Am i reading this correctly? 2016 taco still has rear drum brakes...

[Pilat]

So you don't have a cost target when you're making design choices? Well, wouldn't that be nice to have unlimited resources for all my decision in life. But I wouldn't know how that feels since I've never had any unlimited budget. For those who do not have an infinite resource, cost is a heavily weighted criteria.

Never said it shouldn't be a criteria. But you can't on one hand argue that it has nothing to do with cost, and that drums are there for a "Performance" reason, while at the same time admitting that cost was propably the biggest factor. You make it sound like disc brakes on the back is something that is exotic and therefore really expensive.

Cost is a criteria. It's on the design goals board along with braking distance, heat capacity, heat dissipation rate, longevity, etc., etc. that the designers/engineers are trying to meet.

And once again: Yes, they seemingly cheaped out. Not because drum brakes are as good as discs, but because they are cheaper. You know, just like you just admitted.

Disc are better a heat dissipation. That does not make them superior.

Yes it does. They generally also stop the car better, and they are lighter than drum brakes, meaning less unsprung weight.

Just because something cost more does not make it superior.

No that's true. But there's a reason there's at least disc brakes on the front. Or are you now trying to argue that those aren't superior, and that they chose them for the front because they were more expensive up there?

If you would've read my post thoroughly, you would have read that drums are better than discs at other criteria too.

Oh, I read it. It's the cognitive dissonance I'm pointing out.

Toyota probably chose drum rear brakes because it met all their performance target whatever they maybe. I'm pretty sure cost was one of the targets along with many other targets.

Pretty sure cost was the sole factor in cheaping out, as you can have discs on all wheels and yet still manage to have a parking brake somehow. You know, like all cars with discs on all four wheels have.

 

[moonshiner]

If discs are not superior, why are drums not used on all vehicles on all 4 corners?

You keep saying disc are superior. Superior at what? Do you even know?

You serious don't know why drums are not used on all 4 corners after all this (what? 100+ posts)? Let me put it in simpler terms.
Front brakes do most of the braking
More braking = more heat
Disc = good at losing heat
Drums = not as good at losing heat

Clear as mud?

 

[Pilat]

You keep saying disc are superior. Superior at what? Do you even know?

You serious don't know why drums are not used on all 4 corners after all this (what? 100+ posts)? Let me put it in simpler terms.
Front brakes do most of the braking
More braking = more heat
Disc = good at losing heat
Drums = not as good at losing heat

Clear as mud?

Yes, apart from costs, disc brakes are superior. Less fade because of less heat build up, less risk of lockup, greater ability to modulate, a better feel because of the ability to better modulate, better at actually braking the vehicle, better at dissipating heat (refer back to number 1), easier to maintain, better at resisting cold shock (i.e. hot brakes, into a cold pool of water).

But, hey, because engineers also considers cost, drums must be as good as discs "because costs".

 

[moonshiner]

Never said it shouldn't be a criteria. But you can't on one hand argue that it has nothing to do with cost, and that drums are there for a "Performance" reason, while at the same time admitting that cost was propably the biggest factor. You make it sound like disc brakes on the back is something that is exotic and therefore really expensive.



And once again: Yes, they seemingly cheaped out. Not because drum brakes are as good as discs, but because they are cheaper. You know, just like you just admitted.

Yes it does. They generally also stop the car better, and they are lighter than drum brakes, meaning less unsprung weight.


No that's true. But there's a reason there's at least disc brakes on the front. Or are you now trying to argue that those aren't superior, and that they chose them for the front because they were more expensive up there?


Oh, I read it. It's the cognitive dissonance I'm pointing out.



Pretty sure cost was the sole factor in cheaping out, as you can have discs on all wheels and yet still manage to have a parking brake somehow. You know, like all cars with discs on all four wheels have.

Where did I ever said that it had nothing to do with cost? I said that cost was a factor. But not the only factor. Production cost for drum brake setups are cheaper than disc brakes especially when you have to incorporate a) incorporate a caliper with a mechanical linkage or b) a drum and hat parking brake. A lot cheaper. No. But significant enough especially when we're talking hundreds of thousand or even millions of units.

So disc are better heat dissipation. That makes them superior? Drums are better at holding a parked vehicle (that self-energizing thingy). Drums are cheaper to manufacture. Drums last longer. Why does that not make drums superior? Because they're not. And no, disc do not stop the car any better. Drums can produce way more power than the tires can handle. If they did, the Colorado would have stopped shorter than Tacoma especially since it had more street oriented tires too. But it didn't. The Tacoma stopped shorter. Drums can produce as much stopping power as discs.

Again, discs are used on the front because of better heat dissipation. Drums can't efficiently dissipate the amount of heat generate by the front brakes doing most of the braking. See my reply to bkg. Rear brakes typical do only 20 to 30% of the braking so don't generate as much heat. Cars with more rearward weight bias will have a higher percentage of the braking done by the rear.

 

[bkg]

Did you get your head put back together yet? You still seem to have a hard time understanding that just because something is better at ONE criteria over the other does not make it superior. Why do you keep avoid my questions? Drums are better than discs at other criteria, does that make drums superior?

GM and Nissan don't have unlimited budgets. They probably have a higher cost target, but they sure aren't getting their moneys worth, that's for sure.

Lets try a different path....


What about discs are superior to drums?
What about drums are superior to discs?

 

[moonshiner]

Yes, apart from costs, disc brakes are superior. Less fade because of less heat build up, less risk of lockup, greater ability to modulate, a better feel because of the ability to better modulate, better at actually braking the vehicle, better at dissipating heat (refer back to number 1), easier to maintain, better at resisting cold shock (i.e. hot brakes, into a cold pool of water).

But, hey, because engineers also considers cost, drums must be as good as discs "because costs".

Less fade: True, but rear brakes on front-heavy pickup don't generate enough heat to cause fade.
Less risk of lockup: ABS
Greater ability to modulate: Agreed, mainly because of that self-energizing ability. But how any pickup drivers are racers and care about modulating their brake pedals on the threshold of lockup? That's what ABS is for.
Better at actually braking the vehicle: No. drums produce just as much power.
Better at dissipating heat: Agreed. I've already discuss this in great lengths already.
Easier to maintain: Yes, for the home mechanic. Only slightly more difficult for the trained technician with proper tools. But drums last much longer.
Better at resisting cold shock: Disagree. Drums have more thermal mass (as you alluded to in your earlier posts). This is a wash.

Actually performance and empirical data seems to not matter much to you.

 

[moonshiner]

Lets try a different path....


What about discs are superior to drums?
What about drums are superior to discs?

really? those questions have already been discuss many times in previous comments by lots of people.

 

[Pilat]

Where did I ever said that it had nothing to do with cost? I said that cost was a factor. But not the only factor. Production cost for drum brake setups are cheaper than disc brakes especially when you have to incorporate a) incorporate a caliper with a mechanical linkage or b) a drum and hat parking brake. A lot cheaper. No. But significant enough especially when we're talking hundreds of thousand or even millions of units.

Well, I'm glad you're now backing down from the position that drums are just as good as disc brakes, except on cost. Oh, you're not:

So disc are better heat dissipation. That makes them superior?

Yes. Heat generation is a function of how much kinetic energy is entering the system. Dissipating heat minimises the risk of lockups, and while we're at it, you mentioned how drum brakes worked by using the kinetic energy to force the plates into the drum. That is a con, not a pro, of drum brakes. That in itself makes for more risk of locking up, less feel (i.e. less ability to modulate).
Heat generation and therefore heat dissipation is big deal when it comes to brakes as it directly influence capacity and stopping power.

Drums are better at holding a parked vehicle (that self-energizing thingy). That is not really a pro as all cars produced with disc brakes have a parking brake too, even if it's an add-on wirepulled thing.

Drums are cheaper to manufacture.

Yes, they certainly are. It's funny how they didn't cheap out on the front brakes, though.

Drums last longer.

And are much harder to service.

Why does that not make drums superior? Because they're not.

That's right, they're not. They're heavier, more risk of lock-up, harder to modulate and on and on.

And no, disc do not stop the car any better. Drums can produce way more power than the tires can handle.

You're wrong. Sportscars and motorcycles have discs for a reason. It is not to look cool.

If they did, the Colorado would have stopped shorter than Tacoma especially since it had more street oriented tires too. But it didn't.

Say what? No, that would only be true if all else was equal between the two cars. A Tacoma and a colorado is not the same car where the only difference are the freaking rear brake system.

The Tacoma stopped shorter.

Indeed, but it is not the same car, now is it? Hell, we don't even know if the front discs on both are the exact same. My bet is that they aren't, as they are two different freaking vehicles.

Drums can produce as much stopping power as discs.

You're wrong, and the difference is even more pronounced when you consider heat build-up (from weight and/or speed), and if you consider modulation.

Again, discs are used on the front because of better heat dissipation. Drums can't efficiently dissipate the amount of heat generate by the front brakes doing most of the braking. See my reply to bkg. Rear brakes typical do only 20 to 30% of the braking so don't generate as much heat. Cars with more rearward weight bias will have a higher percentage of the braking done by the rear.

I already explained why heat dissipation is important. It matters even on the rear. Especially with a heavy vehicle (perhaps carrying heavy stuff). Even on my bicycle the discs get pretty hot, and that doesn't have to stop a lot of weight. Why do you think heat dissipation is not important?

 

[Pilat]

Less fade: True, but rear brakes on front-heavy pickup don't generate enough heat to cause fade.

And how do you know that? There's enough weight back there - espcially if loaded - that there is plenty of traction.

Less risk of lockup: ABS

No, I actually mean that the brakes lock up, not that the braking power exceeds the traction.

Greater ability to modulate: Agreed, mainly because of that self-energizing ability.

Well, at least you can see that.

Better at actually braking the vehicle: No. drums produce just as much power.

Read my previous post. And if they did do that in all circumstances, there would be no reason to have discs on the front.

Better at dissipating heat: I've already discuss this in great lengths already.

No, you have MENTIONED it, all the while failing to understand its implications.

Easier to maintain: Yes, for the home mechanic. Only slightly more difficult for the trained technician with proper tools.

Nope, it's also easier to maintain for the "trained technician" (i.e. mechanic).

But drums last much longer.

Yes, they do. but all that time wasted with discs and swapping of brake pads (sigh) makes it not worth it, and we should instead have drum brakes and live with inferior performance (i.e. actual braking).

Better at resisting cold shock: Disagree. Drums have more thermal mass (as you alluded to in your earlier posts). This is a wash.

No, it's not a wash. Drum brakes tend to crack or expand at varying degrees, creating problems.

Actually performance and empirical data seems to not matter much to you.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry I don't believe that "cost" is an actual measurement of performance. Performance in brakes is to me how well they actually perform when driving. As for empirical data - in your eager to defend drum brakes and make it seem like heat dissipation is not important, you fail to realise all empirical data to the contrary - including disc brakes on the rear of other cars as well as the discs on the front of the Tacoma.

 

[moonshiner]

Well, I'm glad you're now backing down from the position that drums are just as good as disc brakes, except on cost. Oh, you're not:


Yes. Heat generation is a function of how much kinetic energy is entering the system. Dissipating heat minimises the risk of lockups, and while we're at it, you mentioned how drum brakes worked by using the kinetic energy to force the plates into the drum. That is a con, not a pro, of drum brakes. That in itself makes for more risk of locking up, less feel (i.e. less ability to modulate).
Heat generation and therefore heat dissipation is big deal when it comes to brakes as it directly influence capacity and stopping power.

Drums are better at holding a parked vehicle (that self-energizing thingy). That is not really a pro as all cars produced with disc brakes have a parking brake too, even if it's an add-on wirepulled thing.

Yes, they certainly are. It's funny how they didn't cheap out on the front brakes, though.

And are much harder to service.

That's right, they're not. They're heavier, more risk of lock-up, harder to modulate and on and on.


You're wrong. Sportscars and motorcycles have discs for a reason. It is not to look cool. Say what? No, that would only be true if all else was equal between the two cars. A Tacoma and a colorado is not the same car where the only difference are the freaking rear brake system.
Indeed, but it is not the same car, now is it? Hell, we don't even know if the front discs on both are the exact same. My bet is that they aren't, as they are two different freaking vehicles.


You're wrong, and the difference is even more pronounced when you consider heat build-up (from weight and/or speed), and if you consider modulation.




I already explained why heat dissipation is important. It matters even on the rear. Especially with a heavy vehicle (perhaps carrying heavy stuff). Even on my bicycle the discs get pretty hot, and that doesn't have to stop a lot of weight. Why do you think heat dissipation is not important?

Sportscars and motorcycles has discs because of heat generation. Brakes convert kinetic energy to heat. Speed has a greater impact on the amount of kinetic energy than mass. Sportscars and motorcycles can get go very fast. If you understood how kinetic energy works you would've understood that if double the mass, you double the kinetic energy. Double the speed, quadruple the kinetic energy.

The Colorado should have stopped shorter if you were to read the spec sheet. The field was tilted in its favor if according to the specs. It has larger front brakes, weighs only 40 lbs more, within 1% in weight distribution front/rear, has rear discs, lower profile tires, and HT tires vs AT on the Tacoma. Sure, not the same exact vehicle, but they compete against each other. Apparently, GM ain't getting any returns on using more expensive brakes.

Yes, heat dissipation is important. But Toyota must know that whatever amount heat that is generated in the rear (even loaded, going down hill) can be handle by the drums. It's not like drums don't dissipate any heat at all. Just not as fast as discs.

 

[SSF556]

Guys I am trying to find a disc brake to drum brake conversion kit for my 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee....any help will be appreciated.

Thanks!!!

 

[moonshiner]

And how do you know that? There's enough weight back there - espcially if loaded - that there is plenty of traction.


No, I actually mean that the brakes lock up, not that the braking power exceeds the traction.


Well, at least you can see that.


Read my previous post. And if they did do that in all circumstances, there would be no reason to have discs on the front.


No, you have MENTIONED it, all the while failing to understand its implications.


Nope, it's also easier to maintain for the "trained technician" (i.e. mechanic).


Yes, they do. but all that time wasted with discs and swapping of brake pads (sigh) makes it not worth it, and we should instead have drum brakes and live with inferior performance (i.e. actual braking).



No, it's not a wash. Drum brakes tend to crack or expand at varying degrees, creating problems.

Oh...you mean lockup, like when you're trying to remove the drum during maintenance? That lockup? Ever heard of frozen calipers? That happens quite a bit too. $hit happens.

Yeah...they lose braking power when they are overheated. So do discs. Discs are used in the front because of better heat dissipation. Not because they produce more braking power. So the likely hood of losing some braking power is less discs. That's why they are used in the front.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry I don't believe that "cost" is an actual measurement of performance. Performance in brakes is to me how well they actually perform when driving. As for empirical data - in your eager to defend drum brakes and make it seem like heat dissipation is not important, you fail to realise all empirical data to the contrary - including disc brakes on the rear of other cars as well as the discs on the front of the Tacoma.

And yet the actual performance of the Tacoma against its competition is dismissed by you. 20 years of millions of Tacomas in daily use and rarely do you hear any issue with the drum brakes. These are the empirical data that you're ignoring.

Heat dissipation is important, but for this application the drums seems to handle it just fine.

 

[bkg]

Yes, apart from costs, disc brakes are superior. Less fade because of less heat build up, less risk of lockup, greater ability to modulate, a better feel because of the ability to better modulate, better at actually braking the vehicle, better at dissipating heat (refer back to number 1), easier to maintain, better at resisting cold shock (i.e. hot brakes, into a cold pool of water).

But, hey, because engineers also considers cost, drums must be as good as discs "because costs".

I can't get past the "Discs are superior and that's why they are used in the front but they are not superior so stop saying that" comments from Mr. Shiner...

 

[bkg]

really? those questions have already been discuss many times in previous comments by lots of people.

Humor me.

You seem to be very well versed - educate us in one succinct post.

 

[bkg]

Less fade: True, but rear brakes on front-heavy pickup don't generate enough heat to cause fade.
Less risk of lockup: ABS
Greater ability to modulate: Agreed, mainly because of that self-energizing ability. But how any pickup drivers are racers and care about modulating their brake pedals on the threshold of lockup? That's what ABS is for.
Better at actually braking the vehicle: No. drums produce just as much power.
Better at dissipating heat: Agreed. I've already discuss this in great lengths already.
Easier to maintain: Yes, for the home mechanic. Only slightly more difficult for the trained technician with proper tools. But drums last much longer.
Better at resisting cold shock: Disagree. Drums have more thermal mass (as you alluded to in your earlier posts). This is a wash.

Actually performance and empirical data seems to not matter much to you.

sorry - missed this post.


So Discs win 3.5 of 5 in your own words... yet are not superior...