He uses his coach and if you are a GMC owner like him-- I say again do not get caught up in some of the stuff you read here. You do NOT have to be an ASC mechanic to maintain and enjoy a GMC.
The bigger issue is alienating those that are trying to help the community by offering parts and services. I have no idea why Jim K. spends soooo much hard earned money to go to the convention and sit there while people say he is too expensive and does services wrong. What is his motivation for putting up with all that? He is even more an enthusiast than most any of you. He truly loves working with these things like I do. I am not here to make a killing. What work did you do to be able to retire and have a good income to sit around and whine about these motorhomes? The GMC dealer network is not trying to duplicate your retirement bonanza, we are just living day to day hoping to sell a product or service to a person who owns 1 of some 8000 motohomes left in existance.
Think about this a minute, what is your motivation and goal in having one of these. If you want to use your coach there are people to help you. If you want an object for your frustrations, do not call me-- fact is you probably will not! Also, do not change things on your coach without thinking hard about it. If it blows your dress up then do it but don't wrap others up in some stuff you do just because you do it and want others to as well.
Bottom line, I will not drive a coach that I cannot fix out on the road by someone other than me! You want to, go for it brother...
Scott, I'm still that duck paddling...
Jim Bounds
---------------
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Les Burt
Montreal
1975 Eleganza 26ft
A work in Progress
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244532 is a reply to message #244527] |
Fri, 21 March 2014 10:25 |
k2gkk
Messages: 4452
Registered: November 2009
Karma: -8
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thank you, Les!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~~ k2gkk @ hotmail dot com ~~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ex-Palm Beach, 76 ~ ~ ~
~~ k2gkk + hotmail dot com ~~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
______________
*[ ]~~~[][ ][|\
*--OO--[]---O-*
> From: gmc.les@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:13:04 -0400
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH
>
> Jim,
> You are one of the reasons i chose a GMCMH. You are one of the few remaining vendors that continues to provide valuable support and innovation for these machines. I respect and appreciate your opinions and commentary and encourage you to continue. I also understand and agree with most of what you have to say but I do feel compelled to comment on something that you do way too often, possibly to the detriment of your reputation.
>
> To quote you:
> "My rub is lurkers and others here will feel it's something they MUST have because you guys generate so much chatter about those things."
>
> The above statement is one of the many recent examples of the position that you often take when others have recommended a solution to a problem.
>
> Well i think you need to consider some of the products that you often push as a MUST HAVE.
>
> - The roller cam you state as the only solution to low ZDDP oils.
> - The Quadrabag rear suspension you push as the best and only safe alternative to the original air bags.
> - Quality paint work rather than an economy job.
>
> Well my beef is that none of the above are a MUST HAVE, as proven by the many coaches on the road that are surviving quite reliably without them. They are indeed quality items that are a valuable improvement to a coach but far from a MUST HAVE. Jim, we accept you pushing your strong opinion towards most of this stuff, but often you fail to include yourself in the category of people that you complain about.
>
> As i see it, the only MUST HAVES for a GMCMH is the desire to have a good time, patience, a mechanically safe and sound coach, and/or a reasonable budget to get you to that state. All the rest is totally an individual choice. As has been stated many times, we do what we do because we can.
>
> Les Burt
> Montreal
> 1975 Eleganza 26ft
> A work in Progress
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244553 is a reply to message #244532] |
Fri, 21 March 2014 17:02 |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My carrier, Liberty Mutual, replied to my question about aftermarket equipment...
I sent it from a web form so I don't have the original text.
But I asked them if aftermarket equipment would invalidate any part of my insurance policy.
there response was;
"In regards to aftermarket vehicle parts, there is no invalidation of coverage as long as they are not knowingly defective."
They also mention " your policy currently offers $500 of automatic coverage for customized items not installed by a dealer or manufacturer. "
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244589 is a reply to message #244584] |
Fri, 21 March 2014 20:51 |
jhb1
Messages: 303
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think this has gone far enough. If this continues we will all have to park our coaches as soon as the original air bag supply and 16.5 tire supply is exhausted.
Do your upgrades as you see fit.
| Jim Galbavy wrote on Fri, 21 March 2014 20:54 |
but did you mention to them that this aftermarket equipment was never tested by a reconized industry lab and was replacing manufacturer's safety equipment?
jim galbavy
'73 x-CL ANNIE
Lake Mary, FL
|
John H. Bell
77 Royale; QuadBag,Manny OneTon,Honda EV4010, FITech
Montreal Qc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244609 is a reply to message #244553] |
Fri, 21 March 2014 22:46 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Keith V wrote on Fri, 21 March 2014 16:02 |
My carrier, Liberty Mutual, replied to my question about aftermarket equipment...
I sent it from a web form so I don't have the original text.
But I asked them if aftermarket equipment would invalidate any part of my insurance policy.
there response was;
"In regards to aftermarket vehicle parts, there is no invalidation of coverage as long as they are not knowingly defective."
They also mention " your policy currently offers $500 of automatic coverage for customized items not installed by a dealer or manufacturer. "
|
That may be fine for decorative items but I suspect when push comes to shove it may be a different story.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244613 is a reply to message #244589] |
Fri, 21 March 2014 22:50 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| jhb1 wrote on Fri, 21 March 2014 19:51 |
I think this has gone far enough. If this continues we will all have to park our coaches as soon as the original air bag supply and 16.5 tire supply is exhausted.
Do your upgrades as you see fit.
| Jim Galbavy wrote on Fri, 21 March 2014 20:54 |
but did you mention to them that this aftermarket equipment was never tested by a reconized industry lab and was replacing manufacturer's safety equipment?
jim galbavy
'73 x-CL ANNIE
Lake Mary, FL
|
|
Well it's gone far enough only because you disagree. I'm not a purist by any means but if you think your insurance company is your friend you have another misconception coming.I'm not against any mods but you just need to know that when you think someone is going to pay for your experimentation you will lose.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244614 is a reply to message #244590] |
Fri, 21 March 2014 22:54 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Matt Colie wrote on Fri, 21 March 2014 19:58 |
| Jim Galbavy wrote on Fri, 21 March 2014 20:54 |
but did you mention to them that this aftermarket equipment was never tested by a reconized industry lab and was replacing manufacturer's safety equipment?
jim galbavy
'73 x-CL ANNIE
Lake Mary, FL
|
Jim,
Most of the OE parts and absolutely none of the OER parts were aver tested by an independent and recognized laboratory. Most of the AM parts were tested (either in-house or an outside lab) at some point to verify for their their insurance carrier that the parts met a least the appropriate DOT specification.
Matt - Used to be one of those labs
|
Most of my time in my current assignment is involved in litigation. When things get nasty, any modifications whether good or bad will cause a firestorm that you will never be able to defend. Logic does not enter into this process.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244619 is a reply to message #244614] |
Fri, 21 March 2014 23:17 |
GMC_LES
Messages: 569
Registered: October 2009
Location: Montreal
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I am finding this thread of great interest even though it has gone in two different directions. The direction discussing insurance is of interest to everyone due to the potential issues regarding coverage on modified coaches. I think it might be a good thing for a bunch of us around the country to call around (perhaps anonymously) to different insurance companies to see what their stand is on vehicle mods. Keeping a list for us to refer to that shows what companies offer agreed value, coverage on modded coaches, etc would be a great help as this info is still not well known or understood by everyone.
It also might help us influence the companies that don't offer the coverage that we need into considering a change in their stand.
I may also be dreaming ;-)
Les Burt
Montreal
1975 Eleganza 26ft
A work in Progress
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Les Burt
Montreal
1975 Eleganza 26ft
A work in Progress
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244640 is a reply to message #244619] |
Sat, 22 March 2014 08:39 |
corleyw
Messages: 130
Registered: June 2007
Location: Battle Ground, WA
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have a model A Ford, which came with mechanical brakes. When new and in proper adjustment, they work OK, for about 1000 miles, then you get to adjust and fiddle with them if you want to stop. In short, they are unsafe.
A lot of the model A guys switch to hydraulic brakes (probably over half of them), using a variety of old OEM and after market parts. This update makes the model A safe in stop situations. I've NEVER heard of ANY situation, where this upgrade was taken into consideration by any insurance carrier, or where a claim was denied payment because of it. The MAFCA model A club is very big on alerting it's members to this sort of thing, and they have NEVER mentioned an insurance problem due to this update.
I think this is strong evidence that the insurers either consider the updated brakes a plus, or don't care, or don't have the knowledge to even know you have done it.
Just my opinion...
Now as to Jim B.'s recent tirade on this, he has probably single handedly modified more coaches than any other living person. He pushes all sorts of products that are modifications. Hec, he will only install a Manny Tranny (425 trans that Manny has modified) in our coaches! I think his real deal must be that this is
BRAKES
But, unfortunately, on this one, he has it wrong. Better brakes make for a safer coach. He has done so much for this GMC community, it's a shame he has resorted to these tirades, but that is just my opinion. And now, I have to go "change my oil".
JUST MY OPINION, NOTHING MORE!
Speaking of insurance, has anyone investigated using assigned value classic vehicle insurance on the GMCs? (Like Hagerdy, J.C.Taylor, etc.) It is MUCH cheaper on my collector cars...
Corley
'76 Glenbrook
29 other vehicles
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244643 is a reply to message #244640] |
Sat, 22 March 2014 09:13 |
mikethebike
Messages: 331
Registered: January 2014
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Comparing Model-A mechanical brakes to hydraulic, late model discs and then using this as an argument for converting a GMC hydraulic disc/drum to all disc is not really the best argument. After riding Harley-davidson Sportsters with mechanical drum front and rear from 1965 until 1973, I can say with a good degree of certainty that the two systems are light years apart.
I can also say with the same amount of certainty that two of my very best friends over the past 55 years built three of the worlds best 1932 Fords. A roadster, a 3-window and a 4-door. The 4-door that Jody Garland built back in 1973 in Burlington, NC had full Jag suspension and 4-wheel disc with inboard mounted rear discs. The 3-window that Randy Nash built in Columbia, SC is a disc brake car and the Roadster Randy built was a drum brake car. All of these cars were get-up-and-go street rods with a 351 Ford in the 4-door and both of Randy's 32's have GM 430 hp SBC (Chevy built 430 of these and numbered them) Randy had #430 in the coupe. The Duece Roadster was a 12 sec flat 1/4 car and would stop RIGHT NOW with the drums and pedal feel was the best I'd seen in years.
Do drums require more work? Yes. Personally, I hate working on them, but the GMC only needs adjusting once a year.
Will drums make as many repeated consecutive high speed stops without overheating as a set of discs will? No. But I'm not running like that in the GMC.
I am in agreement with JB on this. If you want to convert your GMC, by all means do. But I fail to see how, under normal driving conditions, it would be worth the time, expense, trouble.
| corleyw wrote on Sat, 22 March 2014 08:39 |
I have a model A Ford, which came with mechanical brakes. When new and in proper adjustment, they work OK, for about 1000 miles, then you get to adjust and fiddle with them if you want to stop. In short, they are unsafe.
A lot of the model A guys switch to hydraulic brakes (probably over half of them), using a variety of old OEM and after market parts. This update makes the model A safe in stop situations. I've NEVER heard of ANY situation, where this upgrade was taken into consideration by any insurance carrier, or where a claim was denied payment because of it. The MAFCA model A club is very big on alerting it's members to this sort of thing, and they have NEVER mentioned an insurance problem due to this update.
I think this is strong evidence that the insurers either consider the updated brakes a plus, or don't care, or don't have the knowledge to even know you have done it.
Just my opinion...
Now as to Jim B.'s recent tirade on this, he has probably single handedly modified more coaches than any other living person. He pushes all sorts of products that are modifications. Hec, he will only install a Manny Tranny (425 trans that Manny has modified) in our coaches! I think his real deal must be that this is
BRAKES
But, unfortunately, on this one, he has it wrong. Better brakes make for a safer coach. He has done so much for this GMC community, it's a shame he has resorted to these tirades, but that is just my opinion. And now, I have to go "change my oil".
JUST MY OPINION, NOTHING MORE!
Speaking of insurance, has anyone investigated using assigned value classic vehicle insurance on the GMCs? (Like Hagerdy, J.C.Taylor, etc.) It is MUCH cheaper on my collector cars...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244649 is a reply to message #244643] |
Sat, 22 March 2014 09:42 |
GMC_LES
Messages: 569
Registered: October 2009
Location: Montreal
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:13 AM, mike foster <mafoster1@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> But I fail to see how, under normal driving conditions, it would be worth the time, expense, trouble
Mike, i'm no expert on this as i haven't had the opportunity to drive a coach with excellent OEM stock drum brakes, or one with a 6-disc reaction system. I do have a hard time believing that both are capable of stopping within the same distance from highway speeds. If i am correct, and the limited test data tells me i am, the disc brake system will stop a heavy coach in a noticeably shorter distance, that in my mind is worth the money, but it all depends on how much value you give your coach and it's passengers lives.
I have always felt less comfortable driving a vehicle that has mediocre brakes. It requires always being extremely conscious of the proximity of all other vehicles. I'd rather have a less stressful drive knowing that my vehicle will stop where and when i ask it to, within reason of course ;-)
As we often say - Different strokes for different folks.
Les Burt
Montreal
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Les Burt
Montreal
1975 Eleganza 26ft
A work in Progress
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244650 is a reply to message #244643] |
Sat, 22 March 2014 09:58 |
corleyw
Messages: 130
Registered: June 2007
Location: Battle Ground, WA
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| mikethebike wrote on Sat, 22 March 2014 06:13 |
Comparing Model-A mechanical brakes to hydraulic, late model discs and then using this as an argument for converting a GMC hydraulic disc/drum to all disc is not really the best argument. After riding Harley-davidson Sportsters with mechanical drum front and rear from 1965 until 1973, I can say with a good degree of certainty that the two systems are light years apart.
I can also say with the same amount of certainty that two of my very best friends over the past 55 years built three of the worlds best 1932 Fords. A roadster, a 3-window and a 4-door. The 4-door that Jody Garland built back in 1973 in Burlington, NC had full Jag suspension and 4-wheel disc with inboard mounted rear discs. The 3-window that Randy Nash built in Columbia, SC is a disc brake car and the Roadster Randy built was a drum brake car. All of these cars were get-up-and-go street rods with a 351 Ford in the 4-door and both of Randy's 32's have GM 430 hp SBC (Chevy built 430 of these and numbered them) Randy had #430 in the coupe. The Duece Roadster was a 12 sec flat 1/4 car and would stop RIGHT NOW with the drums and pedal feel was the best I'd seen in years.
Do drums require more work? Yes. Personally, I hate working on them, but the GMC only needs adjusting once a year.
Will drums make as many repeated consecutive high speed stops without overheating as a set of discs will? No. But I'm not running like that in the GMC.
I am in agreement with JB on this. If you want to convert your GMC, by all means do. But I fail to see how, under normal driving conditions, it would be worth the time, expense, trouble.
| corleyw wrote on Sat, 22 March 2014 08:39 |
I have a model A Ford, which came with mechanical brakes. When new and in proper adjustment, they work OK, for about 1000 miles, then you get to adjust and fiddle with them if you want to stop. In short, they are unsafe.
A lot of the model A guys switch to hydraulic brakes (probably over half of them), using a variety of old OEM and after market parts. This update makes the model A safe in stop situations. I've NEVER heard of ANY situation, where this upgrade was taken into consideration by any insurance carrier, or where a claim was denied payment because of it. The MAFCA model A club is very big on alerting it's members to this sort of thing, and they have NEVER mentioned an insurance problem due to this update.
I think this is strong evidence that the insurers either consider the updated brakes a plus, or don't care, or don't have the knowledge to even know you have done it.
Just my opinion...
Now as to Jim B.'s recent tirade on this, he has probably single handedly modified more coaches than any other living person. He pushes all sorts of products that are modifications. Hec, he will only install a Manny Tranny (425 trans that Manny has modified) in our coaches! I think his real deal must be that this is
BRAKES
But, unfortunately, on this one, he has it wrong. Better brakes make for a safer coach. He has done so much for this GMC community, it's a shame he has resorted to these tirades, but that is just my opinion. And now, I have to go "change my oil".
JUST MY OPINION, NOTHING MORE!
Speaking of insurance, has anyone investigated using assigned value classic vehicle insurance on the GMCs? (Like Hagerdy, J.C.Taylor, etc.) It is MUCH cheaper on my collector cars...
|
|
Mike,
It seems pretty obvious to me that you did not know that '32 Fords came out with MECHANICAL brakes, not HYDRAULIC brakes. If your good buddies had used the original MECHANICAL brakes, they would never be able to stop those cars. Virtually ALL hot rods build around any Ford older than 1940, use upgraded hydraulic brakes NOW, (disk OR drum), in order to make them safe, as originally they had mechanical brakes which were definitely not up to the task with todays speeds and power.
The point is not drum vs disk, it's upgrade or not, does the insurance co. care. A brake upgrade is a brake upgrade, regardless of what hardware is used, or on what vehicle, it's still a brake upgrade. I think that you have perhaps missed the point of my epistle. Perhaps... 
Mike, you said, "But I fail to see how, under normal driving conditions, it would be worth the time, expense, trouble." It took me one afternoon and less than $150 for parts to install larger bore calipers on the front and larger bore middle wheel cylinders, and it made a WORLD of difference in stopping power. For ME, it certainly was worth it.
But that's just me, I just hope you don't follow me too close! HA! 
Corley
'76 Glenbrook
29 other vehicles
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244651 is a reply to message #244646] |
Sat, 22 March 2014 09:55 |
GMC_LES
Messages: 569
Registered: October 2009
Location: Montreal
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Define chatter?
It can be lots of personal feelings and opinions on someones personal mods, or it can be manufacturers hype to help advertise their own products. Either way, it is how the news gets around that an interesting new product or idea is being developed or is available.
I admit to falling for more than one item because it has become popular. For my coach, doing so would be to improve safety as well as sell-ability. We often evaluate a new coach by the upgrades done to it. The popularity of those upgrades is determined by the "chatter" we receive here and at rallies. I say let the chatter flow freely. In general it is a somewhat self correcting chatter as people point out the pros and cons. I see it as free product development and market evaluation, and i encourage its existence.
Les Burt
Montreal
1975 Eleganza 26ft
A work in Progress
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Bill D <Wildbillnick@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote title=Jim Bounds wrote on Fri, 21 March 2014 06:47] My rub is lurkers and others here will feel it's something they MUST have because you guys generate so much chatter about those things.
Jim Bounds
---------------
That kinda hits home.
--
Bill D
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
1977 Kingsley TZE167V102169
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Les Burt
Montreal
1975 Eleganza 26ft
A work in Progress
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244664 is a reply to message #244650] |
Sat, 22 March 2014 13:02 |
mikethebike
Messages: 331
Registered: January 2014
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Exactly what did I say that led you to believe I thought 32 Fords came with juice brakes? I said 3 of the best 32's ever built in this country used the following 1 used late model Jaguar brakes and suspension, 1 used late model disc brakes and 1 used hydraulic drums. At no point did I say, infer or insinuate that a 32 deuce coupe, roadster or 4 door sedan left Henrys with juice brakes. Ford did not use them until 1939.
You really need to trust me on this.....NOBODY you have ever known had the knowledge, experience or love of a 32 like Randy Nash. There is nobody on this site that knows as much about a GMC motorhome as Randy did about a 32 Ford.
| corleyw wrote on Sat, 22 March 2014 09:58 |
| mikethebike wrote on Sat, 22 March 2014 06:13 |
Comparing Model-A mechanical brakes to hydraulic, late model discs and then using this as an argument for converting a GMC hydraulic disc/drum to all disc is not really the best argument. After riding Harley-davidson Sportsters with mechanical drum front and rear from 1965 until 1973, I can say with a good degree of certainty that the two systems are light years apart.
I can also say with the same amount of certainty that two of my very best friends over the past 55 years built three of the worlds best 1932 Fords. A roadster, a 3-window and a 4-door. The 4-door that Jody Garland built back in 1973 in Burlington, NC had full Jag suspension and 4-wheel disc with inboard mounted rear discs. The 3-window that Randy Nash built in Columbia, SC is a disc brake car and the Roadster Randy built was a drum brake car. All of these cars were get-up-and-go street rods with a 351 Ford in the 4-door and both of Randy's 32's have GM 430 hp SBC (Chevy built 430 of these and numbered them) Randy had #430 in the coupe. The Duece Roadster was a 12 sec flat 1/4 car and would stop RIGHT NOW with the drums and pedal feel was the best I'd seen in years.
Do drums require more work? Yes. Personally, I hate working on them, but the GMC only needs adjusting once a year.
Will drums make as many repeated consecutive high speed stops without overheating as a set of discs will? No. But I'm not running like that in the GMC.
I am in agreement with JB on this. If you want to convert your GMC, by all means do. But I fail to see how, under normal driving conditions, it would be worth the time, expense, trouble.
| corleyw wrote on Sat, 22 March 2014 08:39 |
I have a model A Ford, which came with mechanical brakes. When new and in proper adjustment, they work OK, for about 1000 miles, then you get to adjust and fiddle with them if you want to stop. In short, they are unsafe.
A lot of the model A guys switch to hydraulic brakes (probably over half of them), using a variety of old OEM and after market parts. This update makes the model A safe in stop situations. I've NEVER heard of ANY situation, where this upgrade was taken into consideration by any insurance carrier, or where a claim was denied payment because of it. The MAFCA model A club is very big on alerting it's members to this sort of thing, and they have NEVER mentioned an insurance problem due to this update.
I think this is strong evidence that the insurers either consider the updated brakes a plus, or don't care, or don't have the knowledge to even know you have done it.
Just my opinion...
Now as to Jim B.'s recent tirade on this, he has probably single handedly modified more coaches than any other living person. He pushes all sorts of products that are modifications. Hec, he will only install a Manny Tranny (425 trans that Manny has modified) in our coaches! I think his real deal must be that this is
BRAKES
But, unfortunately, on this one, he has it wrong. Better brakes make for a safer coach. He has done so much for this GMC community, it's a shame he has resorted to these tirades, but that is just my opinion. And now, I have to go "change my oil".
JUST MY OPINION, NOTHING MORE!
Speaking of insurance, has anyone investigated using assigned value classic vehicle insurance on the GMCs? (Like Hagerdy, J.C.Taylor, etc.) It is MUCH cheaper on my collector cars...
|
|
Mike,
It seems pretty obvious to me that you did not know that '32 Fords came out with MECHANICAL brakes, not HYDRAULIC brakes. If your good buddies had used the original MECHANICAL brakes, they would never be able to stop those cars. Virtually ALL hot rods build around any Ford older than 1940, use upgraded hydraulic brakes NOW, (disk OR drum), in order to make them safe, as originally they had mechanical brakes which were definitely not up to the task with todays speeds and power.
The point is not drum vs disk, it's upgrade or not, does the insurance co. care. A brake upgrade is a brake upgrade, regardless of what hardware is used, or on what vehicle, it's still a brake upgrade. I think that you have perhaps missed the point of my epistle. Perhaps...
Mike, you said, "But I fail to see how, under normal driving conditions, it would be worth the time, expense, trouble." It took me one afternoon and less than $150 for parts to install larger bore calipers on the front and larger bore middle wheel cylinders, and it made a WORLD of difference in stopping power. For ME, it certainly was worth it.
But that's just me, I just hope you don't follow me too close! HA!
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Supplemental brake systems, kenH [message #244693 is a reply to message #244643] |
Sat, 22 March 2014 17:12 |
 |
WildBill
Messages: 232
Registered: January 2014
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
[quote title=
Will drums make as many repeated consecutive high speed stops without overheating as a set of discs will? No. But I'm not running like that in the GMC.
I am in agreement with JB on this. If you want to convert your GMC, by all means do. But I fail to see how, under normal driving conditions, it would be worth the time, expense, trouble.
I'm doing disks because if my perceived increase in safety as well as economics.
I don't know if driving down mountains is considered normal, yeah I know I can drop it to second or first gear however if I feel my brakes are up to it and can maintain a higher speed safely I would prefer to do so on a mountain 2 lane hwy and not have to deal with 2 1/2 miles of traffic honking at me when I find a safe place to pull over. While I'm not willing to put our safety at risk because of their inconvenience if I am confident occasional stabs at the brakes will bleed off enough speed I prefer to run that way
Same thing going up, I would prefer to do the speed limit up the mountain too!
As far as either emergency brake in 6 to 10% grades, in those situations both are more of a parking brake to some extent. If we were to only drive down hills or mountains at speeds that our emergency brake could stop us at we would never get anywhere,
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 06 14:16:47 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01178 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
