 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Trucks / September 20042005 Silverado: Rear Drum Brakes ?
Is this item in regard to the 2005 Silverado a mistake?: Front disc/rear drum anti-lock brakes are standard on all models except trucks with Quadrasteer. http://trucks.about.com/od/2005chevytrucks/a/05_silverado_nf.htm Rear drum brakes? This sounds like a giant step backward. The Monroni sticker on my 2004 Silverado shows that 4-WHEEL DISK BRAKES are standard equipment. The rear disk brakes on my 2004 Silverado have completely eliminated the traditional problems that I had with the rear drum brakes on my 1990 Scottsdale: Out of round drums caused by park brake clamping and park brake slippage. I thought that the 4-wheel disk brakes were a tremendous improvement. Is it possible that GM has gone back to putting only drum brakes in the rear of its 2005 Silverado trucks? Yes rear drums for the new trucks but not suv's ... something like the disc's were getting excessively chewed up from debris or something thus requiring premature replacement ... This was recently discussed on the Light Duty forum at http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/ > Is this item in regard to the 2005 Silverado a mistake?: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Is it possible that GM has gone back to putting only drum brakes in > the rear of its 2005 Silverado trucks? Unless they got to a double piston caliper they will have nothing but troube. I have a 2004 and have had the brakes replace under warranty . I usually never replace brakes till 60,000 miles as i do all highway driving. > Unless they got to a double piston caliper they will have nothing but troube. I > have a 2004 and have had the brakes replace under warranty . I usually never > replace brakes till 60,000 miles as i do all highway driving. What was your mileage when you replaced them? V.B. I had 33,000 miles on it whn the first caliper froze up. Then shortly after the backs were prematurely worn out at around 35,000 miles. In my opinion I think the pads are too small. I don't know what the problem is with the calipers but I know a few peopel that have had a few freeze up also. And I also have a ffriend that has a 2004 that had to have all the brake lines replaced to the back brakes because there were internal blockages of some sort fromt he factory. But he wore out his back brakes in 12,000 miles. Another friend with a 2001 has had the brakes done 3 times under 50,000 miles. The dealer told him it is because the antilock sensors were dirty. BS!! The problem is this. They will literally last forever "IF" the owner takes care of them. This means greasing the slides. The pads are like 1" thick and the rotors are so beefy I can't see them EVER being too thin to turn. GMC Gremlin > I had 33,000 miles on it whn the first caliper froze up. Then shortly after the > backs were prematurely worn out at around 35,000 miles. In my opinion I think [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a 2001 has had the brakes done 3 times under 50,000 miles. The dealer told him > it is because the antilock sensors were dirty. BS!! >Unless they got to a double piston caliper they will have nothing but troube. I >have a 2004 and have had the brakes replace under warranty . I usually never >replace brakes till 60,000 miles as i do all highway driving. Wait, the full-size trucks don't have dual-piston calipers? Even the S-10 had dual-piston calipers up front. The 98 and later 4x4s do anyway... What i was getting at was double pistons means larget pads . Drums have a lot more service area of shoe then disc pads have. > Is this item in regard to the 2005 Silverado a mistake?: No. > Rear drum brakes? This sounds like a giant step backward. The Monroni > sticker on my 2004 Silverado shows that 4-WHEEL DISK BRAKES are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > park brake clamping and park brake slippage. I thought that the > 4-wheel disk brakes were a tremendous improvement. Well, you thought wrong. The rear disc brakes on full size trucks (New style body), have been nothing but trouble. Especially trucks that are used in a lot of off road applications, or muddy, dirty situations. Personally, as a mechanic that makes my living fixing the stupid things, I'd prefer that GM not bring back the drum brakes (very little goes wrong with them), but in the interest of putting out a more reliable product, drums are the way to go in a lot of situations. > Is it possible that GM has gone back to putting only drum brakes in > the rear of its 2005 Silverado trucks? You can get either drums, or disc brakes. Your choice. Ian <<The rear disc brakes on full size trucks (New style body), have been nothing but trouble. Especially trucks that are used in a lot of off road applications, or muddy, dirty situations. Personally, as a mechanic that makes my living fixing the stupid things, I'd prefer that GM not bring back the drum brakes (very little goes wrong with them), but in the interest of putting out a more reliable product, drums are the way to go in a lot of situations.>> I'm afraid that the next phase of GM's retro brake technology might be the elimination of the hydraulic system and a return to the primitive mechanical mechanisms used in the early 30's. Mechanical four-wheel drum brakes will undoubtedly be the next innovation. If GM were to top off this antiquated drum-brake system with a pull-on "emergency" brake, they could set braking technology back by over 70 years. Here is a review of GM's newest braking system: "Keep in mind, that drum brakes have improved drastically in their technology and performance in just the last few years. I'm not clear on exactly what that technology is, but this is what I'm told, and I'm just parroting it. The 1500's new drum brakes are the largest ever installed on a light-duty truck, and they make the new 17" wheels a necessity." The implication in this article -- as well as several others -- is that GM has created a vastly superior braking system for its 2005 trucks by switching back to oversized drum brakes in the rear. And these are not just ordinary oversized drum brakes, mind you. These are drum brakes that are so big and massive that they mandate the use of the new 17"wheels. Best of all, the money that GM has saved by using the old-fashioned drum brakes on the rear allows for vast improvements in the front disk brake system. http://www.gminsidenews.com/forum/index.php?s=0d160679a35681224e84dd90b003db49&s howtopich77 > I'm afraid that the next phase of GM's retro brake technology might be > the elimination of the hydraulic system and a return to the primitive [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they > could set braking technology back by over 70 years. Ah...we have a comedian. Definitely a humorous paragraph....but by no means an intelligent paragraph. Ian > > I'm afraid that the next phase of GM's retro brake technology might be > > the elimination of the hydraulic system and a return to the primitive [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ian 'Snicker' Brian How can they die in the mud? You can't find a quad with drum brakes for the life of you.....! Why don't front drums die in the mud? GMC Gremlin > > Is this item in regard to the 2005 Silverado a mistake?: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Ian Suppose I should clarify that too "NEW" quads. GMC Gremlin > How can they die in the mud? You can't find a quad with drum brakes for the > life of you.....! Why don't front drums die in the mud? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > > > Ian > How can they die in the mud? You can't find a quad with drum brakes > for the life of you.....! Why don't front drums die in the mud? They don't "die". You may be thinking of drum brakes that don't work when you go through water. In this instance, I'll give the disc brakes the nod. But because of the clearance issues between the caliper and rear rims, the position of the caliper (front of the rotor)..etc..the rear disc brakes have a tendancy for the banjo bolt that holds the brake line to the caliper to loosen up...the rocks and crap that get between the caliper and rim can either damage the rim/caliper, or get into the caliper and pad area and cause premature wear on the pads. Sorry, we see it all the time and have to repair them. We have two options for off road trucks, we install a pair of mud guards "in front of the rear wheels" and/or special shields that bolt onto the rear calipers and they help deflect crap away from the caliper area. Ian I see it on the Ford Trucks with Disc brakes in the Rear. The left rear side the Caliper is on the front and has a Shield, and right rear is mounted in the back with No shield on the F250 Super Duty trucks. The Rear Brakes hold up quite well! Even with lots of Caked on mud/Dirt on these over loaded Work trucks I see. I think if Chevy did the same type of thing by Installing a Shield around the Caliper to help block some of the Crap it would be a better way to go then switching over to drum brakes once again. Of course there could be the other reason of the Parking Brake having a lot of problems on the trucks. It's still using a single large round shoe back there. The Parking Brake never feels that firm like most people are used to. It ends up getting left on and driven around on until it starts grinding away. I've replaced quite a few for something that should hardly ever need to be replaced as it doesn't get used except when the truck is at a dead stop. >> How can they die in the mud? You can't find a quad with drum brakes >> for the life of you.....! Why don't front drums die in the mud? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ian I know GM has made calipers in the past where the ebrake engaged the normal pistons. I believe they were on Cadillacs, but a quick search on www.ck5.com would tell you. Mine is on it's way!!! GMC Gremlin > I see it on the Ford Trucks with Disc brakes in the Rear. The left rear > side the Caliper is on the front and has a Shield, and right rear is mounted [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > > > Ian All of the 90 to 94 GM W body cars had e-brakes like that. They were a pain in the butt. Brian > I know GM has made calipers in the past where the ebrake engaged the normal > pistons. I believe they were on Cadillacs, but a quick search on www.ck5.com [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > > > > > Ian First off, "emergency" brakes have no use outside of the manual transmission world. None. Second: "In 76-78 Cadillac Elderado's ran 4 wheel disc and the rear calipers have a parking brake provision. " http://coloradok5.com/atrondiskbrakes.shtml GMC Gremlin > All of the 90 to 94 GM W body cars had e-brakes like that. They were a pain > in the butt. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > > > > > > > Ian >First off, "emergency" brakes have no use outside of the manual transmission >world. None. [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > > parking brakes are essential if parked on a hill with an automatic or the parking pawl will bind up. People have had to have a tow truck take the strain off their tranny so they could get it out of Park in the hills of San Francisco. And some people have manual transmissions! Funny, those people aren't me. That's fer damn sure! I've had my truck up hill where my receiver was scraping on the ground. No problems. I have a friend where my designated parking spot is about a 40deg hill. No problems. Guess it's just me. GMC Gremlin > >First off, "emergency" brakes have no use outside of the manual transmission > >world. None. [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > the strain off their tranny so they could get it out of Park in the > hills of San Francisco. And some people have manual transmissions! It's not really a good idea to put a huge load on your parking pawl... If I ever have to park on a steep hill, I set the parking brake. I also set it when I'm on the boat launch putting the boat in or taking it out. I'm a member of APCAT (Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Automatic Transmissions). ;-) -Tony > Funny, those people aren't me. That's fer damn sure! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > GMC Gremlin The last GM tranny I pulled apart (all be it a transaxle) had a BAND - not pin of any sort - the way it should be. If ANYTHING it should be a BAND and THEN a pawl, incase the band fails for some reason. Other than that - just like drum brakes - emergency brakes have no point in modern society. GMC Gremlin > It's not really a good idea to put a huge load on your parking pawl... > If I ever have to park on a steep hill, I set the parking brake. I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > GMC Gremlin > The last GM tranny I pulled apart (all be it a transaxle) had a BAND > - not pin of any sort - the way it should be. If ANYTHING it should > be a BAND and THEN a pawl, incase the band fails for some reason. > Other than that - just like drum brakes - emergency brakes have no > point in modern society. and what about those of us that prefer a manual trans? are we not modern? so what are you going to do when your main brakes fail? just throw the trans into park?? Dearest Trey, > and what about those of us that prefer a manual trans? are we not modern? I had made this exception in a previous post. I thought this post had been narrowed down to but a few who would remember my context, welcome to the fun. A park should simply be put into manual transmissions. There is no reason the fork couldn't engage 1st gear into an immovable gear cast into the case or whatever. > so what are you going to do when your main brakes fail? just throw the trans > into park?? Design your braking system so in most instances of failure you have at least a front and a rear, or both fronts and a rear. The proportioning valve in my '90 GMC Jimmy separates the front/rear of the truck. IIRC the '91 Skylark I just sold separated the P/S front & D/S rear, and vice versa. This system (skylark) gives you roughly 50% braking power. The truck (a worse design IMHO) give you variable stopping power. If the rears went, it would stop pretty well. If the front went, it would stop not-much-better than a parking brake (drum brakes are AWESOME!!! lol). But in either event this allows the braking mechanism to be used entirely as they were meant, in a hydraulic fashion with all braking surfaces applicable in use (not just one pad). And as for thinking you can stop ANY vehicle with an "emergency" brake (which, BTW, GM calls a PARKING BRAKE) is sheer lunacy. You'll only "knock off" a few MPH and you might as well just crash straight into them and enjoy the carnage. And as for what I would do if I was dictator: I understand the desire for redundancy in the braking system, since it's a big safety thing. My take is make STAINLESS steel lines, and have two braking systems INDEPENDENT of each other. With stainless lines, unless you drive around in salt water they should never rot out. The only reason that they *should* fail is because of blunt-force trauma, and if you designed it correctly, one system getting damaged should put the other "far away" so it wont take them both out at once. IE the only place that lines of the two systems should come close to each other is at the wheels and at the booster (though not the master cylinder, two of those) GMC Gremlin A guy who has practiced stopping cars & trucks with "parking brakes" and wouldn't bother to try in the event of an "emergency". Hi! > First off, "emergency" brakes have no use outside of the manual transmission > world. None. Au contraire...the e-brake was the difference between getting stopped and explaining to my neighbor what I could have done to his truck when my old Sierra decided not to stop in reverse. I'm glad I fixed mine...it came in very handy that day. '84 Sierra, 6.2, 4-speed automatic...questionable power brakes! William The Guesser Now, on the other hand. If you were going even 20MPH an "emergency" brake would probably get you down to say... 15MPH in any appreciable distance. As it does in both my Jimmy and in my mother's '99 Malibu. I USED to drive my '85 K5 around with just the e-brake, until I fixed my brakes (my suggestion). GMC Gremlin > Hi! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > William The Guesser Unless there's somthing wrong with the rear brakes or they are not properly adjusted, the parking brake can stop a vehicle just fine. Most I've seen can lock the rear wheels up totally (not a good idea if you're using it to stop). -Tony > Now, on the other hand. If you were going even 20MPH an "emergency" brake > would probably get you down to say... 15MPH in any appreciable distance. As [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > William The Guesser You must drive go carts. Rear wheels might have 20% of the braking power, and parking brakes have probably less than 1/2 of that, but no more than 1/2. GMC Gremlin > Unless there's somthing wrong with the rear brakes or they are not > properly adjusted, the parking brake can stop a vehicle just fine. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > > > > William The Guesser My truck is not moving if I have the e-brake on. Yes, the rear brakes have 20% or less of the truck's total stoping power, but that is still stoping power just the same. If the brakes fail, th e-brake will still stop the truck, it may take 80% longer, but it will still stop. > You must drive go carts. Rear wheels might have 20% of the braking > power, and parking brakes have probably less than 1/2 of that, but no [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >>>> >>>> William The Guesser Unless Chevy changed, it only presses ONE shoe into the drum, so it could only have 1/2 of that 20%. So it doesn't get better than 90% of your original breaking power. GMC Gremlin > My truck is not moving if I have the e-brake on. Yes, the rear brakes have > 20% or less of the truck's total stoping power, but that is still stoping [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >>>> > >>>> William The Guesser The GM parking brakes have ALL used both the leading and trailing shoes for the E-Brake. Ever notice that the E-Brake lever goes between the adjuster and the shoe? With the way they are set up a properly adjusted drum brake will stop a vehicle faster and with less pedal force than disc brakes of comparable size. WHY? Discs do not have any provision to use the motion of the vehicle to increase the stopping power of the brakes, they depend entirely on the hydraulic pressure behind the pistons.  SignatureSteve > Unless Chevy changed, it only presses ONE shoe into the drum, so it could > only have 1/2 of that 20%. So it doesn't get better than 90% of your [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > >> > > >> "GMC Gremlin" <death@becomes.me> wrote in message news:<aoM3d.404055$OB3.85535@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > >>> Now, on the other hand. If you were going even 20MPH an "emergency" > > >>> brake would probably get you down to say... 15MPH in any [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > >>>> > > >>>> William The Guesser Then what warps the drums? GMC Gremlin > The GM parking brakes have ALL used both the leading and trailing shoes > for the E-Brake. Ever notice that the E-Brake lever goes between the [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- Setting the parking brake hard after a long downhill run to the lake towing a 3000lb sailboat. Ask me how I know..... JR SignatureComputer Tips & Tweaks Builds/Upgrades/Repairs www.acon-pchelp.com > Then what warps the drums? > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- Being stupid and overheating them then putting the E-Brake on without letting them cool usually does it. In the entire time I have owned or repaired vehicles (from motorcycles through class 8 trucks) I have NEVER had a warped drum that was not caused through operator error and even then there were only a very few. Now rotors on the other hand, how many would you like, I scrapped about 50 a week because of warping and cracking, plus the lovely rust delamination that some cheap rotors were known for. There are only two real reasons why disc brakes were developed. One was to reduce brake fade on race cars due to heat build up inside the drums, the other was to reduce unsprung weight and rotating mass on the axles. Most auto manufacturers used them because they are cheaper to manufacture and service than a drum brake system. SignatureSteve > Then what warps the drums? > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- SO lets see...... Less fade due to heat. So they are there if for some emergency you REALLY need them. Like a panic stop at 70MPH? They continue to work well when muddy. The components on a well-designed system are easier to replace. There are fewer springs/lever/cables/JUNK to break/seize/go wrong. They have greater stopping force too... Yup. Inferior design written all over it. I own a 1972 chevelle, four wheel drum. It faded at every stop, even when I wasn't "racing" and panic stops were SCARY. Drum brakes would be best described as "lame" - but not in the sub-culture sense. In the sense the word was intended for. Just like an old finicky pain-in-the-a.s man who you don't like to talk too and wont shut up and thinks he knows everything and can do everything. So since he knows everything and can *DO* everything, he supervises you because he is too decrepit to actually DO WORK. (Sounds like drum brakes, too lame to WORK RIGHT) P.S. The only reason drums are more expensive is because of the rube goldberg "mechanism" within them. GMC Gremlin > Being stupid and overheating them then putting the E-Brake on without > letting them cool usually does it. [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- Well I never was good in math with all these percentages, but I know I could lock the rear wheels up in any of the vehicles I've ever had with an emergency brake... percentage of braking ability doesn't make a damn bit of difference. I think there must be somthing wrong with YOUR emergency brake. And no... both shoes are used in GM emergency brakes. -Tony > Unless Chevy changed, it only presses ONE shoe into the drum, so it could > only have 1/2 of that 20%. So it doesn't get better than 90% of your > original breaking power. When you apply your brakes, the weight of your truck is thrown forward onto your front wheels. Not only does this make it EASIER for your rears to lock up (which mine can) but it gives them even LESS stopping power, making them all the more pointless. GMC Gremlin > Well I never was good in math with all these percentages, but I know I > could lock the rear wheels up in any of the vehicles I've ever had [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > only have 1/2 of that 20%. So it doesn't get better than 90% of your > > original breaking power. The point was that the emergency brake is strong enough to lock the wheels. The trick is to NOT lock the wheels up when you're trying to use it to stop. Very easy actually. I'm used to the air-brakes in the semi that I drive everyday... so feather-footing the brakes is somthing I'm used to. -Tony > When you apply your brakes, the weight of your truck is thrown forward onto > your front wheels. Not only does this make it EASIER for your rears to lock [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > only have 1/2 of that 20%. So it doesn't get better than 90% of your > > > original breaking power. And what I am saying, is that they provide so little braking power you might as well just go for full carnage. No - what I'm actually saying is that cars should be designed with true braking redundancy. But hey - what the hell do I know. GMC Gremlin > The point was that the emergency brake is strong enough to lock the > wheels. The trick is to NOT lock the wheels up when you're trying to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > > only have 1/2 of that 20%. So it doesn't get better than 90% of your > > > > original breaking power. What is everyone talking about a 05 Silverado haveing drum breaks? They have 4 wheel disc brakes. > And what I am saying, is that they provide so little braking power you > might [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >> > > > your >> > > > original breaking power. > What is everyone talking about a 05 Silverado haveing drum breaks? They have > 4 wheel disc brakes. > > snip Not all of them! Rear disc brakes are optional in 2005. Brian Optional? Anyone who chooses to get drum brakes needs to have their head examined. They are nuts, especially if you pull a heavy trailer or 5th wheel. >> What is everyone talking about a 05 Silverado haveing drum breaks? They > have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Brian So I guess that anyone who owns an older truck with drums in the rear can't stop with a heavy trailer? Wrong! If the rear drums are sized appropriately to the usage of the vehicle it will stop as good or better than rear disc brakes. 70% to 80% of the braking force is to the front brakes anyway. So no any one who wants rear drums is not nuts. Brian > Optional? Anyone who chooses to get drum brakes needs to have their head > examined. They are nuts, especially if you pull a heavy trailer or 5th [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > Brian They are easier to maintain aslong as the caliper doesn't freeze up, have a lower cost of owner ship, and they stop better, doesn't matter if 70% -80% of the stopping is done by the front. if it has disc in the back also, the stopping power is that much more efficient than drum. Atleast this is what I have noticed with disc brakes. > So I guess that anyone who owns an older truck with drums in the rear > can't [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> > >> > Brian When you have the option of disks, yes you are. But I'm not saying that drums on an old truck are useless. You need something in the rear while you save up for a conversion kit. GMC Gremlin > So I guess that anyone who owns an older truck with drums in the rear can't > stop with a heavy trailer? Wrong! If the rear drums are sized appropriately [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > > > Brian Well put Gremlin. But I'm a cheap bastard, I wouldn't convert from drum to disk cause you would also have to change the proportioning valve, time I wouldnt want to spend. > When you have the option of disks, yes you are. > But I'm not saying that drums on an old truck are useless. You need [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> > > >> > > Brian Oh why not? That's a nice simple R&R parts changer jobby! Purfekto fer yoo. GMC Gremlin > Well put Gremlin. But I'm a cheap bastard, I wouldn't convert from drum to > disk cause you would also have to change the proportioning valve, time I [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >> > > > >> > > Brian > Optional? Anyone who chooses to get drum brakes needs to have their > head examined. They are nuts, especially if you pull a heavy trailer > or 5th wheel. Do you happen to actually "work" on vehicles for a living? I suspect you don't...otherwise you would know that the drum brakes on GM trucks have rarely given any problems over the years. But the rear disc brakes that appeared in 99 on the new trucks have given all sorts of problems. I know this because I work on them all day long. As far as I'm concerned and I'll bet many other folks that buy trucks and use them as work trucks.....bringing back the rear drum brakes as an option will be a good thing. For the person who owns a truck in the city and drives it much like they would drive a car...then the rear disc brakes will work well and won't give them many problems. Ian >> How can they die in the mud? You can't find a quad with drum brakes >> for the life of you.....! Why don't front drums die in the mud? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Ian Ian, where would I get either of these items and what is the cost? I plan to take my S-10 off-road again and maybe it would be a good idea to install one or both of these... > Ian, where would I get either of these items and what is the cost? I > plan to take my S-10 off-road again and maybe it would be a good idea > to install one or both of these... As far as I know, they don't make them for the S-10 trucks. We don't seem to see any problems with them. If I remember, I'll check and see if the manufacturer makes a version for the S-trucks. These items are not made by GM, but by an aftermarket place. GM does approve them. GM does make their own version of caliper shields, but the price is about 10 times as high, and they don't appear to be as large or robust. Ian >> Ian, where would I get either of these items and what is the cost? I >> plan to take my S-10 off-road again and maybe it would be a good idea [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Ian Ian, did you get a chance to check on these? I know the S-10s with rear discs have issues with caliper slides freezing up on the passenger side rear tire. Just want to head off problems before they start... Oh... and even when the rear drums in my 1990 GMC Jimmy are working "properly" if I get them muddy they no longer do... GMC Gremlin > > Is this item in regard to the 2005 Silverado a mistake?: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Ian |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.