wow thanks that helped a lot
since you know so muchg, in your opinion should i get disc brakes or not, i just want to be safe, a guy i know had 4 drums on his 48 ford and totalled it last week and broke 30 bones, so im alil scarred of drums???

 

Drum brakes have been around a long time and actually work better than disks under most conditions since they are self activating. The only times that disks have an advantage is when very wet or overheated, but they have much smaller lining area so require more pressure.
I doubt that having disk brakes would have prevented your friend's accident. All said and done, brakes are only as good as the friction between the tire and the road as long as they are strong enough to lock up the wheels.

 

Non power drums have a lot more stopping power than non power disks is what is being said here. So It stands to reason for a daily driver power drum has more than power disk unless ya over heat them and that wont happen if ya aint hauling a ton. or towing a home. It don't matter if ya got aircraft brakes. Once ya can slide the tires that is all the brake ya will ever have or need.

 

I've often scratched my head at the idea of one brake vs. another brake locking the tires.. yes, the burden is on the tires. One issue I noticed from changing a few cars from drum to disc was all of them seemed to lock up the tires later than with drums. But my very unscientific beliefs were that the disc brake cars stopped far sooner. You want gradual progressive braking. Drums from my experience tended more to come on abruptly. Kind of like slowing applying the E-brake at speed vs. yanking up the lever at speed. One will slow you to a controlled stop. The other will give you fishtails and a wet seat cushion.

BUT... many manufacturers and car-mags do stopping tests with various brake systems.

It may only be a difference of 15-20' at a 60-0. But... wait.. how long is your truck again??
I've had a couple 'benders where an extra couple feet could have made the difference between a clean grill.. and a smashed grill.

I'll err on the side of better brakes. If you're left with a decision to buy a few more hi-perf parts for the engine, or better brakes.. Try explaining to your injured passenger that going faster was the better spent money. Know whadImean?..

I say save your pennies on rear drums vs. discs. But for the front, I'd prefer discs.

 

Drum brakes are self energizing, disks are not, so drum brakes will likely lock the tires sooner than disks. That is one of the "hidden" reasons manufacturers like disk brakes especially for the front where locking the wheels results in a skid with no steering control.

Unscientific possible reasons disk conversion stopped faster: 1. new disk being compared to old drums, 2. wishful thinking (we always want our mods to yield an "improvement" so tend to equate any difference as "better") 3. heat fade, 4. new disks used are mechanically more braking power.?

E-brake analogy isn't valid IMHO since the reason for the skid is sudden rear tire lockup.

Different brake shoe/pad materials can easily make a bigger difference in stopping distance than type of brake.

Reducing the risk of fender benders is easily controlled for free! Don't follow closer than your stopping distance plus a cushion for traction variations. A large percentage of drivers have no real concept of just how far it takes to stop and follow much too close, then they compound the problem by not paying enough attention to their driving. The best brakes in the world or even a parachute isn't going to keep them from having an accident.

Going faster lengthens the stopping distance exponentially. They outdrive both the car's and their ability to react to an emergency situation. We see it all the time with new autocrossers overdriving the car and themselves.

 

True, most accidents can be prevented. But unless you plan on maintaining a 100 foot cushion on SoCal freeways.. (it's a trick.. you can't!) then there's a possibility that you're going to find yourself out of your stopping comfort zone.
I totalled my 71 Camaro 12 years ago because a guy in ONCOMING traffic decided to turn in front of me. No amount of speed cushion, safety, etc could have prevented that. Anti-lock could have I imagine. The reason for impact was a LONG skid accompanied by no steering control. In fact, had I let off the brakes I might have been able to steer around him. But, in moments like that, letting off the brake when you see a truck in front of you is not second nature. This was a disc brake car, but old technology susp/steering/brakes. Something similar happened 10 minutes ago, a block from my house. Some a-hole blew a stop sign like it wasn't there and screeched around the front of my car while I honked and told him he was #1 in my way.

[QUOTE=AXracer;9438589]Drum brakes are self energizing, disks are not, so drum brakes will likely lock the tires sooner than disks...QUOTE]

This was exactly my point as well, but it sounds like you contradict it? I'm confused.
That was my segway to the E-brake analogy. Maybe it's less than a perfect analogy, but my reference was to drum brakes typically locking up sooner than discs. And yes, when tires lockup, steering control is lost, and braking distance is significantly increased. It also was also 'sorta' demonstrating a way that skidding tires can be useless to stopping vs. controlled slowing. (although rear vs front is not the best analogy.)