Drum brakes - do you disconnect the parking brake cable?

[Mad Roger]

I haven't done drum brakes ever but I'm faced with these drum brakes where
I'd just like to ask a couple of questions from those of you who have done
drum brakes before.

1. I released the parking brake from the cabin and screwed these 2-inch
long metric 8mm x 1.25mm threads bolts to pull the drum off the shoes.
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=5687240drum_brakes_0.jpg>

2. After blowing the dust out (and not breathing it in), I could see that
the front shoe was worn down to about a millimeter or less (after 175K
miles), so I'm going to have to buy new shoes and replace them.
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3478506drum_brakes_1.jpg>

3. I measured the drum to be 2mm smaller than the maximum diameter:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9335528drum_brakes_2.jpg>

4. Where the maximum diameter of 297mm was stamped on the drum itself:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9428041drum_brakes_3.jpg>

5. It was hard to get the drum back on even with the parking brake released
from the cabin, so I had to use a mallet to bang it back on:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=2434045drum_brakes_4.jpg>

The main question is whether I'm supposed to *disconnect* the cable for the
parking brake when working on the drums, and particularly when I put the
new shoes on after I buy them.

Also, only one shoe is worn, and it's the front shoe, and it's been on
there for 175K miles, but I wonder if the shoes can be switched, so that
the front shoe is in the rear and the rear shoe is in the front, since they
wore so unevenly (sort of like rotating tires).

But mainly I'm not sure what the procedure is for the parking brake cable.
Can you advise?

[dsi1]

It depends on the cable. Some have a spring that keeps the cable end firmly in place. Those can be tough to put back on. In that case, I'd leave the cable attached. The parking brake arm is held on with a clip so you really don't have to detach it. Just clip it on the new shoe with the cable attached.

Your photos don't show any spring attached so it could just fall off when you detach the arm from the shoe. Make sure you take a lot of pictures. I was working on some brakes a couple of weeks ago and just blanked out on where to attach a spring. Your brake looks pretty simple so that's a good thing.

It's normal to have one shoe worn more than the other - they were designed that way. Brake shoes are cheap, so replace both. A hardware kit with new clips and springs are nice if you can get it. Good luck!

[slate_leeper]

>But mainly I'm not sure what the procedure is for the parking brake cable.
>Can you advise?

The parking brake is adjustable. This was usually done with a threaded
sleeve over a threaded stud mounted between the two shoes at either
the top or bottom. On the threaded sleeve is a toothed "wheel" which
is used to turn the sleeve from the inside of the brake mount plate
when the brake drum is on. There is a special tool for this, which
resembles a small pry bar. You can probably find or make something to
use.

Before putting the drum on, turn the sleeve in to shorten the link
between the two brake shoes. The brake drum should then slide right
on. Put on the tire and tighten the lugs to hold the drum properly in
position. From under the car access the slot behind the toothed wheel,
and using the adjustment tool turn it to lengthen the adjuster until
the tire can no longer be rotated by hand. Then back the adjuster off
until the tire can just be rotated easily.

BTW, make sure that the longer of the new brake shoes is on the BACK
for each wheel.

-dan z-



__
Someone who thinks logically provides
a nice contrast to the real world.
(Anonymous)

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 07:03:33 -0500,
Meanie wrote:

> It appears the one shoe is unevenly worn.

Thanks for your help as this is my first set of drum brakes ever.

This is a side view closeup of the front unevenly worn shoe:
https://s13.postimg.org/mezt8lvs7/brakes_drum_4.jpg

I had been, for years, looking through the peep hole, but that showed a lot
of meat on the shoes. You really have to remove the drum to see the actual
shoe, so, after 175K miles on the same shoes, I finally removed the drum
and noticed that the front show lower end, is worn tapering to the middle,
while the rest of the shoes are just fine.

> Could be a bad cylinder or
> another stuck part such as the adjuster. Check them and replace/repair
> if needed.

Thanks for that advice.

The cylinder seems to not be leaking but that's all I can tell.
There have been no unusual braking events so I'm not debugging anything.

I googled a bit, and it seems "normal" for Toyota 4Runner rear brake shoes
to wear most in the front show on the bottom half. Something to do with the
geometry. I can't complain, as the shoes definitely are original so 20
years is a long time for a brake shoe to finally wear out.

>> 3. I measured the drum to be 2mm smaller than the maximum diameter:
>> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9335528drum_brakes_2.jpg>
>

> Maximum diameter of what?

The drum:
http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9428041drum_brakes_3.jpg

In that photo you can see that the inside of the drum has a molded in
maximum diameter of 297mm. I assume that means the maximum diameter.

My calipers are in US measurements where 11.615 inches converts to about
295mm.

So I assume the drum is good by 2mm in thickness.

> Are you aware of the adjusters? Each side has
> one and it sits under the cylinder behind the hub.

Yes. This vehicle adjusts automatically when you brake in reverse, so I've
never dealt with them - but I am going to have to back them out for sure
when I put the new brake shoes on.

You can see the adjuster here:
https://s13.postimg.org/senkcelrb/brakes_drum_1.jpg

I'm just not sure what we're supposed to do about the parking brake cable
linkages. I don't know yet if they have to be disconnected when putting in
new brake shoes.

You can see the parking brake cable here:
https://s13.postimg.org/5egwznnt3/brakes_drum_2.jpg

> It's job is to keep the shoes against the drum and is automatically
> adjusted when the parking brake is used. Often, this is the reason why
> drums are difficult to remove. They are adjusted from the other side
> through an opening using an adjustment tool and often need to be
> loosened in order to remove the drum. They also need to be tightened
> after you replaced the shoes and re-install the drum. Retract them and
> your diameter will be less than the drum.

I understand what you're saying, which is that the brake shoes may be
"wedged" against the drum, but I had the vehicle in the air and the parking
brake off, so, any wedging shouldn't be too strong.

This is a closeup of the parking brake cable connection to the shoes:
https://s13.postimg.org/b2n7qr2hz/brakes_drum_3.jpg

As it was, putting the two 2-inch long 8mmx1.25 bolts in the two holes for
the purpose pushed the drum off easily. I had to squish the shoes a bit to
get the drum back on - and if necessary - I would have twisted the adjuster
- but I didn't need to.

> The parking brake cable doesn't need to be removed, assuming it's
> functioning properly. Just ensure the parking brake is not engage when
> replacing shoes. The parking brake assembly will be removed when the
> shoes are replaced.

Oh. OK. The parking brake seems to be a thick black cable that comes in at
the bottom of these shoes.

> Much depends on the vehicle. Many shoes are identical and it doesn't
> matter if they are placed in front or rear. Others are specific and
> require proper position and seating. In your case, the shoes appear to
> be the same but that wear is something I wouldn't simply "rotate" with
> the other side. One side wearing more than the other is not normal and
> should be checked, repaired/replaced then install new shoes with the
> proper even thickness.

I think I'll replace the shoes, but since they lasted 20 years, I was just
wondering if "rotating" them every two or three or five years would have
extended the life of them.

It's a late 90's 4Runner.

[Clare Snyder]

Take the vehicle to a mechanic and have the brakes professionally
repaired. You are not mentally equipped to do the job (not saying you
are stupid, but you don't understand the implications well enough to
do the job adequately. You LIKELY need new cabvles, and ot cyls, and
or adjusters along with the shoes - which you MOST CERTAINLY can NOT
just swithch positions. The adjusters should have been backed off to
replace the drums.

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:16:15 -0500,
slate_leeper wrote:

> The parking brake is adjustable. This was usually done with a threaded
> sleeve over a threaded stud mounted between the two shoes at either
> the top or bottom.

Is this the mechanism you're talking about?
https://s13.postimg.org/senkcelrb/brakes_drum_1.jpg

Here's the bottom, where the parking brake cable connects:
https://s13.postimg.org/5egwznnt3/brakes_drum_2.jpg

> On the threaded sleeve is a toothed "wheel" which
> is used to turn the sleeve from the inside of the brake mount plate
> when the brake drum is on. There is a special tool for this, which
> resembles a small pry bar. You can probably find or make something to
> use.

I picked up at Harbor Freight a bunch of brake tools, one an all purpose
foot-long pliers, the others the special-purpose spring tool so I should be
ok on tools unless there is a Toyota-specific tool required (which I don't
think there is).

> Before putting the drum on, turn the sleeve in to shorten the link
> between the two brake shoes. The brake drum should then slide right
> on.

That makes a lot of sense, so I will do that when I put the new shoes back
on. I probably should have turned the toothed wheel a few clicks even when
I inspected it and put it back on, as it was a bit tight getting the drum
back on. I had to use a mallet.

> Put on the tire and tighten the lugs to hold the drum properly in
> position. From under the car access the slot behind the toothed wheel,
> and using the adjustment tool turn it to lengthen the adjuster until
> the tire can no longer be rotated by hand. Then back the adjuster off
> until the tire can just be rotated easily.

This makes a lot of sense!

It would adjust the brakes to the minimum, where the automatic backing up
in reverse will fine tune it, I guess.

> BTW, make sure that the longer of the new brake shoes is on the BACK
> for each wheel.

Ah. That means that the two shoes are NOT identical!

That negates the idea of "rotating" them every few years like we do tires
every five thousand miles to get more even wear out of them over time.

[Clare Snyder]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 07:03:33 -0500, Meanie <M...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> Also, only one shoe is worn, and it's the front shoe, and it's been on
>> there for 175K miles, but I wonder if the shoes can be switched, so that
>> the front shoe is in the rear and the rear shoe is in the front, since they
>> wore so unevenly (sort of like rotating tires).
>>

>Much depends on the vehicle. Many shoes are identical and it doesn't
>matter if they are placed in front or rear.

Define "many"

Only vehicles with "twin leading shoe" brakes use the same shoe front
and back - and I'm not aware of ANY vehicle built with twin leading
shoe brakes since the early seventies - and then only British
vehicles. The leading and trailing shoe are generally of different
lengths as well as often different friction materials.

> Others are specific and
>require proper position and seating. In your case, the shoes appear to
>be the same but that wear is something I wouldn't simply "rotate" with
>the other side. One side wearing more than the other is not normal and
>should be checked, repaired/replaced then install new shoes with the
>proper even thickness.

Actually it IS common - and considered normal, for the "leading shoe"
to wear differently than the "trailing shoe" on a servo type (self
energizing) brake system - which virtually all recent (modern) drum
brake systems are. the leading shoe contacts the drum, and the drag
(friction) on that shoe rotates the shoe through the linkage between
shoes, forcing the trailing shoe more firmly in contact with the drum.
This enhances the brake action beyond what would be possible strictly
by the hydraulic force from the wheel cyls.

>
>> But mainly I'm not sure what the procedure is for the parking brake cable.
>> Can you advise?
>>

It generally unhooks from the activbation lever connected to the
brake shoes. On soime cars the lever unhooks easily from the shoe and
does not NEED to be disconnected from the cable

Again - I would ADVISE you (the OP) to have a mechanic properly
repair the brakes.

[Clare Snyder]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:16:15 -0500, slate_leeper

<bycy...@spamex.com> wrote:

>
>>But mainly I'm not sure what the procedure is for the parking brake cable.
>>Can you advise?
>
>
>The parking brake is adjustable. This was usually done with a threaded
>sleeve over a threaded stud mounted between the two shoes at either
>the top or bottom. On the threaded sleeve is a toothed "wheel" which
>is used to turn the sleeve from the inside of the brake mount plate
>when the brake drum is on. There is a special tool for this, which
>resembles a small pry bar. You can probably find or make something to
>use.

That is the SERVICE BRAKE adjustment - the parking brake adjustment
is separate - on the cable - and on the VAST majority of vehicles on
the road today the parking brake is totally self adjusting, as is the
service brake. Different schemes are used on different vehicles and
understanding how it is supposed to work is CRUCIAL to doing a safe
and effective repair.

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:36:04 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> Take the vehicle to a mechanic and have the brakes professionally
> repaired. You are not mentally equipped to do the job (not saying you
> are stupid, but you don't understand the implications well enough to
> do the job adequately.

That may be true, but I think I should be mentally equipped for something
as simple as a brake job (for example, I've done disc brakes for decades).
I've just never touched a drum brake before so everything is new.

That's why I'm doing my homework before tackling the job, which is why I
ask you for advice.

My main question was the PROCEDURE, which seems to not need me to
disconnect the parking brake cable anywhere other than actually inside the
drum assembly. That was the main question.

The secondary questions will abound, based on what people ask me, such as
someone asked why I considered 295 mm to be 2mm on the safe side over the
297 mm drum diameter.

Also the implication that "something is wrong" is perfectly natural since
the front bottom half is worn more than the rest after 175K miles, but it
seems from Googling that this is normal on Toyota rear drum brakes.

There's something in the math as shown here - but it's too triggy for me.
https://s13.postimg.org/4g0jxrng7/diagram_0.jpg

This is what someone wrote about why the Toyota wears in the front bottom
https://s13.postimg.org/l3s1zwn93/diagram_1.jpg

> You LIKELY need new cabvles, and ot cyls, and
> or adjusters along with the shoes

I would be happy to replace anything that seems bad, but nothing seems bad
at this point other than the shoes are worn. Other than leaks (which I
don't see, nor is there any indication of loss of brake fluid), what's the
test for new cables, and cylinders and adusters?

Here's a closeup of the adjuster:
https://s13.postimg.org/senkcelrb/brakes_drum_1.jpg

Here's a picture of the parking brake setup:
https://s13.postimg.org/5egwznnt3/brakes_drum_2.jpg

And a closeup of the parking brake cable:
https://s13.postimg.org/b2n7qr2hz/brakes_drum_3.jpg

What is the test for worn condition?

> which you MOST CERTAINLY can NOT
> just swithch positions.

This is an important question, which you've now answered (as did someone
else who said the larger shoe is the rear shoe). This means "rotation"
every few years isn't possible.

> The adjusters should have been backed off to
> replace the drums.

I see that now, as the drum required a good few mallet hits to get it back
on. Not too many. But a few. Next time I'll turn the star adjuster before
putting the drum back on.

Thanks for the advice!

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:45:36 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> It generally unhooks from the activbation lever connected to the
> brake shoes. On soime cars the lever unhooks easily from the shoe and
> does not NEED to be disconnected from the cable
>
> Again - I would ADVISE you (the OP) to have a mechanic properly
> repair the brakes.

This net picture seems to show the rear drum brake setup reasonably well.
https://s13.postimg.org/hy7ga57c7/Rear_Brakes_1.jpg

I wonder why they put drum brakes in this vehicle when most are disc?

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:48:33 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> That is the SERVICE BRAKE adjustment - the parking brake adjustment
> is separate - on the cable - and on the VAST majority of vehicles on
> the road today the parking brake is totally self adjusting, as is the
> service brake. Different schemes are used on different vehicles and
> understanding how it is supposed to work is CRUCIAL to doing a safe
> and effective repair.

I see your distinction between the service brake and parking brakes!

This picture from the net seems to show them both:
https://s13.postimg.org/6n4sla81j/Rear_Brakes_2.jpg

[allise...@gmail.com]

I once owned a 1950 Ford car. One day when I was driving and one of the right front wheel brake shoes came loose. That caused the car to make a sharp right hand swerve to the right, RIGHT NOW! Good idea is to check the brakes and brake fluid once in a while. Sometimes it is more important to STOP than keep on going.

[dsi1]

On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 9:10:54 AM UTC-10, Mad Roger wrote:
>
> This net picture seems to show the rear drum brake setup reasonably well.
> https://s13.postimg.org/hy7ga57c7/Rear_Brakes_1.jpg
>
> I wonder why they put drum brakes in this vehicle when most are disc?

Drum brakes in the rear work perfectly fine for most vehicles because most of the braking is done with the front brakes. The reason 4 wheel disks are popular are mostly because people want it because it sounds cool. The problem with disk brakes is that it's less effective as parking brakes. Some rear disk brake systems will have an integrated brake drum and separate mechanical drum brake system to use as a parking brake.

You should know that the starwheel adjuster will have left and right parts that are not interchangeable. One side will have a right handed thread.

To set the initial clearance, start with the adjuster completely in, then turn it out a couple of turns. If the drum slips on easily, turn the wheel out more turns until you feel some resistance. Once you get the drum on, step on the brake to center the shoes. You might then have to adjust the clearance some more. Set the shoe clearance until you hear some light brushing when turning the drum.

[Tekkie®]

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...

Clare, prepare for the onslaught...

--
Tekkie

[Tekkie®]

Mad Roger posted for all of us...

Money, probably existing design...

--
Tekkie

[Tekkie®]

Mad Roger posted for all of us...


>

> That's why I'm doing my homework before tackling the job, which is why I
> ask you for advice.
>

No mad man you have not researched anything, you ask everybody and argue and
then criticize. If you HAD researched you would know all about the cables,
shoes and adjusters. You are too busy taking pix and asking questions. 1)
Take pix of brake assy after pulling drum. Go to NAPA and ask for a brake
kit and linings and cylinders because yours will leak after you push the
seals back or rebuild the cylinders. Measure the drums as they may be shot
after this debacle.

--
Tekkie

[Clare Snyder]

Because drum brakes are standard equipment on all but the high trim
models

[Clare Snyder]

Just like a boyscout.

[Clare Snyder]

Doesn't show the handbrake (e-brake) adjuster - which is on the
cable or part of the pedal/handle.

[Clare Snyder]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 19:03:54 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger
<roge...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:36:04 -0500,
> Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>> Take the vehicle to a mechanic and have the brakes professionally
>> repaired. You are not mentally equipped to do the job (not saying you
>> are stupid, but you don't understand the implications well enough to
>> do the job adequately.
>
>That may be true, but I think I should be mentally equipped for something
>as simple as a brake job (for example, I've done disc brakes for decades).
>I've just never touched a drum brake before so everything is new.
>
>That's why I'm doing my homework before tackling the job, which is why I
>ask you for advice.
>
>My main question was the PROCEDURE, which seems to not need me to
>disconnect the parking brake cable anywhere other than actually inside the
>drum assembly. That was the main question.

In all my years as a mechanic I always unhooked the e-brale linkage
from the cable on that style, and removed the whole assembly from the
backinplate as shown in your last picture - then reassebled with
whatever new parts were required. Check the cyls closely to make sure
nothing is sticking. Back off the handbrake cabke adjuster so it doies
not screw up the service brake adjustment, and after everything is
re-assembled and adjusted at the wheel end, look after the handbrake
adjustment/adjuster. Mage REAL sure the cabkes azre not hanging up
ANYWHERE or you will end up repkacing shoes again After 20 years it
would not surprise me at all if you need cyls and cables, but it IS a
Toyota and they are pretty high quality, dependable vehicles. (Iwas a
Toyota service manager for 10years)

>
>The secondary questions will abound, based on what people ask me, such as
>someone asked why I considered 295 mm to be 2mm on the safe side over the
>297 mm drum diameter.
>
>Also the implication that "something is wrong" is perfectly natural since
>the front bottom half is worn more than the rest after 175K miles, but it
>seems from Googling that this is normal on Toyota rear drum brakes.
>
>There's something in the math as shown here - but it's too triggy for me.
>https://s13.postimg.org/4g0jxrng7/diagram_0.jpg
>
>This is what someone wrote about why the Toyota wears in the front bottom
>https://s13.postimg.org/l3s1zwn93/diagram_1.jpg
>
>> You LIKELY need new cabvles, and ot cyls, and
>> or adjusters along with the shoes
>
>I would be happy to replace anything that seems bad, but nothing seems bad
>at this point other than the shoes are worn. Other than leaks (which I
>don't see, nor is there any indication of loss of brake fluid), what's the
>test for new cables, and cylinders and adusters?
>
>Here's a closeup of the adjuster:
>https://s13.postimg.org/senkcelrb/brakes_drum_1.jpg

Adjuster looks good, but clean and lube

>
>Here's a picture of the parking brake setup:
>https://s13.postimg.org/5egwznnt3/brakes_drum_2.jpg
>
>And a closeup of the parking brake cable:
>https://s13.postimg.org/b2n7qr2hz/brakes_drum_3.jpg
>
>What is the test for worn condition?

The cable MUST move easily and smoothly. Same with the cyl pistons. be
carefull not to pop them out but they should both push in easily and
you should be able to slide the pair of pistons easily back and forth
in the bore.

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 17:06:20 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> Doesn't show the handbrake (e-brake) adjuster - which is on the
> cable or part of the pedal/handle.

You're correct that the handbrake is what adjusts the drums (I was wrong in
assuming it was the action of braking in reverse).

People seem to say that the "bellcrank" needs replacing, so I dug into the
terminology to find this parts diagram.
https://s9.postimg.org/h7kn548n3/parts_diagram.gif

I think the bellcrank are the funny shaped pieces.
https://s9.postimg.org/gi1ussaof/dorman_parts.jpg

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:20:28 -0500,
Meanie wrote:

>> Yes. This vehicle adjusts automatically when you brake in reverse, so I've
>> never dealt with them - but I am going to have to back them out for sure
>> when I put the new brake shoes on.
>

> Most adjusters work with the emergency/parking brake. Though, many
> people rarely, if ever, use the parking brake and those adjusters can
> rust up and stop pushing the shoe against the drum.

I have since found out that you are correct and I was wrong.
Reversing won't work to adjust the drums.
The parking brake lever ratchets the adjustment.
My bad.

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 16:31:04 -0500,
Tekkie wrote:

> No mad man you have not researched anything, you ask everybody and argue and
> then criticize. If you HAD researched you would know all about the cables,
> shoes and adjusters. You are too busy taking pix and asking questions. 1)
> Take pix of brake assy after pulling drum.

Thanks for the advice, which is much appreciated.

I don't think I said I was done with my homework - just that I was asking
out of due diligence - where I have plenty more homework to do, as you are
astutely noting.

I haven't watched this whole video yet - it's an hour long - but it should
be able to give me all the physical steps necessary to replace the brakes.

Drum Brake Shoe Replacement, Timmy The Toolman
<https://youtu.be/IJkVEBYSecs>

> Go to NAPA and ask for a brake kit and linings and cylinders because
> yours will leak after you push the seals back or rebuild the cylinders.

The Toyota threads I've found insist on Toyota OEM shoes, but do say the
rest of the hardware can be gotten elsewhere.

The cylinders don't appear to be shot, but 20 years is a long time so they
probably will fare with a rebuild.

The Toyota folks say get the "u clip" which has to be bent, and which comes
standard with a factory OEM kit but might not come with the NAPA kit. We
don't have NAPA anywhere nearby, but we have other brands like Autozone,
and O'Reillys and Petboys.

> Measure the drums as they may be shot after this debacle.

In the OP you see me measuring the internal diameter of the drums, which
have a limit of 297mm, but it's only 295 mm so we should be ok. Are you
intimating that the 2mm isn't enough of a safety zone?
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9335528drum_brakes_2.jpg>

I think 2mm should be enough. It would be fine on a rotor.
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9428041drum_brakes_3.jpg>

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 17:16:46 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> In all my years as a mechanic I always unhooked the e-brake linkage

> from the cable on that style, and removed the whole assembly from the
> backinplate as shown in your last picture - then reassebled with
> whatever new parts were required.

When I googled, that's one of the methods I found people use, although most
seem to replace them, one shoe at a time (because they remarked they'd try
the full-removal method next time).

This guy did the full removal, but he completely skipped the removal steps:
<https://youtu.be/TywVkpCDcCA?t=288>

> Check the cyls closely to make sure
> nothing is sticking. Back off the handbrake cabke adjuster so it doies
> not screw up the service brake adjustment, and after everything is
> re-assembled and adjusted at the wheel end, look after the handbrake

> adjustment/adjuster. Make REAL sure the cables are not hanging up
> ANYWHERE or you will end up replacing shoes again.

Thanks for that advice.

> After 20 years it
> would not surprise me at all if you need cyls and cables but it IS a
> Toyota and they are pretty high quality, dependable vehicles. (I was a

> Toyota service manager for 10 years)

I wasn't thinking cylinders, but I'm fine with rebuilding them. I've
rebuilt master cylinders in the past where it's easy to rebuild a cylinder
with the right parts.

[Steve W.]

Mad Roger wrote:
> I haven't done drum brakes ever but I'm faced with these drum brakes where
> I'd just like to ask a couple of questions from those of you who have done
> drum brakes before.
>
> 1. I released the parking brake from the cabin and screwed these 2-inch
> long metric 8mm x 1.25mm threads bolts to pull the drum off the shoes.
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=5687240drum_brakes_0.jpg>
>
> 2. After blowing the dust out (and not breathing it in), I could see that
> the front shoe was worn down to about a millimeter or less (after 175K
> miles), so I'm going to have to buy new shoes and replace them.
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3478506drum_brakes_1.jpg>

Wheel cylinder is bad as well. The rear shoe show virtually no wear,
that indicates the wheel cylinder isn't doing it's job.

>
> 3. I measured the drum to be 2mm smaller than the maximum diameter:
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9335528drum_brakes_2.jpg>
>
> 4. Where the maximum diameter of 297mm was stamped on the drum itself:
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9428041drum_brakes_3.jpg>
>
> 5. It was hard to get the drum back on even with the parking brake released
> from the cabin, so I had to use a mallet to bang it back on:
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=2434045drum_brakes_4.jpg>

That also says the rear shoe is stuck.

>
> The main question is whether I'm supposed to *disconnect* the cable for the
> parking brake when working on the drums, and particularly when I put the
> new shoes on after I buy them.
>
> Also, only one shoe is worn, and it's the front shoe, and it's been on
> there for 175K miles, but I wonder if the shoes can be switched, so that
> the front shoe is in the rear and the rear shoe is in the front, since they
> wore so unevenly (sort of like rotating tires).

No, there is a leading shoe and a trailing shoe.

>
> But mainly I'm not sure what the procedure is for the parking brake cable.
> Can you advise?

On most you just make sure it is fully released. Then you install the
new parts and adjust the base brakes so the drum just turns free. Then
you adjust the E-Brake so it applies after the number of clicks or
distance specified in the book.

--
Steve W.

[Clare Snyder]

Don't know about the USA but almost impossible to source the rubber
parts kits here in Canada - and cyls are stupidly cheap compared to
what they used to be. (labor to rebuild costs as much as a cyl if you
are paying to have it done)

[dsi1]

You got the tools but still have questions if your drum diameter is any good. Why the heck are you measuring the diameter? That info is mostly for the lathe operator if you need to have the drums resurfaced. I've never calipered a drum in my life. You get the new shoes and check the drum diameter by holding it against the drum surface. It'll be obvious if the diameter is too large. This ain't rocket science but you don't seem to be able to grasp the concepts of what's happening here. That's discouraging.

[dsi1]

Cylinder rebuild kits are getting scarce on this rock too. I used to get the kits back in the old days but these days I buy new cylinders. Using new parts when servicing drum brakes doesn't cost much. In my dotage, I don't like dicking around with old parts.

[Xeno]

You get the feeling this fellow has been here before, in many guises?

--

Xeno

[dsi1]

On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 11:16:50 PM UTC-10, Xeno wrote:
> You get the feeling this fellow has been here before, in many guises?
>
> --
>
> Xeno

To have an aptitude for mechanical work, you really have to start out young by taking stuff apart. That's how you get a feel for the task. I don't think that it's a job suitable for people that have mostly book learning. They don't have a feel for the task...

[allise...@gmail.com]

On Job Training works very good.

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 21:13:11 -0500,
Steve W. wrote:

> Wheel cylinder is bad as well. The rear shoe show virtually no wear,
> that indicates the wheel cylinder isn't doing it's job.

I'd agree with you given that the rear shoe, after 175K miles, still looks
perfect, while the front is worn - but all the Toyota threads seem to say
that is the way Toyota rear shoes wear.

They give this as the explanation:
https://s13.postimg.org/l3s1zwn93/diagram_1.jpg

> No, there is a leading shoe and a trailing shoe.

Thanks. That explains why I've never heard of "rotating" brake shoes! :)

>> But mainly I'm not sure what the procedure is for the parking brake cable.
>> Can you advise?
>
> On most you just make sure it is fully released. Then you install the
> new parts and adjust the base brakes so the drum just turns free. Then
> you adjust the E-Brake so it applies after the number of clicks or
> distance specified in the book.

Thanks. I found a good hour-long video specifically for the Toyota.
https://youtu.be/IJkVEBYSecs

[The Real Bev]

Friend's kid had a mobile bicycle repair service. He went to one of the
good car-repair trade schools, became a world-class (with trophy to
prove it) BMW mech and eventually the service manager, which he found to
be a lot less fun.

--
Cheers, Bev
There is no such thing as a foolproof device
because fools are so ingenious.

[Mad Roger]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 21:56:58 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> Don't know about the USA but almost impossible to source the rubber
> parts kits here in Canada - and cyls are stupidly cheap compared to
> what they used to be. (labor to rebuild costs as much as a cyl if you
> are paying to have it done)

At a hundred bucks each, I wouldn't call cylinders "stupidly cheap".

Called the local Toyota dealer, who said the cylinders are $102 each, and
the brake shoes are $157 for a set of four, so that's about $400 with tax.

Toyota doesn't sell a rebuild/repair kit for the rear brake cylinders.

I'll look around for better parts although I need to know the friction
ratings to compare shoes apples to apples.

[Tekkie®]

Mad Roger posted for all of us...


>

> In the OP you see me measuring the internal diameter of the drums, which
> have a limit of 297mm, but it's only 295 mm so we should be ok. Are you
> intimating that the 2mm isn't enough of a safety zone?
>

I didn't look at any of the pix. It should be ok if not scored or bell
mouthed or other problems.

--
Tekkie

[Mad Roger]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 15:51:35 -0500,
Tekkie+AK4- wrote:

> I didn't look at any of the pix. It should be ok if not scored or bell
> mouthed or other problems.

The drums are perfectly fine in that they have 2mm to spare even after 175K
miles on the original drums.

As you're probably aware, scoring has to be huge to fail a rotor or drum
(really huge when you look at the specs, it's amazing how huge).

The shoes are $157 for a set, and the cylinders are $102 each at Toyota.

I'm going to look for a rebuild kit because these cylinders are in great
shape from the looks of it (and I already rebuilt the brake master cylinder
which was also in great shape).

[dsi1]

On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 10:38:03 AM UTC-10,

>
> On Job Training works very good.

One the job training is good. It is only on the job where one finds out if he can cut the mustard or the cheese.

[The Real Bev]

On 01/09/2018 01:01 PM, Mad Roger wrote:
>
> Tekkie+AK4- wrote:
>
>> I didn't look at any of the pix. It should be ok if not scored or bell
>> mouthed or other problems.
>
> The drums are perfectly fine in that they have 2mm to spare even after 175K
> miles on the original drums.
>
> As you're probably aware, scoring has to be huge to fail a rotor or drum
> (really huge when you look at the specs, it's amazing how huge).

Several ~1/4" x 1/4" plus a number of smaller ones before I noticed any
problem except screeching. Ultimately I had to replace the rotors
($10/each) when the hogging-in started. It's interesting to know that
the pad backing plates are this sturdy!

> The shoes are $157 for a set, and the cylinders are $102 each at Toyota.

Jesus, that's kind of scary. For that big an investment you (or at
least *I*) might as well pay somebody else to do the work. FWIW I was
always happy with Pep Boys 'lifetime' parts. That was before most stuff
came from China, though.

If only there had been digital cameras to permanently record how those
nasty drum springs were arranged last time I did it -- I am guaranteed
to reassemble everything in every possible wrong way before finally
getting it right :-(

> I'm going to look for a rebuild kit because these cylinders are in great
> shape from the looks of it (and I already rebuilt the brake master cylinder
> which was also in great shape).

--
Cheers, Bev
"If you were trying to be offensive, you would have succeeded if I
hadn't realized you have no idea what you are talking about."
-- FernandoP

[AMuzi]

You might want a second opinion on those parts prices:
http://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/toyota

Then again, you might not.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[dsi1]

On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 1:20:59 PM UTC-10, AMuzi wrote:
>
> You might want a second opinion on those parts prices:
> http://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/toyota
>
> Then again, you might not.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

It should cost less than a hundred bucks for shoes, cylinders, and hardware. New drums would cost maybe a little over a hundred more. You can save a lot of dough by doing the job yourself. I enjoy taking my time while working on brakes - by myself. Less when somebody is "helping."

[Mad Roger]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 17:20:53 -0600,
AMuzi wrote:

> You might want a second opinion on those parts prices:
> http://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/toyota

Wow. What a difference in prices from the Toyota dealer!
It's not half, it's not a third, or a fifth - it's one tenth the price!

The only thing I need now is to know the OEM shoe friction ratings.

I'd be perfectly happy with just-as-good friction pads as OEM at those
RockAuto prices of basically $12 per "something".

I guess I need to call RockAuto in the morning at 1-608-661-1376 (Wisconsin
time zone) to figure out two critical things:

1. How many shoes come for $12 (one?, two? four?)
2. What's the cold/hot friction rating?

It's shocking that Toyota didn't know the friction rating, and RockAuto
doesn't know the friction rating based on their web page (admittedly good
prices).

The friction rating is the *most* important thing about a brake shoe -
nothing else even matters if they are a worse friction rating than what you
want.

And yet, the RockAuto page lists shoe after shoe after shoe after shoe
after shoe (Centric, Bosch, Wagner, ACDelco, RayBestos, PowerStop, Monroe,
BeckArnley, Bendix, etc.) and not one of them specifies the most important
thing about a brake shoe!

WTF? It's impossible to buy brake pads or shoes without knowing the
friction rating. Who on earth can possibly compare two brake shoes without
that critical information?

It's not like a brake shoe has any other major job but friction.

The higher the number the stronger the friction (SAE J866a):
E = 0.25-0.35
F = 0.35-0.45
G = 0.45-0.55
H = 0.55-0.65
http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~smacadof/DOTPadCodes.htm

Given RockAuto and Toyota don't seem to tell people the pad's friction
rating, I have to wonder ... do people really buy friction materials
knowing nothing about their cold & hot friction coefficients?

[Clare Snyder]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 21:01:05 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger
<roge...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 15:51:35 -0500,
> Tekkie+AK4- wrote:
>
>> I didn't look at any of the pix. It should be ok if not scored or bell
>> mouthed or other problems.
>
>The drums are perfectly fine in that they have 2mm to spare even after 175K
>miles on the original drums.
>

I have 358000km on the original rear brakes on my Ranger - and the
shoes had over half lining left when I last checked them about 15000km
ago. I've had the new shoes for 5 years, and the original owner had
them for 4 years before he sold me the truck - - -

>As you're probably aware, scoring has to be huge to fail a rotor or drum
>(really huge when you look at the specs, it's amazing how huge).

Actually it does not take a LOT of scoring to fail a drum - requiring
it to be turned. Then there are two different "fail" measurements -
there is a max wear and a max turn. If it is worn past a certain limit
it must be replaced, and there is a limit you can turn it to - usually
2 different measurements.

>
>The shoes are $157 for a set, and the cylinders are $102 each at Toyota.

I believe thre are quality aftermarket sources at a fair bit less.

[Clare Snyder]

You do not need to know the ratings - just buy "oem replacement" -
they WILL be the right stuff. (there are cheaper qualities available -
usually sold as "economy") Premium shoes and oem replacement will
both be VERY close toidentical. In almost 50yuears as a mechanic
Inever once had to "match" friction materials for "stock" brake
replacement.

[Clare Snyder]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger
<roge...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 17:20:53 -0600,
> AMuzi wrote:
>
>> You might want a second opinion on those parts prices:
>> http://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/toyota
>
>Wow. What a difference in prices from the Toyota dealer!
>It's not half, it's not a third, or a fifth - it's one tenth the price!
>
>The only thing I need now is to know the OEM shoe friction ratings.
>

You do NOT need to know the ratings. Buy their OEM quality shoes and
the manufacturer has done the homework for you. it will meet or excede
OEM spec - which is all you need or want.

>I'd be perfectly happy with just-as-good friction pads as OEM at those
>RockAuto prices of basically $12 per "something".
>
>I guess I need to call RockAuto in the morning at 1-608-661-1376 (Wisconsin
>time zone) to figure out two critical things:
>
>1. How many shoes come for $12 (one?, two? four?)

They are virtually ALWAYS sourced as a set of 4 - I've never seen
shoes sold individually.

>2. What's the cold/hot friction rating?

You REALLY don't need that - it's not a race car.

>
>It's shocking that Toyota didn't know the friction rating, and RockAuto
>doesn't know the friction rating based on their web page (admittedly good
>prices).

That's because it is generally not required for them (or you) to know
the rating.

>
>The friction rating is the *most* important thing about a brake shoe -
>nothing else even matters if they are a worse friction rating than what you
>want.

If they are OEM quality they WILL beright.

>
>And yet, the RockAuto page lists shoe after shoe after shoe after shoe
>after shoe (Centric, Bosch, Wagner, ACDelco, RayBestos, PowerStop, Monroe,
>BeckArnley, Bendix, etc.) and not one of them specifies the most important
>thing about a brake shoe!

They never do. Every one of those manufacturers produce oem quality
shoes, as wellas "economy" parts. You want OEM from Wagner, Centric,
Raybestos, or Bendix - not familiar with BeckArnley - but have heard
good things about their clutches - don't know PowerStop or Monroe -
and AC Delco was good when they were a part of GM - but I think it's
just a "brand" now - so no idea. No faith in anything Bosch myself -
but they MAY make a perfectly adequate product.

>
>WTF? It's impossible to buy brake pads or shoes without knowing the
>friction rating. Who on earth can possibly compare two brake shoes without
>that critical information?
>
>It's not like a brake shoe has any other major job but friction.
>
>The higher the number the stronger the friction (SAE J866a):
>E = 0.25-0.35
>F = 0.35-0.45
>G = 0.45-0.55
>H = 0.55-0.65
>http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~smacadof/DOTPadCodes.htm
>
>Given RockAuto and Toyota don't seem to tell people the pad's friction
>rating, I have to wonder ... do people really buy friction materials
>knowing nothing about their cold & hot friction coefficients?

Every day of the year - I've NEVER , other than on these newsgroups
where "armchair experts" abound, heard of checking the friction rating
of replacement friction material for standard street vehicles - and
never did for navigational rallye vehicles either. That's a "track"
thing. Don't worry about it - just buy the "oem quality" or better
shoes.

[Mad Roger]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 22:04:15 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> You do NOT need to know the ratings.

I respectfully disagree with you - but I agree with you that if you buy
from someone you *trust* (e.g., the dealership or your best friend who
works at an auto parts store), then you don't need to worry about friction
ratings because *they* worry about the friction rating for you.

But let's face it.
A brake shoe has one and only one primary job.
And that's friction.

If the friction rating of the shoe is, say, EF, and you buy FF, you're
fine, but if you buy EE, then you're getting a shoe that has lower friction
coefficients than the OEM manufacturer stated.

Now, *after* you get the right friction rating, there's more to the story
(e.g., dust, noise, warranty, price, etc.), but if you don't know the OEM
friction rating, then it's impossible to correctly buy brake shoes.

You can get *lucky*.
But you are just guessing.

> Buy their OEM quality shoes and
> the manufacturer has done the homework for you. it will meet or excede
> OEM spec - which is all you need or want.

We're both saying the same thing, which is that the friction rating (which,
by law, is printed on *every* USA pad) will meet or exceed the OEM spec if
you buy from a reliable source who would, we hope, refuse to sell you a
brake pad *lower* than the OEM spec.

Let's hope that's the case for mom and pop - but for me - I trust in the
friction rating, since it's printed on *every* shoe, it isn't hard to find
(if the shoe is in your hands).

> They are virtually ALWAYS sourced as a set of 4 - I've never seen
> shoes sold individually.

I did some more homework by calling the local parts stores (I had called
the dealer first) who tell me that they sell them for less than twenty
bucks for a set of four.

The wheel cylinders are cheap also, at about 16 bucks per cylinder and at
about 7 bucks for the repair kit so I'll get a couple of those too.

>>2. What's the cold/hot friction rating?
>
> You REALLY don't need that - it's not a race car.

Let's just respectfully disagree on whether I should match or exceed the
friction rating of the OEM brake shoe.

In all my years with disc brakes, I've never bought a pad without knowing
the friction rating ahead of time (usually FF or GG - but mostly FF) and I
would never put on a pad that doesn't meet or exceed the OEM friction
rating.

> That's because it is generally not required for them (or you) to know
> the rating.

I agree that if I buy Toyota shoes from the Toyota dealership, that the
friction rating will be correct as it will be the OEM friction rating,
whatever that is.

So if I buy from the dealer, I don't need to know anything because I would
be trusting the dealer to give me the correct shoes.

If I buy from Rock Auto, then I have to make the choice based on the
friction rating first and foremost.

It's not like friction isn't an important thing for a brake shoe.

> If they are OEM quality they WILL beright.

That is true. If that is true that is true.
It's not always true even if they say it's true.
I'll trust the two letters printed on the shoe itself.

> They never do. Every one of those manufacturers produce oem quality
> shoes, as wellas "economy" parts. You want OEM from Wagner, Centric,
> Raybestos, or Bendix - not familiar with BeckArnley - but have heard
> good things about their clutches - don't know PowerStop or Monroe -
> and AC Delco was good when they were a part of GM - but I think it's
> just a "brand" now - so no idea. No faith in anything Bosch myself -
> but they MAY make a perfectly adequate product.

You seem to be cognizant of "branding" (e.g., AT&T is just a brand name,
it's no longer the same company as it was). Brands have value, but you
know, from oil filters and batteries and tires, etc., that they brand all
sorts of shit just to get more money for the same thing.

Oil filters are notorious for that. You have to dig deeply to figure out
who *really* makes that oil filter and what it looks like inside (e.g.,
paper backflow valves, glued pleats, rubber versus paper stops, etc.).

Branding is bullshit for the most part.

What I care about are friction ratings.

After that, I care about stuff that I will never get the truth on, such as
dusting, and noise, but that's just a fact of life that you can't get that
information except from enthusiasts (e.g., Jurid FF pads dust like crazy
but PBR FF pads don't ... go figure).

The *first* spec on friction material is *always* friction.

After that, you generally don't get the truth even though plenty of other
stuff matters - but the friction rating is *printed* on ever shoe so it's
unconscionable not to take it into account when purchasing shoes.

Otherwise you're just guessing.

> Every day of the year - I've NEVER , other than on these newsgroups
> where "armchair experts" abound, heard of checking the friction rating
> of replacement friction material for standard street vehicles - and
> never did for navigational rallye vehicles either. That's a "track"
> thing. Don't worry about it - just buy the "oem quality" or better
> shoes.

I've seen people put Wagner EE pads on a car spec'd for FF OEM pads, and
they didn't even know it.

They showed a picture of the pads and I had to tell them that the pads
didn't even meet OEM specs.

The sad thing is that they could have had Textar or Axxis pads for about
the same price that were FF or even GG.

I'll repeat that the PRIMARY job of friction material is friction.
Hence the friction coefficient is printed on all USA pads and shoes.

There's a *reason* for that.
You can certainly *trust* to luck - but I prefer to read the shoe.
:)

[Mad Roger]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 21:48:57 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> I have 358000km on the original rear brakes on my Ranger - and the
> shoes had over half lining left when I last checked them about 15000km
> ago. I've had the new shoes for 5 years, and the original owner had
> them for 4 years before he sold me the truck - - -

I don't disagree with your experience now that I've done some homework.
It's amazing how *long* brake shoes last, at least on the rear.

I suspect I'd get double the mileage that I saw if the Toyota brakes would
only wear evenly. Most people on the Toyota forums get more than 175K miles
but this truck was driven in very hilly country for more than a decade.

> Actually it does not take a LOT of scoring to fail a drum - requiring
> it to be turned. Then there are two different "fail" measurements -
> there is a max wear and a max turn. If it is worn past a certain limit
> it must be replaced, and there is a limit you can turn it to - usually
> 2 different measurements.

The problem here is that *none* of us are referencing an actual
manufacturer's specification.

I looked up the specs for a scored rotor when I had a Lexus LS 400 in the
early nineties where I was shocked at the spec. As I recall, it was thicker
than a dime, and maybe even a dime and a half as I recall, for it to fail
the rotor.

I didn't look up drums at the time (it had disc brakes all around), but I
think we're all talking out of our asses (me included!) unless and until we
dig up a real spec from the manufacturer.

It's usually *hard* to find the scoring spec; it's a lot easier to find the
thickness and runout specs, so I'm not saying it's an easy spec to find.

>>
>>The shoes are $157 for a set, and the cylinders are $102 each at Toyota.
>
> I believe thre are quality aftermarket sources at a fair bit less.

I agree.

The RockAuto site someone quoted had an axle for a lot less than twenty
bucks, so Toyota is about ten times aftermarket.

I called the local parts store and they have FF friction-rated shoes (I
asked them to read me what it says on the shoe) for $17 per axle.

At that price, it's not worth shopping around by price - but only for the
friction rating.

I haven't found the friction rating for the OEM shoes yet, so it's
impossible to buy shoes without that information. When I call for the
friction rating I get tons of bullshit about the pad material where it's
meaningless without the friction rating.

I mean, a brake pad has a primary job, and that's not dust or noise but
friction. First comes friction. Then we can talk about dust or noise or
warranty.

But friction comes first. Without the right friction rating, it's
worthless.

[Mad Roger]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 21:53:02 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> You do not need to know the ratings - just buy "oem replacement" -
> they WILL be the right stuff. (there are cheaper qualities available -
> usually sold as "economy") Premium shoes and oem replacement will
> both be VERY close toidentical. In almost 50yuears as a mechanic
> Inever once had to "match" friction materials for "stock" brake
> replacement.

I think we actually agree in that I completly agree with you that if the
friction rating of the pads I get is equal to the OEM spec, then I am where
I want to be.

I also agree that we can *trust* the guy who sells me the friction material
that he wouldn't sell me a friction material that didn't meet OEM spec.

It's sort of like when buying tires, Costco won't sell you an S rated tire
if the original tires that came on the vehicle are an H rated tire. They
don't want to sell you anything less than OEM.

I get all that. So I agree with you.

However ... I like to know my ingredients, so to speak.

SO I like to know what the friction rating is for the OEM pads/shoes, and
for the pads/shoes that I buy.

You really can't fault me for wanting that information.
It's just like reading the ingredients on a label where the ingredients are
required to be listed in order by law.

Same with the friction ratings.

[Clare Snyder]

It's been over a decade, so I don't remember ther exact specs, but I
did government safwety checks as well as servicing LOTS of vehicles
(including 4runners and Land Cruisers) and gouges in both rotors and
drums do not have to be terribly deep or wide to mandate
resurfacing/replacement.

>
>It's usually *hard* to find the scoring spec; it's a lot easier to find the
>thickness and runout specs, so I'm not saying it's an easy spec to find.

not hard at all. here's one:
https://www.cbsparts.ca/admin/bulletins/Brake%20Drum%20and%20Rotor.pdf

and another:
https://www.cbsparts.ca/admin/bulletins/Tech%20Common%20Drum%20Problems.pdf

see page 402 at :
https://books.google.ca/books?id=O01vCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT723&lpg=PT723&dq=brake+drum+groove+limits&source=bl&ots=eMRaue9Ae-&sig=scMn52wQD_vu0nulzkGPt9EzRfk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj6rj2xszYAhViw4MKHfwrCjU4ChDoAQgmMAA#v=onepage&q=brake%20drum%20groove%20limits&f=false

"If scoring or light grooves cannot be removed by hand (with emery
cloth) the drum MUST be refinished or replaced"

There is NO ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF GROOVING ALLOWED ON A DRUM when
replacing friction m,aterial- PERIOD.

read ALL of:
http://www.aa1car.com/library/drum_brakes.htm

[Clare Snyder]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 03:34:20 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger
<roge...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 22:04:15 -0500,
> Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>> You do NOT need to know the ratings.
>
>I respectfully disagree with you - but I agree with you that if you buy
>from someone you *trust* (e.g., the dealership or your best friend who
>works at an auto parts store), then you don't need to worry about friction
>ratings because *they* worry about the friction rating for you.
>

No, your best friend whoworks at the auto parts store may be as
clueless as you are. BUY OEM SPEC PARTS and you can't go wrong.

>But let's face it.
>A brake shoe has one and only one primary job.
>And that's friction.
>
>If the friction rating of the shoe is, say, EF, and you buy FF, you're
>fine, but if you buy EE, then you're getting a shoe that has lower friction
>coefficients than the OEM manufacturer stated.

OEM SPEC parts WILL be equal to or excedingOEM specs.

>
>Now, *after* you get the right friction rating, there's more to the story
>(e.g., dust, noise, warranty, price, etc.), but if you don't know the OEM
>friction rating, then it's impossible to correctly buy brake shoes.
>

With pads you worry about dust - not so with drums/shoes.

>You can get *lucky*.
>But you are just guessing.

Soare you.

>
>> Buy their OEM quality shoes and
>> the manufacturer has done the homework for you. it will meet or excede
>> OEM spec - which is all you need or want.
>
>We're both saying the same thing, which is that the friction rating (which,
>by law, is printed on *every* USA pad) will meet or exceed the OEM spec if
>you buy from a reliable source who would, we hope, refuse to sell you a
>brake pad *lower* than the OEM spec.

No, they will sell you what you are willing to pay for. If you want
"economy" friction, they willsell you "economy" friction - which M<AY
have the same friction characteristics, but only last 50,000 miles, or
30,000 instead of 175000.

>
>Let's hope that's the case for mom and pop - but for me - I trust in the
>friction rating, since it's printed on *every* shoe, it isn't hard to find
>(if the shoe is in your hands).

Then ask to see the factory shoe at the dealer and read the rating.

The "monroe premium" shoes I have "on the shelf" for my ranger are EE
on all 4 shoes.
The "certified" semi-metallic pads I have "onthe shelf" for the ranger
are EF


Since the rear brakes basically "go along for the ride" unless you
are hauling a load, the friction rating isn't TERRIBLY critical anyway
-

>
>> They are virtually ALWAYS sourced as a set of 4 - I've never seen
>> shoes sold individually.
>
>I did some more homework by calling the local parts stores (I had called
>the dealer first) who tell me that they sell them for less than twenty
>bucks for a set of four.
>
>The wheel cylinders are cheap also, at about 16 bucks per cylinder and at
>about 7 bucks for the repair kit so I'll get a couple of those too.

LikeI said - stupidly cheap - not worth rebuilding unless the cyls are
not available.

>
>>>2. What's the cold/hot friction rating?
>>
>> You REALLY don't need that - it's not a race car.
>
>Let's just respectfully disagree on whether I should match or exceed the
>friction rating of the OEM brake shoe.
>

Didn't say you shouldn't. Just LISTEN to what I'm saying. BUY OE#M
SPEC and you GET OEM SPEC.

Listen to one of the most experienced wrenches on this newsgroup.
I've wrenched, I've been service manager, and I've taught the trade
at both secondary school and trade levels. Since 1969.

>In all my years with disc brakes, I've never bought a pad without knowing
>the friction rating ahead of time (usually FF or GG - but mostly FF) and I
>would never put on a pad that doesn't meet or exceed the OEM friction
>rating.
>
>> That's because it is generally not required for them (or you) to know
>> the rating.
>
>I agree that if I buy Toyota shoes from the Toyota dealership, that the
>friction rating will be correct as it will be the OEM friction rating,
>whatever that is.

ANd if you buy OEM SPEC aftermarket p[arts, they will br too. What
do you not understand about OEM SPEC????

>
>So if I buy from the dealer, I don't need to know anything because I would
>be trusting the dealer to give me the correct shoes.
>
>If I buy from Rock Auto, then I have to make the choice based on the
>friction rating first and foremost.
>

No, you choose OEM SPEC from a TRUSTED MANUFACTURER - no matter who
you buy from.

>It's not like friction isn't an important thing for a brake shoe.
>
>> If they are OEM quality they WILL beright.
>
>That is true. If that is true that is true.
>It's not always true even if they say it's true.
>I'll trust the two letters printed on the shoe itself.

And who says the friction material is accurately marked???? You have
no idea where the friction material came from, and if it meets the
spec stamped on it. It is almost CERTAINLY sourced fromChina - and
likely assembled on the shoe in China, regardless of the brand, and
China will counterfeit anything, given the chance. This is where a
"trusted manufacturer" comes in, as they do "quality control" and
assure the product meets spec.

You could have FF stamped on a thich chunk of cardboard on an "xyz"
brand part and it might not even meet the loweast spec.

>
>> They never do. Every one of those manufacturers produce oem quality
>> shoes, as wellas "economy" parts. You want OEM from Wagner, Centric,
>> Raybestos, or Bendix - not familiar with BeckArnley - but have heard
>> good things about their clutches - don't know PowerStop or Monroe -
>> and AC Delco was good when they were a part of GM - but I think it's
>> just a "brand" now - so no idea. No faith in anything Bosch myself -
>> but they MAY make a perfectly adequate product.
>
>You seem to be cognizant of "branding" (e.g., AT&T is just a brand name,
>it's no longer the same company as it was). Brands have value, but you
>know, from oil filters and batteries and tires, etc., that they brand all
>sorts of shit just to get more money for the same thing.
>
>Oil filters are notorious for that. You have to dig deeply to figure out
>who *really* makes that oil filter and what it looks like inside (e.g.,
>paper backflow valves, glued pleats, rubber versus paper stops, etc.).
>
>Branding is bullshit for the most part.
>
>What I care about are friction ratings.

They don't mean SQUAT if you can't trust the brand. See where I'm
coming from???

>
>After that, I care about stuff that I will never get the truth on, such as
>dusting, and noise, but that's just a fact of life that you can't get that
>information except from enthusiasts (e.g., Jurid FF pads dust like crazy
>but PBR FF pads don't ... go figure).

ANd over half the "enthusiasts" don't know shit from shinola - they
just listen to other "enthusiasts" or "armchair experts"

>
>The *first* spec on friction material is *always* friction.


>
>After that, you generally don't get the truth even though plenty of other
>stuff matters - but the friction rating is *printed* on ever shoe so it's
>unconscionable not to take it into account when purchasing shoes.
>

It's printed on the friction material by the manufacturer - can you
trust the manufacturer?????
If so, trust the manufacturer to provide OEM quality.
If not, the ratings don't mean shit.

>Otherwise you're just guessing.
>

Like I said - BUY QUALITY and you are not guessing any more than you
are doing it your way.

>> Every day of the year - I've NEVER , other than on these newsgroups
>> where "armchair experts" abound, heard of checking the friction rating
>> of replacement friction material for standard street vehicles - and
>> never did for navigational rallye vehicles either. That's a "track"
>> thing. Don't worry about it - just buy the "oem quality" or better
>> shoes.
>
>I've seen people put Wagner EE pads on a car spec'd for FF OEM pads, and
>they didn't even know it.

Correct - there was no difference undernormal driving conditions -
they likely didn't wear the same, but they stopped the car at all
legal speeds under normal load conditions

>
>They showed a picture of the pads and I had to tell them that the pads
>didn't even meet OEM specs.
>
>The sad thing is that they could have had Textar or Axxis pads for about
>the same price that were FF or even GG.
>

They bopught "economy" pads - and the whiz-bang enthusiast pads may
have been no better than what they bought,

>I'll repeat that the PRIMARY job of friction material is friction.
>Hence the friction coefficient is printed on all USA pads and shoes.



>
>There's a *reason* for that.
>You can certainly *trust* to luck - but I prefer to read the shoe.
>:)

Then go to the dealer and check the OEM parts they have in stock, and
you will KNOW the spec. Then order the OEM quality parts from Rock,
and if they are sub-standard, send them back. No rocket science. -
unless you've pissed off the dealership parts department and they
won't do anything for you.

I had customers that I'd refuse to do anything for because they were
cheapassed pricks who you could never satisfy, and/or they were
know-it-all know-nothings that argued with everything you told them.

If you are that kind of person (and it's looking a bit that way
because you don't listen to experience - you "know better" )- then
good luck and it looks good on you.

[Xeno]

Yep, a mechanical aptitude is a necessity. I spent 50 years in the
trade. That said, I had the practical experience but I also had the book
learning. Having both helps.

--

Xeno

[Xeno]

Apprenticeship, worked for me.

--

Xeno

[Xeno]

On 10/01/2018 7:44 AM, Mad Roger wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 21:56:58 -0500,
> Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>> Don't know about the USA but almost impossible to source the rubber
>> parts kits here in Canada - and cyls are stupidly cheap compared to
>> what they used to be. (labor to rebuild costs as much as a cyl if you
>> are paying to have it done)
>
> At a hundred bucks each, I wouldn't call cylinders "stupidly cheap".

You're shopping in all the wrong places.

>
> Called the local Toyota dealer, who said the cylinders are $102 each, and
> the brake shoes are $157 for a set of four, so that's about $400 with tax.
>
> Toyota doesn't sell a rebuild/repair kit for the rear brake cylinders.
>
> I'll look around for better parts although I need to know the friction
> ratings to compare shoes apples to apples.
>

--

Xeno

[Xeno]

Are you *qualified* to judge?

--

Xeno

[Xeno]

Someone is way too anal to be a mechanic.

--

Xeno

[Xeno]

Best you toddle off and pay those inflated prices. THE OEM Toyota ones
will be exactly the same friction rating as the ones you are replacing.

--

Xeno

[Mad Roger]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:28:05 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> No, they will sell you what you are willing to pay for. If you want
> "economy" friction, they willsell you "economy" friction - which M<AY
> have the same friction characteristics, but only last 50,000 miles, or
> 30,000 instead of 175000.

There is no such thing as OEM quality without having the OEM specs to
compare against. Otherwise it's just a gimmick.

There's no way for you to know if it's OEM quality if it's not to OEM
specs. Just because they *say* it in a billion web sites, doesn't mean it
is.

Specs are fact.
Marketing words are bullshit.

> The "monroe premium" shoes I have "on the shelf" for my ranger are EE
> on all 4 shoes.

EE sucks. Steel on steel has a coefficient of E. Seriously. Look it up.

> The "certified" semi-metallic pads I have "onthe shelf" for the ranger
> are EF

Again, E is atrocious. Steel on stell is E. Look it up.
F is good.

Unfortunatly, there is a HUGE RANGE between E and F and even within E and F
themselves. Such is the spec.

But I'll tell you that I've never once in my life put a crappy E pad on any
disc brake. E is absolutely horrifically terrible. It's no better than
steel on steel.

F is just getting started.

I've never done drum brakes before though.

> Since the rear brakes basically "go along for the ride" unless you
> are hauling a load, the friction rating isn't TERRIBLY critical anyway

This may very well be true because I must have replaced the fronts a few
times already on this vehicle so I don't disagree with you. I'm going to do
the front pads also, so I am looking for what their friction ratings are.

> LikeI said - stupidly cheap - not worth rebuilding unless the cyls are
> not available.

The main problem with cylinders is that if I don't go OEM, I won't know the
quality of the cylinders. So I may end up putting worse cylinders in, when
their may be nothing wrong with the current ones.

Then again, maybe all cylinders are just fine in terms of quality. I don't
know. That's the homework I need to do as I've never done drums before.

> Didn't say you shouldn't. Just LISTEN to what I'm saying. BUY OE#M
> SPEC and you GET OEM SPEC.

We don't disagree. We just don't agree on what you trust & what I trust.

To me, IMHO, there is no such thing as "OEM SPEC". It's marketing bullshit.

Maybe it's oem spec. Maybe it's not. Who is to say?
You trust marketing more than I do.

I trust *real* specs. Like the friction coefficient.
That's a real spec.
Not marketing bullshit.

Why do you deny me the right to double check that what they call an OEM
spec *is* the OEM spec?

> Listen to one of the most experienced wrenches on this newsgroup.
> I've wrenched, I've been service manager, and I've taught the trade
> at both secondary school and trade levels. Since 1969.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, and, in fact, I agree with
almost everything you've said. Our disagreements are only in how we
interpret things like scoring and what you term "oem spec".

I completely comprehend what you're saying.
The main difference is that I trust specs more than you seem to.
And you seem to trust what I think is marketing bullshit more than I do.

It's not a disagreement in principle as if it truly was OEM spec then it's
OEM spec. I get that - but I don't believe it just because they said it.

Have you seen oil filters taken apart? I have.
They *all* meet OEM spec.
But some are better than others.
A lot better.

Why would you deny me the right to double check that what they call an OEM
spec *is* the OEM spec?

> ANd if you buy OEM SPEC aftermarket p[arts, they will br too. What
> do you not understand about OEM SPEC????

There is nothing you could ever say to me that I don't comprehend.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Really.

It's not a matter of comprehension.

It's a matter of trust in marketing bullshit or not.
You trust what I call marketing bullshit much more than I trust it.

That's the only difference that I can see where we disagree.

If I buy a food that says "all natural", what the fuck does that mean?
If it says "more doctors recommend it", what the fuck does that mean?

Do you know that acetominophen (aka Tylenol) is freaking dangerous?
The LD50 on Tylenol is so fucking close to the therapeutic dose that it's
dangerous stuff compared to Aspirin.

Yet there is the J&J campaign to convince idiot consumers that "more
doctors recommend tylenol" which is a bullshit marketing statistic.

Same here with the "meets OEM specs" bullshit.
Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't.

What matters is the OEM spec.
Not the marketing bullshit.

We don't disagree.
The only place we disagree is that you can't believe anyone would not
believe in the marketing bullshit.

SO you say I don't "comprehend" but I do comprehend.
It's trust. Not comprehension where we differ.

Why would you deny me the right to double check that what they call an OEM
spec *is* the OEM spec?

> No, you choose OEM SPEC from a TRUSTED MANUFACTURER - no matter who
> you buy from.

Let's drop this as I AGREE with you that if it truly is "oem spec" then
"Oem spec" is fine.

Did you know Apple said that their phones were X Ghz but they halved that
in a year? Companies don't always tell the truth.

You seem to believe them.
I don't.

That's the only difference. Why do you deny me the right to double check
that what they call an OEM spec *is* the OEM spec?

> And who says the friction material is accurately marked????

They have to meet the standard and I "presume" it's enforced by law.
Maybe it's not - but I presume that the friction rating is correct.

> You have
> no idea where the friction material came from, and if it meets the
> spec stamped on it. It is almost CERTAINLY sourced fromChina - and
> likely assembled on the shoe in China, regardless of the brand, and
> China will counterfeit anything, given the chance. This is where a
> "trusted manufacturer" comes in, as they do "quality control" and
> assure the product meets spec.

What's odd is you believe a marketing bullshit claim of "meets oem spec"
without it saying what that spec is, and yet you question a government
mandated friction test under specified circumstances.

I think that's odd in that it's reversed from normal logic.
There's nothing wrong with your logic - as it has to do with trust.

You trust marketing more than you trust the government mandate.
I'm the opposite on trust.

I trust the friction test, specifically the SAE J866A test procedure:
https://netrider.net.au/threads/understanding-brake-pad-ratings.88551/

Here's a general description of the friction ratings CDEFGH
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1003-brake-pad-technology/

> You could have FF stamped on a thich chunk of cardboard on an "xyz"
> brand part and it might not even meet the loweast spec.

What's odd is that you don't trust a government mandated standard test, but
at the same time, you trust a mere marketing term on a web site.

That's fine. You're allowed to trust marketing more than government
mandated specs - but it's the opposite for me on trust.

We only differ in what we trust.
http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~smacadof/DOTPadCodes.htm

I can't run my own tests like the police did here:
https://www.justnet.org/pdf/EvaluationBrakePads2000.pdf

> They don't mean SQUAT if you can't trust the brand. See where I'm
> coming from???

The brand is meaningless.
What matters is what's *inside* the oil filter.
The brand is just the paint on the outside.

We differ greatly in whom we trust.

I trust in specs.
You trust in brands.

Neither one of us is wrong - we just trust differently.

> ANd over half the "enthusiasts" don't know shit from shinola - they
> just listen to other "enthusiasts" or "armchair experts"

I agree with you that the 'boy racers' out there who think seafoam is a
solution from God himself don't know much - but when it comes to "dusting",
it's pretty reliable when everyone with the same make and model and year
you have says that a certain Jurid pad will dust while the PBR pad won't
dust (where PBR and Axxis are the same pad - it's only the marketing paint
on the outside of the box that allows them to sell Axxis pads at a higher
price than PBR).

Do you see what I'm getting at?

I personally called the marketing organization for Axxis who,
interestingly, has a different channel than PBR (even though they're the
*same* pads!), and they gave me the full scoop.

Marketing bullshit 101.

You are not wrong in trusting marketing far more than I do, and I am not
wrong in trusting in actual measured specs more so that marketing words.

> It's printed on the friction material by the manufacturer - can you
> trust the manufacturer?????

What's funny is that you don't trust a government mandated SAE test, which
has clear conditions, while you do trust some blurb in thousands upon
thousands of web sites to be correct.

I find that odd but there's nothing wrong with how you trust web site
blurbs more than I trust them, nor that you trust government mandated SAE
tests less than I trust them.

It's all how you and I handle trust.

You trust marketing far more than I do.

I *know* that a PBR pad is far less money than an Axxis pad and yet,
they're exactly the same pad - only marketed differently.

Wanna know something funny?
They both have the same markings on the side.

They *have* to have the same markings.
It's the law.

The one place they can't lie, is in the markings.

> If so, trust the manufacturer to provide OEM quality.
> If not, the ratings don't mean shit.

You trust marketing more than I do.

> Like I said - BUY QUALITY and you are not guessing any more than you
> are doing it your way.

We don't disagree other than you think E is quality and I know E is almost
as bad as it gets. E is no better than steel on steel for friction.

> Correct - there was no difference undernormal driving conditions -
> they likely didn't wear the same, but they stopped the car at all
> legal speeds under normal load conditions

E is no better than steel on steel.
Look it up.
I'm not joking.

> They bopught "economy" pads - and the whiz-bang enthusiast pads may
> have been no better than what they bought,

Anyone who says "economy" or "performance" pads is falling prey to
marketing bullshit.

There is no such thing as an "economy" pad.

There is a pad that has a certain spec and that's it.
If you pay a lot for it or if you pay a little for it, the spec didn't
change.

Remember, the "performance" Axxis pad is the *same* pad as the economy
"PBR" pad.

It's all marketing bullshit.
The numbers on the pad are *exactly* the same because they have to be.
They're the same pad.

> Then go to the dealer and check the OEM parts they have in stock, and
> you will KNOW the spec.

You don't know the Toyota dealer in my town.
They're assholes. They're the worst.
They'd KILL me if I told them I just wanted to *look* at their pads.
I'm serious (well, not about killing me).
But they'd tell me to go take a hike.

Only at a local auto parts store would they bother, but only if they don't
have to open the package in a destructive way.

Anyway, I appreciate your advice but that doesn't mean I trust what you
trust which are the words "meets oem" more than I trust actual facts (which
are measured and tested friction ratings).

We each put trust in different things:
a. You trust marketing more than specs
b. I trust specs more than marketing

Neither of us is right or wrong - it's just we differ in whom we trust.

[Mad Roger]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 23:55:56 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

>>It's usually *hard* to find the scoring spec; it's a lot easier to find the
>>thickness and runout specs, so I'm not saying it's an easy spec to find.
>
> not hard at all. here's one:
> https://www.cbsparts.ca/admin/bulletins/Brake%20Drum%20and%20Rotor.pdf

Um... you just proved my point.
There's no spec for scoring and grooving in that PDF.

And in *anything* on a car, there is no such thing as 0 tolerance. It just
doesn't exist. 0 may be 0.090 or it might be 0.001 but it's never going to
be 0 on anything.

Specifically "free of scoring" is not a spec for how thick the scoring can
be. (Yes, I know you *intimate* zero, but 0 inches is not the OEM spec, as
I've seen OEM specs when I looked. They're hard to find, but they're
nowhere near 0 inches).

I'm not chastising you for finding that PDF, as I know it's nearly
impossible to find any manufacturer's spec for how thick a groove or
scoring can be before it's rejected - but when you find the spec (as I have
in the past), you'll be shocked how deep and wide the grooves can be and
still be within manufacturers' specs.

> and another:
> https://www.cbsparts.ca/admin/bulletins/Tech%20Common%20Drum%20Problems.pdf

Um... this proves point also, which is that there is no spec in there for
scoring or grooving other than 0, which is a ridiculous number that isn't
the manufacturer's spec.

Again, I'm not chastising you for finding out what I already knew to be the
case, because I too looked and it's not easy to find a spec but when you
find it, you'll be amazed how wide the grooves can be and still be within
the manufacturers' specs.

> see page 402 at :
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=O01vCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT723&lpg=PT723&dq=brake+drum+groove+limits&source=bl&ots=eMRaue9Ae-&sig=scMn52wQD_vu0nulzkGPt9EzRfk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj6rj2xszYAhViw4MKHfwrCjU4ChDoAQgmMAA#v=onepage&q=brake%20drum%20groove%20limits&f=false

Ch 8 Drum Brakes wasn't visible to me when I looked.

> "If scoring or light grooves cannot be removed by hand (with emery
> cloth) the drum MUST be refinished or replaced"

Again, this proves my point. Unless you actually believe 0 is the spec, but
I already know, from my past searches years ago, that it's huge, so it's
not even close to zero.

> There is NO ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF GROOVING ALLOWED ON A DRUM when
> replacing friction m,aterial- PERIOD.

I see your words and I believe it says that but it's not a manufacturer's
spec.

Now, I did look it up only for the rotors because the vehicle didn't have
drum brakes, so, maybe drums are different - but that doesn't change the
fact that none of these are Toyota specs.

> read ALL of:
> http://www.aa1car.com/library/drum_brakes.htm

Um. Again, it proves my point, saying only that "Minor pitting and scoring
are acceptable as long as the grooves are not too deep and can be removed
by resurfacing."

As in the other PDFs, that implies 0 but it's just not 0 IMHO.
I may be wrong for drums, because what I looked up was the manufacturer's
spec for scoring of rotors - but the scoring limit for rotors is *huge* so
why would drums be different?

Maybe drums *are* zero (I'm not saying they're not); all I'm saying is that
you and I both know that it's damn hard to find the *manufacturers* spec
for the depth and width of a scoring that will fail a drum.

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue with you as you found exactly what I
found, which is that it's damn hard to find the manufacturers' spec for the
size of scoring where it's *easy* to find their spec for the diameter and
other things.

That last article does say the following:
"One way to tell if the surface finish is in the recommended range
of 80 microinches or less"

Ok. That's 80 millionths of an inch, or 0.000080 inches, but that's the
overall "roughness" factor and not scoring per se. And, notice it's not 0
simply because nothing in a vehicle is at 0 tolerance.

My main comment stands which is that, at least for rotors, scoring has to
be huge to fail a rotor, according to the specs I don't have now but that I
unearthed in the past from a vehicle manufacturer.

Whether rotor scoring is similar is unknown to me but it's a good question
of what Toyota things is a scoring limit. But really this is theoretical
since I'm keeping the drums as they're in fine shape with no "visible"
scoring.

[AMuzi]

There are no asbestos brake linings available so everything
else now is similar and adequate.

[allise...@gmail.com]

White Post Restorations whitepost.com can restore anything auto related.I once saw their ad years and years ago in Hemmings Motor News paper magazine. hemmings.com

[Tekkie®]

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...

>
> Then go to the dealer and check the OEM parts they have in stock, and
> you will KNOW the spec. Then order the OEM quality parts from Rock,
> and if they are sub-standard, send them back. No rocket science. -
> unless you've pissed off the dealership parts department and they
> won't do anything for you.
>
> I had customers that I'd refuse to do anything for because they were
> cheapassed pricks who you could never satisfy, and/or they were
> know-it-all know-nothings that argued with everything you told them.
>
> If you are that kind of person (and it's looking a bit that way
> because you don't listen to experience - you "know better" )- then
> good luck and it looks good on you.
>

I predicted this would happen...

--
Tekkie

[Tekkie®]

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...


>

> "If scoring or light grooves cannot be removed by hand (with emery
> cloth) the drum MUST be refinished or replaced"
>
> There is NO ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF GROOVING ALLOWED ON A DRUM when
> replacing friction m,aterial- PERIOD.
>
> read ALL of:
> http://www.aa1car.com/library/drum_brakes.htm
>

Hey Madman, have you checked the hoses yet? Don't bother with pix.

--
Tekkie

[Mad Roger]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:19:19 -0500,
Tekkie+AK4- wrote:

> I predicted this would happen...

If simply responding truthfully, and providing referenced facts for my
response is bothering you, I'll drop out now.

I do thank those who provided advice, and I comprehended *all* the advice,
all of which was helpful.

Mostly to Clare Snyder, I appreciate his advice, born of experience, where
he is correct that pretty much any shoe that is OEM quality will work
unless they lie and, to Clare's point, the specs can lie too.

To Clare's point on the gouges, let's forget about that since the actual
spec from the manufacturer is almost impossible to find, and all that Clare
found essentially said zero (where to them, zero is 0.000080", which is
pretty darn close to zero, I agree).

Besides, my drums are fine so the gouges are just an aside where I merely
state that finding a manufacturer's spec on them for *rotors* is damn near
impossible (but it can be done) and when I did that, I was shocked at how
huge they were (for rotors!). I never found a spec for drums so I'll stick
with Clare's "zero" for now - which is fine.

Regarding the cylinders, I saw the post of "how would you know", where
that's a question that is actually insinuating more than it's asking - but
the direct answer is so simple that everyone already knows it.
1. Visual inspection
2. Mechanical inspection
3. Measurements

That's how you know *anything* needs to be repaired, so the question is
moot, as you can't do #3 or even much of #2 or #1 without taking it apart
and if you take it apart, you may as well rebuild it, which is likely what
I'll do.

Regarding the procedure, I think I have it down now, where all I need to do
is do it, so there won't be much (if anything) to report back until I buy
the pads, the repair kit, and do the job.

Thanks for all your advice and help, and please do realize that my only
differences with Clare are that he trusts certain things more than I do and
I trust certain things more than he does - but I understand and agree with
all his points.

I will chide anyone who puts "E" pads or shoes on a vehicle, and I always
have, since E is the friction coefficient of steel on steel (that's a
fact).

Nothing wrong with E pads if E is the OEM pad, but if the Oem pad is F, G,
or H, (most likely F though as G and H are less common), then putting an E
on is below the manufacturer's spec.

The nearest Toyota is 50 miles round trip, so I am on the phone with dealer
after dealer trying to get just one of them to open up a box to tell me
what is printed on the shoes. I'll report back what they tell me if I can
convince one of them to open a box and look.

Thanks! If I don't report back - it will be because I have no new
information for you. Thanks!

[Mad Roger]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:34:51 -0500,
Tekkie+AK4- wrote:

> have you checked the hoses yet? Don't bother with pix.

Hi Tekkie,
Thanks for your advice.
Please see my detailed response to your other post.

As for hoses, I'm not trying to overhaul the vehicle - so I haven't checked
anything.

In fact, I wasn't even looking for brake issues, because the owner didn't
report any brake issues. I was simply rotating her tires for her, and since
I had the wheels off, I popped the pins out of the rotor to look at the
pads in front and I pulled the shoe off to look at the shoes in the rear.

So, my main goal is just to refresh the pads and shoes, but it's sound
advice when I do the job on a weekend to check her hoses and cable for
fraying.

So what I'll do, as per your helpful advice, is buy the pads and probably
the rebuild kit, and then when I do the job, I'll inspect from the front to
the rear all the cables and hoses.

I'll also order a liter of DOT4 fluid (even though it only specifies DOT3),
and I'll borrow her kid and replenish her entire brake fluid until it is
all new too.

Thanks for the advice.

Remember, none of us differ except that I seem to be caring more about
friction for friction materials while others care more about it being the
OEM spec - both of which aren't necessarily different.

However, if the OEM spec is E, I will likely refuse to put them on the
vehicle as I have never put anything less than F on any vehicle.

[Mad Roger]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:31:18 -0000 (UTC),

Mad Roger wrote:

> I guess I need to call RockAuto in the morning at 1-608-661-1376 (Wisconsin
> time zone) to figure out two critical things:

I called Rock Auto but they don't do any customer support over the phone.
I called three Toyota dealers, all of whom refused to provide the
information printed on the pad.

One said "come down and look" but they're 50 miles round trip, so I'll try
at the computer first and let you know as the friction coefficient is the
most important job of friction materials.

[Mad Roger]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:10:18 -0000 (UTC),

I found a clue to the J866a OEM friction coefficient on Amazon.
https://s18.postimg.org/wqilqasdl/toyota_friction_material.jpg

I looked at the zoomable photos on Amazon, where out of about a score of
choices for the specific vehicle entered, 3 of the photos had the J866a
numbers visible which are legally mandated to be printed in every shoe.

All were SAE J866a FF friction ratings.
E = 0.25-0.35
F = 0.35-0.45 <== Amazon shoes for this vehicle are FF it seems

G = 0.45-0.55
H = 0.55-0.65
http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~smacadof/DOTPadCodes.htm

1. $16.09 Centric 110.05890 Drum Brake Shoe
https://www.amazon.com/Centric-110-05890-Drum-Brake-Shoe/dp/B000C02PSS
2. $21.99 Power Stop B589 Autospecialty Brake Shoe
https://www.amazon.com/Power-Stop-B589-Autospecialty-Brake/dp/B003YO967W
3. $29.14 Bosch BS589 Blue Disc Brake Shoe Set
https://www.amazon.com/Bosch-BS589-Blue-Disc-Brake/dp/B00MY5UMK2

This doesn't prove the J866a friction coefficient for the Toyota OEM shoes
is FF, but it strongly implies that they are (if Amazon is correct that
these are OEM replacements).

[Clare Snyder]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:34:43 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger
<roge...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 23:55:56 -0500,
> Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>>>It's usually *hard* to find the scoring spec; it's a lot easier to find the
>>>thickness and runout specs, so I'm not saying it's an easy spec to find.
>>
>> not hard at all. here's one:
>> https://www.cbsparts.ca/admin/bulletins/Brake%20Drum%20and%20Rotor.pdf
>
>Um... you just proved my point.
>There's no spec for scoring and grooving in that PDF.

Because if there is scoring that cannot be polished out by hand the
drum MUST be refinished or replaced. There is no spec because there is
no tolerance for scoring or grooving. If you can feelit - it fails.
Period - end of discussion.

>And in *anything* on a car, there is no such thing as 0 tolerance. It just
>doesn't exist. 0 may be 0.090 or it might be 0.001 but it's never going to
>be 0 on anything.
>
>Specifically "free of scoring" is not a spec for how thick the scoring can
>be. (Yes, I know you *intimate* zero, but 0 inches is not the OEM spec, as
>I've seen OEM specs when I looked. They're hard to find, but they're
>nowhere near 0 inches).
>
>I'm not chastising you for finding that PDF, as I know it's nearly
>impossible to find any manufacturer's spec for how thick a groove or
>scoring can be before it's rejected - but when you find the spec (as I have
>in the past), you'll be shocked how deep and wide the grooves can be and
>still be within manufacturers' specs.
>

no - the spec you talk of is how deep the scoring can be and still
be correctable, not acceptable - you can machine uot deep scoring as
long as you don't excede the machining limit, which is generally
about 30 thou less than the discard limit - but on the heavy drums of
a 4-runner or land cruiser, is equal to the discard limit.

>> and another:
>> https://www.cbsparts.ca/admin/bulletins/Tech%20Common%20Drum%20Problems.pdf
>
>Um... this proves point also, which is that there is no spec in there for
>scoring or grooving other than 0, which is a ridiculous number that isn't
>the manufacturer's spec.
>
>Again, I'm not chastising you for finding out what I already knew to be the
>case, because I too looked and it's not easy to find a spec but when you
>find it, you'll be amazed how wide the grooves can be and still be within
>the manufacturers' specs.
>

Give me proof

>> see page 402 at :
>> https://books.google.ca/books?id=O01vCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT723&lpg=PT723&dq=brake+drum+groove+limits&source=bl&ots=eMRaue9Ae-&sig=scMn52wQD_vu0nulzkGPt9EzRfk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj6rj2xszYAhViw4MKHfwrCjU4ChDoAQgmMAA#v=onepage&q=brake%20drum%20groove%20limits&f=false
>
>Ch 8 Drum Brakes wasn't visible to me when I looked.
>
>> "If scoring or light grooves cannot be removed by hand (with emery
>> cloth) the drum MUST be refinished or replaced"
>
>Again, this proves my point. Unless you actually believe 0 is the spec, but
>I already know, from my past searches years ago, that it's huge, so it's
>not even close to zero.

Give me proof.

>
>> There is NO ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF GROOVING ALLOWED ON A DRUM when
>> replacing friction m,aterial- PERIOD.
>
>I see your words and I believe it says that but it's not a manufacturer's
>spec

. Because there IS no spec.

>
>Now, I did look it up only for the rotors because the vehicle didn't have
>drum brakes, so, maybe drums are different - but that doesn't change the
>fact that none of these are Toyota specs.

It IS different. There is NO spec for drums. There IS a spec for
rotors, but even there, the spec is for "in service" rotors - not for
pad replacement.

>
>> read ALL of:
>> http://www.aa1car.com/library/drum_brakes.htm
>
>Um. Again, it proves my point, saying only that "Minor pitting and scoring
>are acceptable as long as the grooves are not too deep and can be removed
>by resurfacing."

meansd you don't have to throw them away if they can be resurfaced
within spec. It does NOT mean they can be returned to service asis
with new friction material>

>As in the other PDFs, that implies 0 but it's just not 0 IMHO.
>I may be wrong for drums, because what I looked up was the manufacturer's
>spec for scoring of rotors - but the scoring limit for rotors is *huge* so
>why would drums be different?

Because drums are not rotors and you are reading the rotor spec weong.

>
>Maybe drums *are* zero (I'm not saying they're not); all I'm saying is that
>you and I both know that it's damn hard to find the *manufacturers* spec
>for the depth and width of a scoring that will fail a drum.
>

Because, as I said, there IS NO SPEC other than if it cannot be
polished out, it should be resurfaced, and you cannot reserface beyond
the machining limit, which is GENERALLY less than the in-service wear
limit

>To be clear, I'm not trying to argue with you as you found exactly what I
>found, which is that it's damn hard to find the manufacturers' spec for the
>size of scoring where it's *easy* to find their spec for the diameter and
>other things.
>
>That last article does say the following:
> "One way to tell if the surface finish is in the recommended range
> of 80 microinches or less"

And seldom is a tolerance plus or minus 50% - so that leaves you, at
the outside, with 120 mict=roinches with a "50%/-0 TOLERANCE.

>
>Ok. That's 80 millionths of an inch, or 0.000080 inches, but that's the
>overall "roughness" factor and not scoring per se. And, notice it's not 0
>simply because nothing in a vehicle is at 0 tolerance.
>
>My main comment stands which is that, at least for rotors, scoring has to
>be huge to fail a rotor, according to the specs I don't have now but that I
>unearthed in the past from a vehicle manufacturer.
>

With rotors directly exposed to road grit, stones, ets it is obvious
they WILL suffer some scoring in use, wheras drums, being enclosed
should not. WHAT is going to cause scoring in drums?????

And the spec for rotors is for in-service failure - NOT for tolerance
for replacing friction material.

If rotors are scored, you don't get full friction surface engagement,
and the "high spots" overheat as they wear in - then when wornin the
surface area increases by the annular surface of the groove, and the
friction co-efficient of the pads to rough rotors is different than
the co-efficient oif friction with proiperly machined rotors (and
glazed rotors are different again)

For someone so fixated on friction ratings, you are certainly missing
the point on damaged rotors and drums, which have SIGNIFICANT effects
on the friction effects of the brakes.

I'm going to step right out and say it - you are an IDIOT if you
cannot grasp the significance of what has been said, bothabout
friction materials and rotor/drum condition.

>Whether rotor scoring is similar is unknown to me but it's a good question
>of what Toyota things is a scoring limit. But really this is theoretical
>since I'm keeping the drums as they're in fine shape with no "visible"
>scoring.

Your drums did look OK in the pictures. Now just buy the OEM SPEC
linings and get it done!!!! - and before you install the drums on the
new shoes DEGLAZE THEM WITH 80 GRIT ABRASIVE PAPER tocondition the
surface to properly break in the new friction material.

[AMuzi]

Some garden vegetables concentrate trace elements to a
possibly significant degree. That said, the guy who calls a
restaurant asking for today's spectrograph analysis of the
salad gets a click to dial tone. And rightfully so.

[Tekkie®]

Mad Roger posted for all of us...

> 1. $16.09 Centric 110.05890 Drum Brake Shoe
> https://www.amazon.com/Centric-110-05890-Drum-Brake-Shoe/dp/B000C02PSS
> 2. $21.99 Power Stop B589 Autospecialty Brake Shoe
> https://www.amazon.com/Power-Stop-B589-Autospecialty-Brake/dp/B003YO967W
> 3. $29.14 Bosch BS589 Blue Disc Brake Shoe Set
> https://www.amazon.com/Bosch-BS589-Blue-Disc-Brake/dp/B00MY5UMK2
>
> This doesn't prove the J866a friction coefficient for the Toyota OEM shoes
> is FF, but it strongly implies that they are (if Amazon is correct that
> these are OEM replacements).

Hmmm, all this have a 589 part number, what conclusion can one draw?

--
Tekkie

[Mad Roger]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:38:45 -0500,
Tekkie+AK4- wrote:

> Hmmm, all this have a 589 part number, what conclusion can one draw?

Wow. That's a great point. You are perceptive since I didn't even notice
that. There is a PDF that the US government puts out every few years that
must contain a lookup for *every* brake shoe or pad ever sold in the USA
for passenger vehicles.

I'll see if I can find it on the net because it allows us to cross
reference a full number (like the Centric CEN11005890-110AA1436-FF-14-N16)
to the actual manufacturer (which might not be Centric who themselves may
not even make shoes as it may be a re-brander just like Axxis and PBR are
exactly the same pads).

The PowerStop number doesn't look like the full number, so I'll skip that.

But the Bosch number looks like a full number at
FB0589-80S?-584-FF-N14-0709.

Here's an older listing from 2011 titled:
AMECA Compliance List of Automotive Safety Devices:
Friction Material Edge Codes(TM), May 2011
<http://safebraking.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-May-20112.pdf>

It's 176 pages so I'll go through it to see if I can find out more
information about the Toyota OEM friction ratings, but I'm pretty sure that
it's getting to be a safer bet that they're FF rated shoes.

I haven't been able to find a *newer* friction-codes document yet though.

[Mad Roger]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:05:28 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> the spec you talk of is how deep the scoring can be and still
> be correctable, not acceptable - you can machine uot deep scoring as
> long as you don't excede the machining limit, which is generally
> about 30 thou less than the discard limit - but on the heavy drums of
> a 4-runner or land cruiser, is equal to the discard limit.

You bring up a good point which is the "discard limit", where I never
delved into whether the number given is the number that you start with or
the number that you expect to end with.

I always assumed it's the start limit (but it might not be).

For example, these rotors say 297mm maximum diameter.

Even if a drum passed all other tests...
- If the drum measured 297.1mm in diameter, it would be discarded.
- But what if the drums measured 296.9mm in diameter?

> Give me proof

I'll have to dig that up separately as it's on a car I don't even own
anymore so I have to dig up the spec for the rotor grooves.

But even if I have trouble finding it, may whole point is that it's almost
impossible to find a MANUFACTURER's SPEC for groove thickness failure.

(I understand your point that it's assumed it's zero.)

> . Because there IS no spec.

That may very well be the case, so let's table this until I can dig up the
spec I found on an older vehicle.

> It IS different. There is NO spec for drums. There IS a spec for
> rotors, but even there, the spec is for "in service" rotors - not for
> pad replacement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in service" rotors.
Is that just an inspection of the rotors without a pad replacement?

> Because drums are not rotors and you are reading the rotor spec weong.

Both may be true.

> And seldom is a tolerance plus or minus 50% - so that leaves you, at
> the outside, with 120 mict=roinches with a "50%/-0 TOLERANCE.

Good observation!

> With rotors directly exposed to road grit, stones, ets it is obvious
> they WILL suffer some scoring in use, wheras drums, being enclosed
> should not. WHAT is going to cause scoring in drums?????

Another good observation.

> And the spec for rotors is for in-service failure - NOT for tolerance
> for replacing friction material.

Yet another good observation.

> Your drums did look OK in the pictures. Now just buy the OEM SPEC
> linings and get it done!!!! -

Thanks for that advice. I am honing in on the friction rating for OEM being
FF, but that's not definitive yet.

> and before you install the drums on the
> new shoes DEGLAZE THEM WITH 80 GRIT ABRASIVE PAPER tocondition the
> surface to properly break in the new friction material.

That's interesting. Thanks for the advice.
I never deglazed a rotor before.
I do the standard multiple-60-to-10mph stop that everyone does to bed them.

Thanks for the advice!
You pointed out things, as did Tekkie, that I hadn't thought of.
Much appreciated.

[Clare Snyder]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:34:42 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger
<roge...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:28:05 -0500,
> Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>> No, they will sell you what you are willing to pay for. If you want
>> "economy" friction, they willsell you "economy" friction - which M<AY
>> have the same friction characteristics, but only last 50,000 miles, or
>> 30,000 instead of 175000.
>
>There is no such thing as OEM quality without having the OEM specs to
>compare against. Otherwise it's just a gimmick.

BULLSHIT. You are an idiot.

>
>There's no way for you to know if it's OEM quality if it's not to OEM
>specs. Just because they *say* it in a billion web sites, doesn't mean it
>is.
>
>Specs are fact.
>Marketing words are bullshit.

ANd your perception is also bullshit.

>
>> The "monroe premium" shoes I have "on the shelf" for my ranger are EE
>> on all 4 shoes.
>
>EE sucks. Steel on steel has a coefficient of E. Seriously. Look it up.

The brakes work perfectly, and they are OEM spec. The shoes from ford
are the same.

>
>> The "certified" semi-metallic pads I have "onthe shelf" for the ranger
>> are EF
>
>Again, E is atrocious. Steel on stell is E. Look it up.
>F is good.

Again, they are perfectly serviceable. I can makethe antilock brakes
activate on dry pavement at any legal speed.

>
>Unfortunatly, there is a HUGE RANGE between E and F and even within E and F
>themselves. Such is the spec.
>
>But I'll tell you that I've never once in my life put a crappy E pad on any
>disc brake. E is absolutely horrifically terrible. It's no better than
>steel on steel.
>

ANd steel on steel will stop you dead in your tracks - t5he problem
with steel on steel is there is no "feel" - it is either all or
nothing.

>F is just getting started.
>
>I've never done drum brakes before though.

So you don't have a CLUE what you are spouting off about. You are
just like your idiot buddy who figured he had to do his own tire
service, balancing, and alignment because he knew better than everbody
else - nobody else was going to doit right - and yet he had to ask
stupid questions about everything on this newsgroup just so he could
argue with everyone else.

>
>> Since the rear brakes basically "go along for the ride" unless you
>> are hauling a load, the friction rating isn't TERRIBLY critical anyway
>
>This may very well be true because I must have replaced the fronts a few
>times already on this vehicle so I don't disagree with you. I'm going to do
>the front pads also, so I am looking for what their friction ratings are.
>
>> LikeI said - stupidly cheap - not worth rebuilding unless the cyls are
>> not available.
>
>The main problem with cylinders is that if I don't go OEM, I won't know the
>quality of the cylinders. So I may end up putting worse cylinders in, when
>their may be nothing wrong with the current ones.

BULLSHIT!!!

>
>Then again, maybe all cylinders are just fine in terms of quality. I don't
>know. That's the homework I need to do as I've never done drums before.

You've never rebuilt wheel cyls before either - and you have no idea
what quality the rubbers you will be able to scrounge are either, as
the OEM market no longer supplies them - nor does the top tier
aftermarket.

Yoiu are an IDIOT if you believe otherwize.

>
>> Didn't say you shouldn't. Just LISTEN to what I'm saying. BUY OE#M
>> SPEC and you GET OEM SPEC.
>
>We don't disagree. We just don't agree on what you trust & what I trust.
>
>To me, IMHO, there is no such thing as "OEM SPEC". It's marketing bullshit.
>
>Maybe it's oem spec. Maybe it's not. Who is to say?
>You trust marketing more than I do.
>
>I trust *real* specs. Like the friction coefficient.
>That's a real spec.
>Not marketing bullshit.

If the spec is fudged, it bullshuit. You don't KNOW the spec is real.
You are an IDIOT.

>
>Why do you deny me the right to double check that what they call an OEM
>spec *is* the OEM spec?
>

I'm not denying you the right. Hire a materials inspection lab and
have them certify whatever product you buy before installing it. Make
shure the materials lab is certified and experienced in brake friction
material,and that all instruments have been properly calibrated to a
certified standard - otherwize you are just guessing and hoping. - you
do not KNOW anything.

>> Listen to one of the most experienced wrenches on this newsgroup.
>> I've wrenched, I've been service manager, and I've taught the trade
>> at both secondary school and trade levels. Since 1969.
>
>I don't disagree with anything you've said, and, in fact, I agree with
>almost everything you've said. Our disagreements are only in how we
>interpret things like scoring and what you term "oem spec".

You are an argumentative know-it-all kid (whatever your age)

>
>I completely comprehend what you're saying.
>The main difference is that I trust specs more than you seem to.

No, it's that you put more importance on knowi g the published spec,
and lest trust in the automotive aftermarket.

>And you seem to trust what I think is marketing bullshit more than I do.
>

You trust the "marketing bullshit" of a stamped on friction rating,
not knowi g who stamped it on, and whether they are trustworthy or
not.

I trust major quality aftermarket suppliers to provide the correct
parts - and I have 50 years of experience backing me up. When I buy
OEM spec parts, I have no problems. If Iinstall "economy" parts, they
usually don't last as long and occaisionally do not perform as well.

>It's not a disagreement in principle as if it truly was OEM spec then it's
>OEM spec. I get that - but I don't believe it just because they said it.
>
>Have you seen oil filters taken apart? I have.
>They *all* meet OEM spec.
>But some are better than others.

And there are brands I trust, and brands I don't. Among those brands I
don't particularly trust, their PREMIUM products are top notch. It's
their "economy" product that is substandard. Case in point.
Orange fram filters are sketchy - but their "synthetic" filter - their
premium product - is perfectly adequate - as good as a standard WIX,
Purolator, Mptorcraft, Mopar orAC Delco filter.

>A lot better.
>
>Why would you deny me the right to double check that what they call an OEM
>spec *is* the OEM spec?

Like I said - GO FOR IT!!!. Hire a materials lab to confirm the spec.

>> ANd if you buy OEM SPEC aftermarket p[arts, they will br too. What
>> do you not understand about OEM SPEC????
>
>There is nothing you could ever say to me that I don't comprehend.
>Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Really.

You sure don't seem to be comprehending ANYTHING.

>
>It's not a matter of comprehension.
>
>It's a matter of trust in marketing bullshit or not.
>You trust what I call marketing bullshit much more than I trust it.

I trust major quality OEM manufacturers to provide what they say they
are providing. Ihave 50 years experience buying and installing parts.
(and troubleshooting the systems the parts are used in)

>
>That's the only difference that I can see where we disagree.
>
>If I buy a food that says "all natural", what the fuck does that mean?
>If it says "more doctors recommend it", what the fuck does that mean?
>
>Do you know that acetominophen (aka Tylenol) is freaking dangerous?
>The LD50 on Tylenol is so fucking close to the therapeutic dose that it's
>dangerous stuff compared to Aspirin.

And asprin is al;so dangerous.

Car parts and pharmaceuticals are two different worlds.

>
>Yet there is the J&J campaign to convince idiot consumers that "more
>doctors recommend tylenol" which is a bullshit marketing statistic.
>
>Same here with the "meets OEM specs" bullshit.
>Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't.
>
>What matters is the OEM spec.
>Not the marketing bullshit.
>

You are not only an IDIOT but a PARANOID idiot. Lay off the weed!!

>We don't disagree.
>The only place we disagree is that you can't believe anyone would not
>believe in the marketing bullshit.
>
>SO you say I don't "comprehend" but I do comprehend.
>It's trust. Not comprehension where we differ.
>

You are PARANOID

>Why would you deny me the right to double check that what they call an OEM
>spec *is* the OEM spec?
>
>> No, you choose OEM SPEC from a TRUSTED MANUFACTURER - no matter who
>> you buy from.
>
>Let's drop this as I AGREE with you that if it truly is "oem spec" then
>"Oem spec" is fine.
>
>Did you know Apple said that their phones were X Ghz but they halved that
>in a year? Companies don't always tell the truth.
>

Particularly crooked companioes like APPLE who have ALWAYS sold the
sizzle - not the steak.

>You seem to believe them.
>I don't.

I've NEVER believed Apple.

>
>That's the only difference. Why do you deny me the right to double check
>that what they call an OEM spec *is* the OEM spec?
>

Nobodiy is denying you the RIGHT to do anything. Go buy a set of OEM
shoes from Toyota - read the specs on the material., then go buy
whatever the heck you want. Knowbody's stopping you.

>> And who says the friction material is accurately marked????
>
>They have to meet the standard and I "presume" it's enforced by law.
>Maybe it's not - but I presume that the friction rating is correct.
>
>

You know what ASS U ME does - PREsume just does it faster.

>> You have
>> no idea where the friction material came from, and if it meets the
>> spec stamped on it. It is almost CERTAINLY sourced fromChina - and
>> likely assembled on the shoe in China, regardless of the brand, and
>> China will counterfeit anything, given the chance. This is where a
>> "trusted manufacturer" comes in, as they do "quality control" and
>> assure the product meets spec.
>
>What's odd is you believe a marketing bullshit claim of "meets oem spec"
>without it saying what that spec is, and yet you question a government
>mandated friction test under specified circumstances.
>
>I think that's odd in that it's reversed from normal logic.
>There's nothing wrong with your logic - as it has to do with trust.
>
>You trust marketing more than you trust the government mandate.
>I'm the opposite on trust.
>

Anything to dowith "government mandate" is open to abuse.

>I trust the friction test, specifically the SAE J866A test procedure:
>https://netrider.net.au/threads/understanding-brake-pad-ratings.88551/

No, you trust that the spec printed on the material by some Chinese
sweat-shop . Youhave NO PROOF the material meets the spec, or that
the actual testing was done to the standard.

>
>Here's a general description of the friction ratings CDEFGH
>http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1003-brake-pad-technology/
>
>> You could have FF stamped on a thich chunk of cardboard on an "xyz"
>> brand part and it might not even meet the loweast spec.
>
>What's odd is that you don't trust a government mandated standard test, but
>at the same time, you trust a mere marketing term on a web site.

What I don't trust is an unknown manufacturer over a known supplier
of quality parts. I don't even LOOK at the "marketingbullshit" that
you seem to put a lot of weight on.

>
>That's fine. You're allowed to trust marketing more than government
>mandated specs - but it's the opposite for me on trust.
>

\ Government mandated specs are, to many, just a challenge to get
around them - particularly in the Fractured States of America, where
the president is a cheat and a liar and half the country wants to be
just like him.

>We only differ in what we trust.
>http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~smacadof/DOTPadCodes.htm
>
>I can't run my own tests like the police did here:
>https://www.justnet.org/pdf/EvaluationBrakePads2000.pdf

And thiose tests showed the EE pads CONSISTENTLY outperformed the FF
brakes pretty well across the board - with the FF brakes SEVERELY
underperforming in most cases.

The Dana Ceramic family was the only FF to outperform OEM, while
HawkHead outperformed on both Chevy and Ford - and Raybestos and
Carquest alsooutperformed on Ford in the panic stop test.


Across the board, EE brakes, on the whole, outperformed the ff, and
even the ee/gg combination - so what does your frictionrating tell
you????????????
>

What it tells ME is if I buy Raybestos, NAPA, CVarquest, or Dana (all
major OEM suppliers) brakes, I will equal or excede OEM performance -
doesn't make a bit of difference to me WHAT rating they have.

If I want slightly superior hot panic braking, at the expense of
poorer cold and medium temperature braking I should buy ceramics - and
this is STRICTLY for braking performance.

Now, from REAL WORLD experience, both myFord Aerostrs wentthrough
rotors like crazy - untill I put on NAPA's Carbon Metallics a set of
pads destroyed a set of rotors at about half of pad life - and I mean
TOTALLY DESTROYED, here in Southern Ontario. That came out at just
over a year.

When I went to NAPA Carbon Metallics, the same rotors lasted for TWO
FULL SETS of pads - and over 5 years - and I was able to actually lock
the front wheels on dry pavement (rear ABS only) - which NONE of the
other brakes were capable of doing.

Never looked at the friction rating - never needed to, because
friction rating doesn't tell the whole story (as your reference so
elegantly proved)

>> They don't mean SQUAT if you can't trust the brand. See where I'm
>> coming from???
>
>The brand is meaningless.
>What matters is what's *inside* the oil filter.
>The brand is just the paint on the outside.

Nope - The BRAND can tell you what to expect inside.

>
>We differ greatly in whom we trust.
>
>I trust in specs.
>You trust in brands.
>
>Neither one of us is wrong - we just trust differently.

I beg to differ.

>
>> ANd over half the "enthusiasts" don't know shit from shinola - they
>> just listen to other "enthusiasts" or "armchair experts"
>
>I agree with you that the 'boy racers' out there who think seafoam is a
>solution from God himself don't know much -

And there again you would be WRONG.

Seafoam is a VERY EFFECTIVE and HANDY TOOL for solving MANY fuel
related (and some other) problems - and has been for decades.

> but when it comes to "dusting",
>it's pretty reliable when everyone with the same make and model and year
>you have says that a certain Jurid pad will dust while the PBR pad won't
>dust (where PBR and Axxis are the same pad - it's only the marketing paint
>on the outside of the box that allows them to sell Axxis pads at a higher
>price than PBR).
>
>Do you see what I'm getting at?

Nope.

>
>I personally called the marketing organization for Axxis who,
>interestingly, has a different channel than PBR (even though they're the
>*same* pads!), and they gave me the full scoop.

Boy Racer brands - Boutique manufacturers - not handled by any major
distributor -
>
>Marketing bullshit 101.
Yup - Australian engineered, chinese manufactured mail-order/online
marketing excercise.

>
>You are not wrong in trusting marketing far more than I do, and I am not
>wrong in trusting in actual measured specs more so that marketing words.
>
>> It's printed on the friction material by the manufacturer - can you
>> trust the manufacturer?????

Not if I don't know the manufacturer - and as your example of thecop
car test so elequantly shows - the ratings, on the whole, don't mean
SQUAT - and beyond that they do NOT tell the whole story.

>
>What's funny is that you don't trust a government mandated SAE test, which
>has clear conditions, while you do trust some blurb in thousands upon
>thousands of web sites to be correct.

Who said I trust websites??? You are the one giving aznd asking for
web references and specs - not me.

>
>I find that odd but there's nothing wrong with how you trust web site
>blurbs more than I trust them, nor that you trust government mandated SAE
>tests less than I trust them.
>

I DON'T trust website blurbs - I trust EXPOERIENCE - and I have 50
years of it. - half of that actively involved with the profucts on a
daily basis - long before the internet.

>It's all how you and I handle trust.
>
>You trust marketing far more than I do.

NOpe - all you trust is "marketing " - because that's all the
friction ratings are. They are a "comparison tool" - and a poor one
at that, as your tests proved.

>
>I *know* that a PBR pad is far less money than an Axxis pad and yet,
>they're exactly the same pad - only marketed differently.

And both are LIKELY crap

>
>Wanna know something funny?
>They both have the same markings on the side.
>
>They *have* to have the same markings.
>It's the law.
>
>The one place they can't lie, is in the markings.

You think Chinese producers can't
lie????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


Ha Ha Ha!!!

>
>> If so, trust the manufacturer to provide OEM quality.
>> If not, the ratings don't mean shit.
>
>You trust marketing more than I do.
>
>> Like I said - BUY QUALITY and you are not guessing any more than you
>> are doing it your way.
>
>We don't disagree other than you think E is quality and I know E is almost
>as bad as it gets. E is no better than steel on steel for friction.
>
>> Correct - there was no difference undernormal driving conditions -
>> they likely didn't wear the same, but they stopped the car at all
>> legal speeds under normal load conditions
>
>E is no better than steel on steel.
>Look it up.
>I'm not joking.
>
>> They bopught "economy" pads - and the whiz-bang enthusiast pads may
>> have been no better than what they bought,
>
>Anyone who says "economy" or "performance" pads is falling prey to
>marketing bullshit.

BULLSHIT

>
>There is no such thing as an "economy" pad.

Damned right there is.

>
>There is a pad that has a certain spec and that's it.
>If you pay a lot for it or if you pay a little for it, the spec didn't
>change.

Damned right it dioes.

You can have 5 different FF pads - and one will be noisy as hell, one
will eat rotors for lunch, onde will corrode as soon as it SMELLS
salt, and another will turn to gravel the first time you get it hot -
ALL FF rated (or ef, or ee. or FE )

The fact it met the test requirements ONCE in the lab means NOTHING
about quality

>
>Remember, the "performance" Axxis pad is the *same* pad as the economy
>"PBR" pad.
>

The PR is NOT an "economy" AXXISS pad, it is a pad sold at a lower
markup by a different marketing company.

NAPA, WAGNER, Raybestos - ALL make more than one grade of pad -
prermium and economy being the upper and lower end - often with a few
in between.

You know squat.

>It's all marketing bullshit.
>The numbers on the pad are *exactly* the same because they have to be.
>They're the same pad.

Boy, do YOU have a lot to learn.

>
>> Then go to the dealer and check the OEM parts they have in stock, and
>> you will KNOW the spec.
>
>You don't know the Toyota dealer in my town.
>They're assholes. They're the worst.
>They'd KILL me if I told them I just wanted to *look* at their pads.
>I'm serious (well, not about killing me).
>But they'd tell me to go take a hike.

Well, I have a feeling I'd be telling you the same.

>
>Only at a local auto parts store would they bother, but only if they don't
>have to open the package in a destructive way.
>
>Anyway, I appreciate your advice but that doesn't mean I trust what you
>trust which are the words "meets oem" more than I trust actual facts (which
>are measured and tested friction ratings).
>
>We each put trust in different things:
>a. You trust marketing more than specs
>b. I trust specs more than marketing
>
>Neither of us is right or wrong - it's just we differ in whom we trust.

Good luck!!

[Clare Snyder]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger
<roge...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:34:51 -0500,
> Tekkie+AK4- wrote:
>
>> have you checked the hoses yet? Don't bother with pix.
>
>Hi Tekkie,
>Thanks for your advice.
>Please see my detailed response to your other post.
>
>As for hoses, I'm not trying to overhaul the vehicle - so I haven't checked
>anything.
>
>In fact, I wasn't even looking for brake issues, because the owner didn't
>report any brake issues. I was simply rotating her tires for her, and since
>I had the wheels off, I popped the pins out of the rotor to look at the
>pads in front and I pulled the shoe off to look at the shoes in the rear.

o thios is not your own vehicle and you are doing brake work on it?

Ihope to hell you have good insurance!!!!!!!!

>
>So, my main goal is just to refresh the pads and shoes, but it's sound
>advice when I do the job on a weekend to check her hoses and cable for
>fraying.
>
>So what I'll do, as per your helpful advice, is buy the pads and probably
>the rebuild kit, and then when I do the job, I'll inspect from the front to
>the rear all the cables and hoses.

Call your insurance company and tell them what you are doing.
It is ILLEGAL in most provinces and states - and financially VERY
dangerous foran unqualified person to do safety related repairs on a
third party's vehicle.

>
>I'll also order a liter of DOT4 fluid (even though it only specifies DOT3),
>and I'll borrow her kid and replenish her entire brake fluid until it is
>all new too.
>
>Thanks for the advice.
>
>Remember, none of us differ except that I seem to be caring more about
>friction for friction materials while others care more about it being the
>OEM spec - both of which aren't necessarily different.
>
>However, if the OEM spec is E, I will likely refuse to put them on the
>vehicle as I have never put anything less than F on any vehicle.

Then you are CRAZY as MOST vehicles come with ee, or at best EF
brakes standard equipment.

[dsi1]

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 9:19:19 AM UTC-10, Tekkie® wrote:
>
> I predicted this would happen...
>
> --
> Tekkie

I can't say that I'm impressed about your powers of prediction. This happens frequently. A guy starts out with a simple question and then the thread get blown up and expanded beyond all rhyme or reason. The OP got the answer to his question early on but it's still steamrolling on. I'm not sure what the heck is going on. My guess is that this phenomenon will be studied and understood in the future by AI robots. Of course, I won't be able to say that "I predicted this would happen..." because the AI robots will have exterminated us all by then. That's the brakes.

[Clare Snyder]

Pay up your insurance first - this is a third pary vehicle - you need
a commercial garage policy to cover your liability - and as a non
qualified mechanic, good luck getting insurance.
If something goes wrong aznd someone is killed, or worse yet maimed
for life, wheather the brakes actually CAUSED the accident or not, you
will be fighting an expensive lawsuite - even if you win, it will cost
you BIG TIME. -

>
>Thanks for all your advice and help, and please do realize that my only
>differences with Clare are that he trusts certain things more than I do and
>I trust certain things more than he does - but I understand and agree with
>all his points.
>
>I will chide anyone who puts "E" pads or shoes on a vehicle, and I always
>have, since E is the friction coefficient of steel on steel (that's a
>fact).
>
>Nothing wrong with E pads if E is the OEM pad, but if the Oem pad is F, G,
>or H, (most likely F though as G and H are less common), then putting an E
>on is below the manufacturer's spec.
>

ANd yet even police cruisers come from the factory with EE pads -
according to the information you provided.

[Clare Snyder]

Don't know about you, but those sure don't look like "disc brake
shoes" to me!!!!

>
>This doesn't prove the J866a friction coefficient for the Toyota OEM shoes
>is FF, but it strongly implies that they are (if Amazon is correct that
>these are OEM replacements).

And they couldwell be "stock photos" too - not necessarily what
youare buying. You are putting a lot of "trust" in Amazon.
>
>
>
>
>

[Mad Roger]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:47:38 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> BULLSHIT. You are an idiot.

I think progress was made today with the realization that FF is probably
the Chase Test SAE J866a friction designation for the OEM shoes.
https://s18.postimg.org/wqilqasdl/toyota_friction_material.jpg

> ANd your perception is also bullshit.

My focus on specifications may be bullshit, I agree, as it's a matter of
trust in the specification for the SAE J866a Chaste Test results.

Your focus on a billion web sites all accurately portraying "meets OEM
quality" is also subject to trust.

A web site may make all sorts of claims (say, for Axxis "performance"
pads), while another web site sells the base pads (say, for PBR "economy"
pads) where the numbers printed on the pads can tell me that they're the
exact same pad because marketing can say almost anything they want as long
as the pads fit.

Luckily, the numbers tell us if they're the same pads, or not:

AMECA Compliance List of Automotive Safety Devices:
Friction Material Edge Codes(TM), May 2011
<http://safebraking.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-May-20112.pdf>

> The brakes work perfectly, and they are OEM spec. The shoes from ford
> are the same.

That's great but you saw the mention that EE brake pads are only marginally
better than no brake pad at all.
http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~smacadof/DOTPadCodes.htm

> Again, they are perfectly serviceable. I can makethe antilock brakes
> activate on dry pavement at any legal speed.

You have a friction coefficient at a variety of temperatures of somewhere
between 0.25u to 0.35u, which is a wide range.

I personally have chided *anyone* who uses EE pads, especially those who
did it without knowing that they were EE pads, becaues I would use FF pads
which have a measurably higher friction coefficient of somewhere between
0.35u to 0.45u, which itself is a huge range.

> ANd steel on steel will stop you dead in your tracks - t5he problem
> with steel on steel is there is no "feel" - it is either all or
> nothing.

I agree with you, as always, since I've *seen* rotors worn to their ribs,
and the cars were still being driven on the road.

All I'm saying, and all I ever said, was that I have never put EE pads or
shoes on any vehicle and I hope that I never will.

FF is fine for me as long as that meets OEM specs.

> So you don't have a CLUE what you are spouting off about.

We're talking about the SAE J688a Chase Test whose results are printed on
*every* brake pad and shoe sold in the USA. This information has been
around for many years. Here is the PDF from 2011 for example:

> If the spec is fudged, it bullshuit. You don't KNOW the spec is real.
> You are an IDIOT.

I'm sorry if my adult conversation with you has offended you.
We don't disagree on the technology.

We simply disagree on the level of trust.

For example, you trust EE pads far more than I do (and that's fine).
You also trust that every web site accurately portrays "meets OEM specs"
far more than I do, and that's fine.

Apparently you don't trust the SAE J866a Chase Test results, which are
printed on every brake pad and shoe - where I do.

We don't disagree in concept - we merely have different trust levels in
different sets of data.

> I'm not denying you the right. Hire a materials inspection lab and
> have them certify whatever product you buy before installing it.

I agree with that that what really matters is real-world experience, where,
you'll note, this report looks at EE and FF pads in Police Cruisers in
depth:
https://www.justnet.org/pdf/EvaluationBrakePads2000.pdf

> Make
> shure the materials lab is certified and experienced in brake friction
> material,and that all instruments have been properly calibrated to a
> certified standard - otherwize you are just guessing and hoping. - you
> do not KNOW anything.

Actually, I do.
If we trust in the SAE J8866 Chase Test results, we do know a *lot* about
the friction at various temperatures. And, if we match the entire code, we
know *who* actually manufactured the pads/shoes (e.g., we'd know that some
are just rebranded versions of others).

So, it seems you may be under estimating the huge amount of knowledge there
is in the direct result of SAE J866a tests printed on every brake pad and
shoe sold in the USA today.

We can tell if two pads from two different brands are the same pad, and we
can tell who actually makes every pad sold in the USA today.

It's all here, all 176 pages of it:
<http://safebraking.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-May-20112.pdf>

> You are an argumentative know-it-all kid (whatever your age)

I'm far younger than you are and not as experienced as you are.
I don't have any experience with drum brakes.
Like many here, I have an engineering degree but it's not in this field.

> And there are brands I trust, and brands I don't. Among those brands I
> don't particularly trust, their PREMIUM products are top notch. It's
> their "economy" product that is substandard. Case in point.
> Orange fram filters are sketchy - but their "synthetic" filter - their
> premium product - is perfectly adequate - as good as a standard WIX,
> Purolator, Mptorcraft, Mopar orAC Delco filter.

Brands are a marketing gimmick.
The 176 page document proves that.

> You sure don't seem to be comprehending ANYTHING.

I apologize that you feel I don't comprehend your statements.
I think we have a difference in trust.
You don't trust SAE J866a Chase Test results; I do.
You trust marketing branding; I don't.

It's not a matter of comprehension - but a matter of levels of trust.

> I trust major quality OEM manufacturers to provide what they say they
> are providing. Ihave 50 years experience buying and installing parts.
> (and troubleshooting the systems the parts are used in)

VW was making cars for a long time, but they screwed the consumer.
Apple is an extremely trustworthy brand, but they screwed the consumer.
Wells Fargo is a great brand, but they were fabricating accounts.

What do you have against me being able to read the numbers on a brake shoe
to tell if two brake shoes are either identical in all ways, or if they are
made by the same (or different) manufacturer?

Why would you hate me having that information?

> You are not only an IDIOT but a PARANOID idiot. Lay off the weed!!

I'm sorry if you think that being able to read the numbers printed on a
brake shoe in order to tell if that shoe is identical to another shoe or
made by the same company makes me a paranoid idiot.

I'm sorry if knowing the SAE J866a Chase Test friction coefficient of a
friction material makes me a paranoid idiot.

There's nothing I can say to you if you think that, which will change your
mind. We must just disagree.

You seem to think information about friction for friction materials is bad.
I seem to think it's a fundamental first order data for any friction pad.

We will just have to disagree.

> You are PARANOID

I'm sorry you think I'm paranoid for wanting to know what the SAE J866a
Chase Test friction coefficient is for the OEM shoes and for the shoes that
I put on the vehicle.

One thing that this "paranoia" will get me, and that's the fact that I hope
to *never* put on any vehicle the same pads you put on yours, since EE pads
are, as you know, only marginally better in friction than no pads at all.

> Particularly crooked companioes like APPLE who have ALWAYS sold the
> sizzle - not the steak.

Well - we do *agree* on one thing! :)

> I've NEVER believed Apple.

See! There *is* common ground between us!

> Nobodiy is denying you the RIGHT to do anything. Go buy a set of OEM
> shoes from Toyota - read the specs on the material., then go buy
> whatever the heck you want. Knowbody's stopping you.

Actually, at $157 a set, I can't ask the owner to pay that much for an SAE
J866a Chase Test FF shoe when I may be able to get an SAE J866a Chase Test
FF shoe from the *same* manufacturer for around 20 or 30 bucks.

It's all in the branding that the 176-page PDF decodes for us.

> You know what ASS U ME does - PREsume just does it faster.

I'm younger than you, so I don't know all those clever repartee's yet.

> Anything to dowith "government mandate" is open to abuse.

Agreed. But you don't have any proof, do you, that the SAE J866a Chase Test
is being abused?

Even if it was abused, the standards require all pads to state their actual
company of origin no matter what brand.

Why do you hate me having this information of who actually made the shoe?

> No, you trust that the spec printed on the material by some Chinese
> sweat-shop . Youhave NO PROOF the material meets the spec, or that
> the actual testing was done to the standard.

Just a moment ago you repeatedly claimed I was paranoid.
Now you claim that the SAE J866a standards as reported in this 176-page PDF
are all faked?

AMECA Compliance List of Automotive Safety Devices:
Friction Material Edge Codes(TM), May 2011
<http://safebraking.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-May-20112.pdf>

Where's your shred of proof?

> What I don't trust is an unknown manufacturer over a known supplier
> of quality parts. I don't even LOOK at the "marketingbullshit" that
> you seem to put a lot of weight on.

Why don't you trust that the number on pad 1, if it's the same as the
number on pad 2, even if the brand is completely different, is the same
pad?

I'll open a separate discussion for the police report, as you bring up some
very good points when you assert the EE pads outperformed the FF pads.

[Clare Snyder]

ASS U ME make an ASS of YOU and ME

>
>I'm younger than you, so I don't know all those clever repartee's yet.
>
>> Anything to dowith "government mandate" is open to abuse.
>
>Agreed. But you don't have any proof, do you, that the SAE J866a Chase Test
>is being abused?
>
>Even if it was abused, the standards require all pads to state their actual
>company of origin no matter what brand.
>
>Why do you hate me having this information of who actually made the shoe?
>
>> No, you trust that the spec printed on the material by some Chinese
>> sweat-shop . Youhave NO PROOF the material meets the spec, or that
>> the actual testing was done to the standard.
>
>Just a moment ago you repeatedly claimed I was paranoid.
>Now you claim that the SAE J866a standards as reported in this 176-page PDF
>are all faked?
>
> AMECA Compliance List of Automotive Safety Devices:
> Friction Material Edge Codes(TM), May 2011
><http://safebraking.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-May-20112.pdf>
>

If you are so smart how come you couldn't come upwith the current
edition of the report?

Quite some engineer, Isee.

http://www.ameca.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-December-8-2017.pdf
is the Dec 8, 2017 versiion

[Clare Snyder]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 02:45:52 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger
<roge...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:47:38 -0500,
> Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>> BULLSHIT. You are an idiot.
>
>I think progress was made today with the realization that FF is probably
>the Chase Test SAE J866a friction designation for the OEM shoes.
>https://s18.postimg.org/wqilqasdl/toyota_friction_material.jpg
>

Google "counterfeit brake pads"

The results should shock you and change your mind.

[allise...@gmail.com]

Carl Sagan said we are made of 'Star Stuff', I believe him. 1978 Dodge van I own, the right front brake hose had rubbed against something. I bought a new brake hose and put it on there. That was about 13 years ago.

[Mad Roger]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 22:27:22 -0500,
Clare Snyder wrote:

> If you are so smart how come you couldn't come upwith the current
> edition of the report?
>
> Quite some engineer, Isee.
>
> http://www.ameca.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-December-8-2017.pdf
> is the Dec 8, 2017 versiion

Thanks for that link!

You are better than I am at finding it and I am not ashamed to admit it.

I'm not sure why, since I used epic's search engine and I gave it the full
name of the report, so, you found it better than I did, I agree.

We all benefit from this information you found because it allows us, at the
very least, to at least tell that a PBR pad is the exact same as a Metal
Master pad which is exactly the same as an Axxis pad, since the numbers
will be the same on all three (for example).

Bear in mind that this document generally covers 3 years, so that's from
December 2014 to December 2017 which is as good as we can ask for.
<http://www.ameca.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-December-8-2017.pdf>

thanks!