Would like to know if the rear backing plates for the 10 inch drum brakes from an 85 Dakota 4x4 will interchange with the 9 inch used on my 96 2 wheel drive.

Also have the rear differential from a 97 Durango which I believe has disk brakes, how much of a problem to get the ABS sensors to communicate with the 96 hardware.

Thanks

 

The Dakota came out in 1987.

​​​​​​Does the Durango have speed sensors for each side? Because the Dakota has only one in the differential---unless they changed in 1996. If it's only got one sensor and the Durango has 2 then I don't see how you could possibly integrate into the '96 abs system.

 

I was going to check rockauto and see if by chance they use the same sensor. In addition to no 85 dakota, are you sure on the 97 durango? FWIW rock auto starts at 98.
and again, FWIW the 96 dakota and 98 durango use different sensors.
If you are thinking about a swap, keep in mind the spring mounts on a 2wd vs 4wd is different.....
Good luck

 

Yes the Durango I parted was a 97 with a 5.2, my mistake the 1985 is in fact a 1993 4x4 with ten inch drums that I would like to use to replace the 9 inch on a 1996 2 wheel drive.

 

Backing plate out they're interchangeable, as a whole unit.

Can't swap between them, but the axles they bolt to are the same.

RwP

 

Yup, I've done the 10" swap and there's no issues with the install or operation. Bolt up.

Still, I looked on the internet and there is no reports of Durangos made before 1998. So I don't believe yours is. Edit: ****, guess I didn't search hard enough. Indeed it looks like 1997 was the first years sorry. Edit2: well no consensus actually...some say 1998 some say 1997 (motor trend for example)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dakootie

Yes the Durango I parted was a 97 with a 5.2,

Interesting that you say that. According to Wikipedia, the Durango came out in 97, but the model year started as a 98.First gen's. were 98-2003.

But at any rate, I have a 87 rear with the larger brakes out of my truck now. If you need any pictures or measurements, let me know.

 

I'm good on this end I have the complete 93 Dakota for a donor, just have to relocate from where she now rests before parting it out.

My thoughts on using the larger shoes and drums is not to gain better braking performance but longer intervals between having to do maintenance. It's my belief the larger drums and shoes will outlast the smaller 9 inch parts 2 to 1.

My only regret is having traded off the 5.2 engine after learning this is the preferred engine for the wood gas conversion which is planned for a future project.

 

If you're wearing out the 9" brakes quickly something is wrong. About 30-40k miles would be on the VERY low end and that's if you're doing city driving exlcusively. In "normal" driving 100k could be achieved. Hell, 150k is not unusual. Maybe every 2 or 3 times you do the fronts roughly. Going to 10" brakes will make a very minimal difference; even shoe compound would make a much larger difference.

 

Prospector following his dream in the coastal mountains of British Columbia.

This is my first Dakota, you either love em or hate then. I've fallen somewhere in the middle. Since I have to change the 9 inch brake shoes and drum which were totally worn out thought why not use the 10 inch from the 93,

Have not yet inspected the donor parts from the 93 but hoping that perhaps the drums are within spec that would save this pensioner a few bucks..

Should have time on Tuesday to dismantle the 93 for inspection, truck has been relocated to a better nesting spot and can sit there until hell freezes over.