Agreed. You can dance all you want but sooner or later you have to pay the band. Ford (and any other auto manufacturer) doesn't spend huge sums of money to pay engineers to come up with stuff that doesn't have good cause to be install on a vehicle they are trying to sell. The brakes are the most important component on a vehicle. Going fast is fun but all the go fast in the world isn't worth anything if you cannot stop the vehicle --or more imporatantly, keeping it in control when stopping.michael69 wrote:That's the problem they swapped to disk and kept the drum distribution block. To each their own,but there is a reason why all car makers put a proportion valve on disk brakes. I would rather have it and not need it and not have it in an emergency stop. Ultra Ranger you post as I was typing. I was just letting flyboy know they was not using one with disk.
Drums are self-energizing, discs are not. If you have all-wheel drums, then they are reacting much the same in relation to each other. When you combine discs with drums, now things change. Without proportioning & metering functions (like, deleting the valve block altogether) you are allowing the rear brakes to go unchecked in relation to the pressure rise compared to the discs on the front. In an average stop, the front brakes carry 60% of the braking load. In a panic stop, the weight of the vehicle can shift 10% or more. This sudden weight shift now places 70%, or more, of the load on the front brakes. Without any means of regulating the brake pressure to the rear brakes, the pressure applied to the front brakes will be near equal to the rears (without a valve). This linear pressure rise/spike will cause the rear brakes to lock and suddenly the rear of the vehicle will now try to become the front of the vehicle (spin out).
Throwing brake components together without any idea how they work in relation to each other, or worse, not using a valve at all is a recipe for imminent disaster.
I never said it was the right way,just that its the way i did it.
