If it's balanced without a load when a load is added then when you have a load the bias is the the front, this is the correct way to do it.

 

If it's balanced without a load, that would imply that the bias is already toward the front. (ideal ratio being 70/30 for most applications....) When you put a load on, that will move even MORE of the bias to the front...... leaving you with rear brakes that aren't really doing much for you, even though, with a load on, they can be even MORE effective.... That was something dodge tried to fix with the load balancing valve on the rear brakes. Unfortunately, it didn't work as well in actual practice, as it did in theory, and now, general consensus is: Take it off..... as it causes more harm than good.

 

If the bias is the the rear, it's dangerous, you've lost stopping distance, even more than if you only had front brakes and no rear. Front brakes do 75% of the work.

 

True that. However, if you start with an unloaded truck that is already 70/30, or 75/25, when you toss a load in the back, and move even MORE of the bias to the front, 80/20? 85/15? 90/10? The rear brakes are basically along for the ride in any event, and contributing very little, if anything at all to actually stopping the truck. I suspect that was at least part of the reason for putting RWAL on the trucks to begin with. It would allow for a heavier rear bias when unloaded, but still prevent lockup on heavy braking. Really not a bad idea..... IF the rear ABS actually worked as intended...... as the ABS doesn't have a clue what the front wheels are doing..... the only thing the PCM has to base it's 'modulation' decisions on, is a serious drop in vehicle speed. (say, from 30 to zero to 30 again, in a very short period of time......) So, even in the best circumstances, it ain't very effective.

It's a truck. The problem we are discussing here is inherent to the very design of the vehicle. When you have a broad range of possible rear loading, what do you balance for?? Empty? Full? Half load?? I am unable to find this information anywhere.......

 

So, is their a general consensus on upgrading the rear brakes? For instance, my '95 1500 4x4 with 33x12.5x15 tires used mostly for highway driving. Don't yet have a trailer to tow, and mostly light loads in the bed. I was thinking 1 1/16" cylinders to compensate for the larger tires, but I've seen 1 3/16" mentioned.

I've always been under the impression that the front brakes do most of the stopping, and the rear brakes help a little, but mostly just keep the rear end back there where it belongs.

 

The brakes on my Ram were crap when I bought it...but with a blown tranny, it wasn't an issue then. Some of the parts were missing from the rear brakes so they obviously were not working. After rebuilding the front and the rear, several hard stops and testing in a parking lot, and no adverse effects identified. No lock up, no slip. No problem. Normal brake usage should reveal no other adverse symptoms. Hard braking - well that will be dependent on road conditions as much as RAWL.
There has been no downside. And as I drive approx 45,000 tio 50,000 miles per year, I want brakes that work. The larger cylinders will apply more pressure with less pedal pressure, and increase the braking ratio on the rear slightly. By design, front disk brakes typicallly provide more braking force, leavbing the rear less effective. This change brings about a little more even brake distribution.

I still believe no downside.....and I am sticking to it!