I want to go to 3rd gen brakes on my truck. I've gotten pretty good at rebuild calipers. Wondering about getting some used calipers for the price of core charge. 

As far as I know they are same as 2nd gen 2001-2002, I was able to use my calipers and had to buy capper brackets.  plus of course you'll need 17" wheels to clear. 

Bone yard. I assume the rotors are larger and the pads too? Making for more surface area? If the the calipers are the same then why are 3rd gen brakes better?

1 hour ago, CTcummins24V said:

Bone yard. I assume the rotors are larger and the pads too? Making for more surface area? If the the calipers are the same then why are 3rd gen brakes better?

The 3rd gen can exert more torque against the wheel with the same pressure because the lever arm is longer with the larger rotors. 

 

Think of it like using a cheater bar on a ratchet. 2nd gen is just the ratchet. 3rd gen is the ratchet with a cheater bar on it. You can pull the same with your arms, but you apply more force using the cheater bar. 

 

@joecool911 I've seen many many reports or people using their stock calipers. If they aren't broke, run em!

 

The pads, however I do not know about. I would run new ones with new rotors anyway. 

What is the cheater bar, the larger rotors?

Edited December 5, 20168 yr by dripley

11 minutes ago, dripley said:

What is the cheater bar, the larger rotors?

Correct. And after some searching it looks like the pads have a larger surface area too

so are the calipers the same? I know the late model 2nd gens have two plungers versus the single on the earlier ones.

8 minutes ago, dripley said:

so are the calipers the same? I know the late model 2nd gens have two plungers versus the single on the earlier ones.

From what I've read, yes. The differences being the banjo bolt for the brake line. This is not personal information though so I can't confirm 

Rotors are bigger and pads are bigger if you get Wagner thermal quite they are about same size as 2nd gen pads, I would recommend getting cheaper pads for several reasons, more surface are too.

I've stayed away from this upgrade. I will not upgrade to 3rd gen brakes. The reason being is your adding more rotational mass ot the axles and reducing MPG's. For every 1 pound in rotational mass added is like 8 pounds added to the frame. You might gain better braking now but the added rotation mass reduces power output and MPG number. Same reason I went down a tire size just shedding 96 pounds in tire mass gained me 2-3 MPG more. 

 

I did my first brake pad change at 180k miles... I'm at 277k miles now I just checked my pads yesterday I'm at 75% of pads remaining so I'll reach my 360k change mileage easy. Even my 1996 Dodge 1500 with auto went 160k miles on the factory pads with an automatic V8 gasser. 

 

http://hpwizard.com/rotational-inertia.html

 

I would rather reduce the rotational mass so the brake can stop easier than adding more mass and attempting to slow down heavier mass. This all comes out as heat.

 

 

Edited December 6, 20168 yr by Mopar1973Man

12 minutes ago, Mopar1973Man said:

I've stayed away from this upgrade. I will not upgrade to 3rd gen brakes. The reason being is your adding more rotational mass ot the axles and reducing MPG's. For every 1 pound in rotational mass added is like 8 pounds added to the frame. You might gain better braking now but the added rotation mass reduces power output and MPG number. Same reach I went down a tire size just shedding 96 pounds in tire mass gained me 2-3 MPG more. 

This isn't a very valid argument.... so let's go on the high side here and say you gained 3mpg by shedding 96lbs(4 tires)

Translate that into mpg per pound and you get 0.01325mpg/pound(4 tires) 

Divide that by 4 and you have 0.0078125 mpg/pound for each tire.

 

Now if we take into account what your article has to say, you're around a factor of 1lb per wheel = 2lbs on the frame.

A rotor is approximately 1lb per rotor = 1.2lbs on the frame.  

 

So we take the 0.0078125mpg/pound for each tire and divide by the factor of 2 and multiply it by the factor of 1.2.

We get 0.0046875mpg/pound per each rotor

 

Let's say all 4 rotors add 3 pounds each. (Not sure but I don't think it would be higher than 3)

 

Multiply that by 3lbs for each rotor and 4 for the four rotors and get 0.05625mpg. 

 

That is so little in the mpg world it can't even be quantified. Floor the truck once and I bet you'd lose double that on a tank. 

 

12 minutes ago, Mopar1973Man said:

 

I did my first brake pad change at 180k miles... I'm at 277k miles now I just checked my pads yesterday I'm at 75% of pads remaining so I'll reach my 360k change mileage easy. Even my 1996 Dodge 1500 with auto went 160k miles on the factory pads with an automatic V8 gasser. 

 

http://hpwizard.com/rotational-inertia.html

 

I would rather reduce the rotational mass so the brake can stop easier than adding more mass and attempting to slow down heavier mass. This all comes out as heat.

 

 

Now this is a very valid argument for you, but for those of us who are stuck driving in traffic, we'll wear out brakes much faster. We may also end up using our brakes much harder due to the way people drive in the city. (Not so gentle stops)

 

If we look at pricing, 2nd gen front pads are 43.99 each. 3rd gen pads are 43.99 each.  (Napa OE pads for each with hardware)

So with ~33% greater braking power and a larger pad, those of us who go through brakes faster could save money by not having to use our brakes as hard. Like I said, this may not apply to you, because you aren't in the city and you don't drive as much, but the savings "in theory" would be $14.51 per pad change. 

 

I like math  

Visions of dynamics flash through my head.  

Measurements... 235's

 

265's

 

I also drive in traffic too. How about the last 3 months of driving in Boise traffic to go down to see Mopar Mom? How about Ontario, OR traffic? So I'm not excluded either. How about towing the RV in city traffic for two months? How about hauling that 10,000 pounds of hay down 7% grades and through 5 towns?

I'd have to add, my truck never had great mpg, and now I got bigger then stock tires and home made bumpers that way quite a bit, empty I'm close to 8000lb with me in truck. so I guess for the price difference in parts I'll go with bigger brakes, I did notice improvement when towing, it's worth it to me, and I'll be always dreaming of Mikes mpgs

My last time across the scales... MoparMom, Myself, and Diesel in the back seat I scaled in at 7,280 pounds. No cargo in the bed nor a canopy any longer and full tank of fuel. I scale my truck off and on to check the weight and math my tire pressure from it. But back to rotational mass when you look at true race tire and wheels they are super light like 20-25 pounds per tire. This is to reduce the rotational mass and get more power to the ground. Also, makes it easier to stop the vehicle. So using the same knowledge from racing efficiency is gain more so reducing drag and rotational mass. 

Edited December 6, 20168 yr by Mopar1973Man

5 minutes ago, Mopar1973Man said:

Measurements... 235's

 

265's

 

I also drive in traffic too. How about the last 3 months of driving in Boise traffic to go down to see Mopar Mom? How about Ontario, OR traffic? So I'm not excluded either. How about towing the RV in city traffic for two months? How about hauling that 10,000 pounds of hay down 7% grades and through 5 towns?

 

I would say try Denver   I'm just messing with ya. I HATE this place. But really I've never been in a worse place to drive. 

Your other HUGE factor is the exhaust brake. If it was free I'd say you should try it and see if you can tell any difference in mpgs, but it's not. When I upgrade I'll let everyone know if mine goes down at all. 

 

@Dieselfuture We'll all dream! Someday I might change my injectors out for some with a more reasonable size. Until then I'll just keep hazing. 

12 minutes ago, Dieselfuture said:

now I got bigger then stock tires

 

Just like @Taz he's running 35" tire on his truck way more rotational mass, way lower MPG (14-16 MPG), and final gear ratio is more like 3.22:1 roughly. So this plays a roll too. 

4 minutes ago, TFaoro said:

Your other HUGE factor is the exhaust brake.

 

Yeah... But, how about on my 1996 Dodge 1500 V8 with 46RE automatic? Try again. I got 160k miles from the stock brakes. That towing trailers and hauling firewood too. There is no exhaust brake on gasser engine. Rotational mass... Again that truck has 235's as well again lighter wheels and tires. 

 

Edited December 6, 20168 yr by Mopar1973Man

6 minutes ago, Mopar1973Man said:

 

Just like @Taz he's running 35" tire on his truck way more rotational mass, way lower MPG (14-16 MPG), and final gear ratio is more like 3.22:1 roughly. So this plays a roll too. 

 

Yeah... But, how about on my 1996 Dodge 1500 V8 with 46RE automatic? Try again. I got 160k miles from the stock brakes. That towing trailers and hauling firewood too. There is no exhaust brake on gasser engine. Rotational mass... Again that truck has 235's as well again lighter wheels and tires. 

 

 

There is no way you're going to convince me that changing my rims and tires is going to net me 130,000 more miles out of my brake pads.  

 

Going off your article again, let's say you dropped 96lbs off the wheel and tire setup of your 1500. at 2lbs frame weight per 1 pound tire weight that's 192 pounds added to the truck. That's less than 3% of the vehicle's weight added. 

Brake pad life depends entirely on driving style with and without weight, and brake pad material. 

1996 Dodge came with 235's from the factory so there is no gains or losses.

 

Yes. Driving style is a huge factor. I always keeping a buffer zone ahead of me, rarely even in traffic do I just jump the brakes hard. Even with the 96 I use the transmission to slow down never just use the brakes alone I use the transmission and gear down and reduce my speeds before applying the brakes. I've driven like that for years. 

 

 

Still the fact remain the heavier the rotational mass the more heat energy is created in the rotors to slow that spinning mass down. So the heat energy created is more or less equal to the spinning energy you are attempting to stop. You can't change physics... So lighter mass spinning means less heat created and less brake pad wear. 

21 minutes ago, Mopar1973Man said:

1996 Dodge came with 235's from the factory so there is no gains or losses.

 

Yes. Driving style is a huge factor. I always keeping a buffer zone ahead of me, rarely even in traffic do I just jump the brakes hard. Even with the 96 I use the transmission to slow down never just use the brakes alone I use the transmission and gear down and reduce my speeds before applying the brakes. I've driven like that for years. 

 

 

Still the fact remain the heavier the rotational mass the more heat energy is created in the rotors to slow that spinning mass down. So the heat energy created is more or less equal to the spinning energy you are attempting to stop. You can't change physics... So lighter mass spinning means less heat created and less brake pad wear. 

Buffer zone in Denver traffic = getting cut off. When I have a trailer I just go below the speed limit so cars are always passing and there's no sudden stopping needed.

 

You're right, the more weight you have the more energy must be transferred into heat (ie the brakes) BUT I could gain much more from ditching the toolbox, sound system, twin turbos, 5" exhaust, traction bars, losing some weight myself, etc. Rotors aren't going to make any noticeable difference on 99.9999999999999% of vehicles. 

I'd have to add, my truck never had great mpg, and now I got bigger then stock tires and home made bumpers that way quite a bit, empty I'm close to 8000lb with me in truck. so I guess for the price difference in parts I'll go with bigger brakes, I did notice improvement when towing, it's worth it to me, and I'll be always dreaming of Mikes mpgs