Hi, just wondering if you guys think I should follow through and finish the rear drum to disc swap on '96 legacy brighton wagon.

 

This will be my DD this winter. Just standard commuting use. I guess I've found the single pot fronts and rear drums to be adequate, but I already bought and painted dual pot front caliper and rear calipers from a '96 Outback I think it was. But I would still need to buy the rest of the parts, backing plates, parking brake kit, springs&cups, rotors, etc. Plus would have to get at least 15" wheels&tires to clear the rotors I assume. However funds are a little tight right now.

 

It needs the front brakes done something fierce. I already have new OEM front rotors, caliper reseal kit, and OEM front pad kit in my supplies for this vehicle that I could just put on rather than using the dual pots I bought...

 

What ya'll think I should do? Thanks zzz

I did the swap on the rear drums on my 98 Impreza and it made a big difference. I bought the rear hub assy off a 90's Legacy for $15 each, I had the brake parts.

 

My front dual pots had a rusted bleeder so I swap in some single pot calipers. I have not noticed a difference.

... However funds are a little tight right now...

Let's net this out:

1. You have 3 vehicles shown in your profile
   
2. The Brighton is a daily driver in New York with winter fast approaching
   
3. Disk brakes won't stop you any faster on ice or in 3 feet of snow than drum brakes will
   
4. Funds are "tight"
   
5. It's not a maintenance repair (i.e., a required repair)
   
6. Drum brakes stop cars just fine and have been used for decades
   
7. Funds are "tight"

Clearly the drum-to-disk project falls into the "hobby" category of projects. It's not a requirement for a decent running vehicle--it's optional. If there are necessary maintenance repairs to do, do them.

 

Save your money for more important things in life (you mean--shock! -- Subaru disk brakes are NOT the most important thing in life?).

 

You asked for opinions...

 

Steve

I did the rear disc swap on a GL and it made a huge difference.

 

I also swapped the Fronts on my legacy to the 2-pots and that made a big difference.

 

Disc brakes always better than drums:headbang:

Ok thanks for all the ideas and suggestions. Good points are made all around. Is it a requirement that all vehicles sold in the US now have disc brakes? I mean you still see a number of vehicles that come with rear drum, but fronts are always disc.

I don't think its a requirement. If it is I haven't read it yet.

 

I did the 2-pot front swap from a 91 turbo on my mom's 98 L a couple weeks ago now. The difference was absolutely amazing.

 

On the other hand, money is tight, and there is nothing wrong with drum brakes. My 95 brighton would stop just as well in the snow as my 90 ls wagon. Both non-abs, both manual, but the 90 had rear discs.

I've got to agree with Steve on this. Sure, maybe rear disc brakes are better than drums, but how much better do you need? My '96 Brighton stops just fine with rear drums. Remember that most of your stopping power is being done by the front brakes anyway. And if funds are tight, think about this....I've replaced my front rotors several times, and had to have them turned because of warping or rust. In the same period, I've probably put one set of rear pads in and never touched the drums.

So if I were in your shoes, I'd be thinking 'don't fix it if it ain't broke.'

 

OTOH, I've got a 1960 Chevy with drums all around and no power assist. THAT might be worthy of a conversion, at least in the front. You've heard the term 'stand on the brakes'....well thats how you make that baby stop and don't even mention the fade when they get wet.

Sure, maybe rear disc brakes are better than drums, but how much better do you need?

FWIW, I think drum brakes last a lot longer than disk brakes. I've been through 3 sets of front disc brakes on my pickup and not yet need new rear drums. So, in THAT sense, maybe drums are superior.

FWIW, I think drum brakes last a lot longer than disk brakes. I've been through 3 sets of front disc brakes on my pickup and not yet need new rear drums. So, in THAT sense, maybe drums are superior.

 

That's because the rear brakes provide very little of the braking force, espcially in something with a light rear end like a pickup. I bought a VW Golf new in 1986, and when I sold it in 1997 with 175K miles, it still had all of the original rear drum brake parts.

That's because the rear brakes provide very little of the braking force, espcially in something with a light rear end like a pickup. I bought a VW Golf new in 1986, and when I sold it in 1997 with 175K miles, it still had all of the original rear drum brake parts.

 

Do rear drums last longer than rear disks?

I don't think there is much difference as far as wear goes, but discs are simple, way easier to maintain, and provide better braking feel.

 

If I were you I'd do it. In fact I upgraded my rear discs to bigger rear discs. I'll check the thickness of my old rotors and send them to you for the cost of shipping if they're good and you want them.

Thanks jamal. I'll consider this swap more. This '96 needs timing belt, etc. as well which I bought 2 years ago just haven't had time to put in.

 

I would probably just drop the swap at this point except I already bought the dual pot fronts and rear calipers and spent several hours cleaning them and painting them red with the GR-2 caliper paint.....:-\

Do rear drums last longer than rear disks?

 

In my experience, the rear drums have lasted longer in all cases but one. However, all of my vehicles with rear drums, except for one, have been FWD vehicles with fairly light rear ends.

 

All of my vehicles with rear disk brakes have been RWD or AWD. The rear ends were/are heavier, and the brakes wear faster.

 

I had one RWD vehicle with rear drum brakes, and those rear brakes wore out at about the same rate as rear disk brakes.

 

What I'm saying is, I think it depends on the vehicle's weight distrubution more than the type of brakes. I have no way to prove that - I would need vehicles that are identical except for the rear brakes. Maybe someone else has been in that situation.

Rear drums absolutely do last longer, and one of the reasons is that drum brakes do not constantly lightly drag like discs do. (I.e. the return springs pull the shoes out of contact with the drums.) I think there MAY also be more surface area on the shoes VS. pads, but I could be wrong about that.

 

Of course, discs offer better pedal feel & fade resistance.

 

 

 

Nathan

Rear drums absolutely do last longer, and one of the reasons is that drum brakes do not constantly lightly drag like discs do.

Nathan

I'm sure the constant drag is an issue with pad life, but I was referring earlier to the rotors themselves. I think that they are more exposed to the elements and prone to rust to a greater degree than drums. Since the rear does less braking, the difference in performance isn't as much of an issue as with front brakes.