2001 5.9 Ram Change to Disc Brakes on rear.

If it's a 1500:

If it's a 2500/3500:

Hi Bob,

Just pondering that today for my '95 rebuild. I have decided to stay with the drums. They are more than adequate for an empty ( or nearly so) pickup. If you go to disks, then make sure you put in an

**easily** adjustable proportioning valve. The trucks being so light on the rear, the back brakes are prone to locking up at the drop of a hat unless you are hauling or towing stuff.

I do like the look of disks on the back though, but unless you need them (horse trailers etc) I'd stay with drums. Their relative inefficiency makes for an automatic proportioning valve.

Dave.

Not being a wise A$$ here but could I ask Why? Drum brakes are easier to service, less prone to damage from water or heat. And they are MUCH better at actually stopping a normal vehicle than disks are. Steve W.

Steve et al I was under the impresion that Disc brakes would be an improvement. I don't haul or tow a lot, Dodge RAM 1500, but this summer I do hope to pull a travel trailer some.

I have had disc brakes in the past and the servicing for me was simpler than drum brakes. Heat is of course a factor where I live but water is a don't care. If I deal with wet brakes once in 10 years it is often.

Thanks for the responses. Bob AZ

Better braking. My '99 2500 stopped NOTICABLY better with rear discs.

I must respectfully laugh my ass off at that... even with the proper spring tools, changing shoes is always a pain - much more work than retracting a caliper and slapping a new set of pads in.

Right... becuase drums never hold water, or mud, or... you name it.

For prolonged use, yes. However, these trucks aren't semis, and aren't smoking brakes down a steep grade with 50K on the 5th wheel pushing them.

They are.

Go figure... :)

I've always noticed discs to dry out faster than drums... maybe because the rotor can't hold a gallon of water like a drum can.

Either that or ya aren't sitting in 18" deep puddles waiting for them to fill like ya did the drums, lol

Not to be a wiseass but.....

Not in my opinion. Disc are much simpler.

Drum brakes will fade with heat and don't stop worth a shit when wet. Disc brakes stop fine either way.

Again, I'll have to disagree with this. Discs are all-around the better braking system.

Denny

Ok, I'm gonna call hogwash here. Discs SUCK when wet. I have four wheel disc on my Lebaron, and when all four are wet, there is nothing to stop you. Having said that, they do dry out fairly quickly. However, wet drum brakes will give you more than discs, but take longer to dry out.

Drums are seriously stupid in their mechanism, I'm not sure HOW anyone figured the adjusters would work, but they do in the majority of models. Discs are far simpler in design, easier to replace, self adjusting, and more efficient in dry conditions.

Yes, I still like my drums, but discs are the better system. Unless you have a late 60's- early 80's Vette, then for some reason, you have to fight with springs to get pads installed, and worrying about rust is a big issue.

we pull a travel trailer (28', 6,000 pounds) and the trailer has electric brakes... I'm guessing that all of them do now? Anyway, the truck stops better with the trailer than it does empty..

My uneducated guess is that the truck was built with front disk, rear drums because it works well.. after 75k miles, we've been through a few sets of pads and still don't need rear shoes or drums, so my guess is that the front disks stop the beast, the rear drums keep the rear end from locking up and coming around.. *g*

As to maintenance, I don't mess with drum brakes any more... I keep the front done myself and have the rear done as needed... still a lot less bucks than changing to disks in the back.. YMMV

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

No - that's because the shitty self-adjusters don't work worth a crap on most drum brakes, so within a few thousand miles, the rear shoes have worn enough that you're not getting much action from them - relying more on your front brakes to do the job. An unused brake pad/shoe can last an eternity :)

And if it was such a good setup, then one needs to wonder why virtually ALL vehicles now have 4-wheel disc brakes (again, medium and heavy-duty vehicles notwithstanding). This is mostly the reason why I used to go through front brake pads on my '95 3500/V10 at about 20,000 mile intervals (rear drums), yet my '03 3500/ISB is coming up on 50K, with plenty of meat still left on the front (and rear) pads. Oh yeah - it stops a hell of a lot better, too. Some of that is due to the larger brake components (larger rotors, bigger pads, twin-piston calipers), but a lot of it is due to proper proportional braking from the rear discs (and a fully electronic ABS system that performs threshold braking on the rear doesn't hurt matters, either)

Because people are too lazy to adjust the drum brakes? I know I don't do it often enough.

mine are adjusted pretty often, Tom... the guy across the street is a wheel and tire guy and takes it in several times a year for checkups.. (lifetime alignment, etc.) I'd be afraid NOT to keep them adjusted, with the rear-wheels-only ABS..

I've never liked the way our ram stops, but OTOH, I drove the 01 Dakota for 2 years before we got the ram, and that sucker stops REALLY well... When we're towing, the ram stops as well or better than the Dak, though.. gotta love the trailer brakes and prodigy..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Those rear wheel anti-lock brakes are a worthless POS. I disabled mine and the truck stops better than it ever did with them enabled. Perhaps the 4 wheel ABS works well going by Toms claims but the rear wheel ABS does not appear to be well designed, at least not on my 97.

Absolutely... RWAL was a completely crappy system (I have it in my '95, as well)... when it detected imminent lock-up, it opened a dump valve that bled all (or most) pressure from the rear system, which also allowed some bleed-through of the front pressure (since the two are not completely isolated systems), which caused you to maintain traction and steering whilst you rammed into the object in front of you.

On the 3rd gen's, the ABS system can vary the amount of pressure delivered to the rear system (pretty much infinitely variable, not the "all or nothing" of the old RWAL systems), and keeps the rears on the verge of lockup. For the most part, you never feel this occurring - it just happens automatically. As the fronts begin to lock up, that's when the ABS pump kicks in, and you do feel a little pedal pulsation, but still, not as severe as the 2nd gen trucks with the 4W ABS. I've tried on several occasions, in both dry and wet conditions, to lock my brakes up. I was only partly successful in the wet conditions, and completely unsuccessful in the dry... the wheels won't bind up. The truck, however, decelerates quickly enough that I became very intimate with the steering wheel :) It's really impressive to feel an 8,000lb. truck stop that quickly.

I have the RWAL, and I've never had a problem with it. Of course, I've rarely had an opportunity to feel it. Maybe I just drive like its a 7000lb. truck, not a 2500lb sports car.

yeah, it probably makes a difference, T... I love the 4 wheel ABS on the dakota...

My guess is that they put it on the rear drums of the rams to keep the ass end from passing you when you stop quick.. lol

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Damned good description, Tom... I like it..

what generation would a 2001 Dakota SLT be, Tom??

I've had a few folks cut me off and I was ready for the crash when the truck stopped quick and straight.. very nice system!

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

thanks, M D... I printed that out and "accidently" left it in my wife's printer.. *eg*

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing