[grivera]

I have a 9” with 11” drums and 15” wheels on the 64 and all fits well.

[chiphead]

I re-used the factory 9.5" drum brakes from the 10 bolt BOP. There are housing ends that accept the big ford bearing and have the same bolt pattern as the drum brake backing plates. The center hole in the BOP backing plates needs to be enlarged a bit to clear the big ford bearings. Not a big deal.

There are a lot of options, just do the research and consider what you're really going to use the car for.

[DaleO]

Originally Posted by grivera

I have a 9” with 11” drums and 15” wheels on the 64 and all fits well.

Thanks grivera. You probably have discs up front but in case you have original drums how does it affect handling due to mismatch of brakes with the smaller front?

[grivera]

Originally Posted by DaleO

Thanks grivera. You probably have discs up front but in case you have original drums how does it affect handling due to mismatch of brakes with the smaller front?

I have discs up front - but they are manual brakes. It stops great, not at all like a 4 drum manual brake car.

I know that wasn’t your question but wanted to throw it out there

[DaleO]

Originally Posted by grivera

I have discs up front - but they are manual brakes. It stops great, not at all like a 4 drum manual brake car.

I know that wasn’t your question but wanted to throw it out there

Don't stop, I appreciate it. I didn't really know manual discs were an option to consider. Thanks for volunteering.

[1968GTO421]

Originally Posted by DaleO

Thanks grivera. You probably have discs up front but in case you have original drums how does it affect handling due to mismatch of brakes with the smaller front?

I noticed no one has directly answered your question of small brakes on front -vs- large brakes on rear. I had to track down my brother (Mr Chevelle guy) and query him. He had a '66 Chevelle with the 9.5 inch rums front and back. He also ran his Chevelle at local drag strips. Hence the Chevy 8.2 rear quickly gave up. He hunted down a late '70's Chevelle wagon that had the larger rear end and steeper gears) and the 11" rear brakes. He had a buddy do some cutting and welding on the rear so the upper and lower trailing arms fit correctly to bro's frame. With new brakes shoes, wheel cylinders, etc., they got the 8.5 rear into the '66 Chevelle. This job ran my bro out of money so he put off front discs for 6 months. He raced the car on weekends and drove it semi-daily along with his '66 C-10. Is he an "old lady" driver? Nope. And the 9.5 drums up front and the 11" drums in back stopped just fine. The front shoes wore faster but they always do. Brakes stop the wheels, tires stop the car.
FWIW

[HWYSTR455]

Just to toss it out there...

https://www.brakes-shop.com/brakeped...nd-performance



.

[HWYSTR455]

Not sure how accurate this is, but it is interesting.

https://www.tceperformanceproducts.com/bias-calculator/


.

[HWYSTR455]

Finally, to open the rabbit hole, why do dragsters have no front brakes?

.

[HWYSTR455]

To give an extreme example, what happens when you jerk the e-brake at 60mph?


.

[b-man]

Originally Posted by HWYSTR455

Finally, to open the rabbit hole, why do dragsters have no front brakes?

.

No weight to speak of on the front axle and that chassis really cannot transfer weight to the front axle in any appreciable amount if there were brakes up front. The 300 inch wheelbase isn’t likely to transfer much weight to the front axle.

Braking forces would twist the front axle out of the car if they did have brakes.

I used to drag race a 12-second VW with no front brakes, it stopped fine at over 105 mph after a run, of course this 1300 pound car was heavily rear weight biased.

[DaleO]

Originally Posted by HWYSTR455

Not sure how accurate this is, but it is interesting.

https://www.tceperformanceproducts.com/bias-calculator/


.

I think there is info here to consider. "Paragraph" four touches on greater rear bias as could be bad depending on how much more there is. Could a drum to drum set up throw things off I don't know, probably not like discs on rear and drums up front probably would.

I'm not looking for a reason to not convert to discs, it is all just interesting.

[DaleO]

Originally Posted by 1968GTO421

I noticed no one has directly answered your question of small brakes on front -vs- large brakes on rear. I had to track down my brother (Mr Chevelle guy) and query him. He had a '66 Chevelle with the 9.5 inch rums front and back. He also ran his Chevelle at local drag strips. Hence the Chevy 8.2 rear quickly gave up. He hunted down a late '70's Chevelle wagon that had the larger rear end and steeper gears) and the 11" rear brakes. He had a buddy do some cutting and welding on the rear so the upper and lower trailing arms fit correctly to bro's frame. With new brakes shoes, wheel cylinders, etc., they got the 8.5 rear into the '66 Chevelle. This job ran my bro out of money so he put off front discs for 6 months. He raced the car on weekends and drove it semi-daily along with his '66 C-10. Is he an "old lady" driver? Nope. And the 9.5 drums up front and the 11" drums in back stopped just fine. The front shoes wore faster but they always do. Brakes stop the wheels, tires stop the car.
FWIW

Thanks a bunch for this.