96 Dakota 9 inch rear brakes
#13
07-22-2018, 11:47 PM
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.
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.
I'll echo you on the falling somewhere in the middle. I'd be lying if I said I'd rather have a Dakota than a Yota...but the "Toyota tax" is real...and mostly the old first gen tacos are all rotted out.
Hope it treats ya well
#14
07-23-2018, 12:10 AM
True dude, I went to 10" because it was absolutely impossible to find non rotted nine inch back plates for a stomach-able price. Much cheaper to get some used old (1970s) Cali back plates from a Ramcharger and related hardware.
I'll echo you on the falling somewhere in the middle. I'd be lying if I said I'd rather have a Dakota than a Yota...but the "Toyota tax" is real...and mostly the old first gen tacos are all rotted out.
Hope it treats ya well
I'll echo you on the falling somewhere in the middle. I'd be lying if I said I'd rather have a Dakota than a Yota...but the "Toyota tax" is real...and mostly the old first gen tacos are all rotted out.
Hope it treats ya well
To save on the import tax the box was removed from the truck then secured upside down on the chassis. By removing the box this changed the tariff code entring the USA.
A few years back was living on a sale boat near Vancouver Island and came across a near mint 85 Toyota, truck was a white 4x4 5 speed with the V6. The young fellow who owned it had brought it into Canada from California undeclared then left the truck in Bowser after the insurance had run out then moved to Ontario.
Could have had the truck for a couple of hundred dollars as the guy where the truck was stored wanted it gone, I had been in contact with the owner and he had lost the tittle.
I looked everywhere to buy a junker just for the tag and papers but none turned up, as far as I know the truck is till sitting in Bowser on Vancouver Island, living on a sail boat with hardware disease is not an easy task when you have to also live your life according to what the harbour master will allow on the parking lot.
Already I had a utility trailer, Dodge Ram and a Honda VT 1100 taking up space and had been informed when tourist season started I had to find other arrangements for two of my vehicles.
Last edited by dakootie; 07-23-2018 at 12:16 AM.
#16
07-24-2018, 09:02 PM
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.
oh yeah... I also own an 01 Durango and it still has DRUM brakes.... I have seen some 02 or o3 Dakotas with 4 wheel disc..... but honestly I think they are over rated..... nothing wrong with drums on the back.
Last edited by volaredon; 07-24-2018 at 09:23 PM.
#17
07-24-2018, 09:18 PM
where? And the same brand/grade? I'll have to check on that...
I will say that the 10 inch brakes as used on this series of Dakota, are the same 10" brakes Mopar used at least back into the mid 70s.... my 96 Dakota, my 78 Fury and my 80 Volare all take the same shoes....as do some 1/2 ton vans and pickups.... in fact since it will be a while before I get to spend some time on bodywork on the Volare (and it is stripped to the bare body right now, not being driven) I put the brake shoes on my 96 that I bought for the Volare probably 10 years ago.....onto my 96 Dakota. most brake companies' part number 445. prefixes/suffixes vary by brand and grade of material.
On my 2wd Dakotas, all of which have had 9" brakes, they share the same back brakes as my 97 Wrangler, my 2 previous Jeep Cherokees, (XJ "square body" series) and Chrysler minivans up til around 95. Starting 97 they used different stuff on the Dakotas along with body style change. Point being there are still LOTS and LOTS of vehicles on the road that use the same parts as yours.... drums vary by 5 or 6 bolt hub though...… Cherokees til 01 and Wranglers til 06 used these SAME 9" BRAKES!!! (I used to sell parts and still look up all of my own before going to parts store)
Unless you're running your Dakota maxed out hauling or towing, I do not think you will gain much going from 9s to 10s..... and I think the proportioning valve may be different for 9" rear brakes vs 10s.... you may find your rear brakes suddenly like to lock up easily under light driving conditions..... maybe not but I've seen it on other vehicles before.... some of the late 70s and early 80s cars there was even a service bulletin at one time about going down 1 size (7/8 to 13/16 I think it was) on wheel cylinder size to correct this when these cars were just a couple of years from new. the old B bodies (Cordoba, Charger, magnum, Fury, Coronet) were notorious for "touchy" rear brakes and they "only" had these same 10" brakes..... I remember my my 75 Cordoba was this way and to this day my 78 Sport Fury still is!
although weird as it may be, my 76 Charger had 11" brakes and wasn't as "bad" for being so touchy.
I will say that the 10 inch brakes as used on this series of Dakota, are the same 10" brakes Mopar used at least back into the mid 70s.... my 96 Dakota, my 78 Fury and my 80 Volare all take the same shoes....as do some 1/2 ton vans and pickups.... in fact since it will be a while before I get to spend some time on bodywork on the Volare (and it is stripped to the bare body right now, not being driven) I put the brake shoes on my 96 that I bought for the Volare probably 10 years ago.....onto my 96 Dakota. most brake companies' part number 445. prefixes/suffixes vary by brand and grade of material.
On my 2wd Dakotas, all of which have had 9" brakes, they share the same back brakes as my 97 Wrangler, my 2 previous Jeep Cherokees, (XJ "square body" series) and Chrysler minivans up til around 95. Starting 97 they used different stuff on the Dakotas along with body style change. Point being there are still LOTS and LOTS of vehicles on the road that use the same parts as yours.... drums vary by 5 or 6 bolt hub though...… Cherokees til 01 and Wranglers til 06 used these SAME 9" BRAKES!!! (I used to sell parts and still look up all of my own before going to parts store)
Unless you're running your Dakota maxed out hauling or towing, I do not think you will gain much going from 9s to 10s..... and I think the proportioning valve may be different for 9" rear brakes vs 10s.... you may find your rear brakes suddenly like to lock up easily under light driving conditions..... maybe not but I've seen it on other vehicles before.... some of the late 70s and early 80s cars there was even a service bulletin at one time about going down 1 size (7/8 to 13/16 I think it was) on wheel cylinder size to correct this when these cars were just a couple of years from new. the old B bodies (Cordoba, Charger, magnum, Fury, Coronet) were notorious for "touchy" rear brakes and they "only" had these same 10" brakes..... I remember my my 75 Cordoba was this way and to this day my 78 Sport Fury still is!
although weird as it may be, my 76 Charger had 11" brakes and wasn't as "bad" for being so touchy.
#18
07-24-2018, 09:21 PM
True dude, I went to 10" because it was absolutely impossible to find non rotted nine inch back plates for a stomach-able price. Much cheaper to get some used old (1970s) Cali back plates from a Ramcharger and related hardware.
I'll echo you on the falling somewhere in the middle. I'd be lying if I said I'd rather have a Dakota than a Yota...but the "Toyota tax" is real...and mostly the old first gen tacos are all rotted out.
Hope it treats ya well
I'll echo you on the falling somewhere in the middle. I'd be lying if I said I'd rather have a Dakota than a Yota...but the "Toyota tax" is real...and mostly the old first gen tacos are all rotted out.
Hope it treats ya well
#19
07-24-2018, 09:42 PM
where? And the same brand/grade? I'll have to check on that...
I will say that the 10 inch brakes as used on this series of Dakota, are the same 10" brakes Mopar used at least back into the mid 70s.... my 96 Dakota, my 78 Fury and my 80 Volare all take the same shoes....as do some 1/2 ton vans and pickups.... in fact since it will be a while before I get to spend some time on bodywork on the Volare (and it is stripped to the bare body right now, not being driven) I put the brake shoes on my 96 that I bought for the Volare probably 10 years ago.....onto my 96 Dakota. most brake companies' part number 445. prefixes/suffixes vary by brand and grade of material.
On my 2wd Dakotas, all of which have had 9" brakes, they share the same back brakes as my 97 Wrangler, my 2 previous Jeep Cherokees, (XJ "square body" series) and Chrysler minivans up til around 95. Starting 97 they used different stuff on the Dakotas along with body style change. Point being there are still LOTS and LOTS of vehicles on the road that use the same parts as yours.... drums vary by 5 or 6 bolt hub though...… Cherokees til 01 and Wranglers til 06 used these SAME 9" BRAKES!!! (I used to sell parts and still look up all of my own before going to parts store)
Unless you're running your Dakota maxed out hauling or towing, I do not think you will gain much going from 9s to 10s..... and I think the proportioning valve may be different for 9" rear brakes vs 10s.... you may find your rear brakes suddenly like to lock up easily under light driving conditions..... maybe not but I've seen it on other vehicles before.... some of the late 70s and early 80s cars there was even a service bulletin at one time about going down 1 size (7/8 to 13/16 I think it was) on wheel cylinder size to correct this when these cars were just a couple of years from new. the old B bodies (Cordoba, Charger, magnum, Fury, Coronet) were notorious for "touchy" rear brakes and they "only" had these same 10" brakes..... I remember my my 75 Cordoba was this way and to this day my 78 Sport Fury still is!
although weird as it may be, my 76 Charger had 11" brakes and wasn't as "bad" for being so touchy.
I will say that the 10 inch brakes as used on this series of Dakota, are the same 10" brakes Mopar used at least back into the mid 70s.... my 96 Dakota, my 78 Fury and my 80 Volare all take the same shoes....as do some 1/2 ton vans and pickups.... in fact since it will be a while before I get to spend some time on bodywork on the Volare (and it is stripped to the bare body right now, not being driven) I put the brake shoes on my 96 that I bought for the Volare probably 10 years ago.....onto my 96 Dakota. most brake companies' part number 445. prefixes/suffixes vary by brand and grade of material.
On my 2wd Dakotas, all of which have had 9" brakes, they share the same back brakes as my 97 Wrangler, my 2 previous Jeep Cherokees, (XJ "square body" series) and Chrysler minivans up til around 95. Starting 97 they used different stuff on the Dakotas along with body style change. Point being there are still LOTS and LOTS of vehicles on the road that use the same parts as yours.... drums vary by 5 or 6 bolt hub though...… Cherokees til 01 and Wranglers til 06 used these SAME 9" BRAKES!!! (I used to sell parts and still look up all of my own before going to parts store)
Unless you're running your Dakota maxed out hauling or towing, I do not think you will gain much going from 9s to 10s..... and I think the proportioning valve may be different for 9" rear brakes vs 10s.... you may find your rear brakes suddenly like to lock up easily under light driving conditions..... maybe not but I've seen it on other vehicles before.... some of the late 70s and early 80s cars there was even a service bulletin at one time about going down 1 size (7/8 to 13/16 I think it was) on wheel cylinder size to correct this when these cars were just a couple of years from new. the old B bodies (Cordoba, Charger, magnum, Fury, Coronet) were notorious for "touchy" rear brakes and they "only" had these same 10" brakes..... I remember my my 75 Cordoba was this way and to this day my 78 Sport Fury still is!
although weird as it may be, my 76 Charger had 11" brakes and wasn't as "bad" for being so touchy.
#20
07-24-2018, 10:38 PM
i was just at a get together with a bunch of relatives and realized almost none drive an American brand car. Subaru Outback, Honda Pilot, Lexus ES, Acura MDX, Toyota Tundra, Volvo XC, and myself I have a Honda Fit (*ducks*). My brother has a Buick Lesabre and aunt has a Wrangler, they are the only ones daily driving an American car.