I checked the prices at Autozone today and while the AIMCO brand rear drums run only $18.99 each, the Raybestos brand drums are a whopping $52.99 each. These are 88 CRX Si specific parts so I don't believe the price difference is due to any of the drums being aluminum. Can anyone explain why there is such a large price difference? What is everyone here using for drum replacements?

This is for roadrace use only, so they need to be safe/durable but I don't need to be throwing money at equivalent parts.

 

one is better than the other by name only i would say.....why not go get some HF ones from a junkyard they are aluminum....

 

I would, but it's not legal for racing. The difference in name is really that big?

 

Get OEM Honda ones

 

I haven't found those for under about $65-70 each. Is there a good source for new ones?

 

I don't think the drums are year specific. I put 88 SI drums from the yard on my 90 HF. I think 88-91 are good to go, mix and match. Also it's the first gen HF that have the aluminum drums.
HTH
chris

 

can't you do a Disc-brake swap from an integra? or does that just apply for the 89-91's?

 

He could but it would be an additional 60 + pounds with very little braking benefit.

 

where do u come up with 60+ pounds if u dont mind my asking....its hardly an added 15 extra pounds if he cares about 15lbs diet and loose the wieght u added

 

I dont think the whole rear disk brake assembly weighs that much... where did u get that from? the drums are pretty heavy too

 

swap to 90-91 CRX si which had rear discs

 

Are you one of those people who drill holes in their head to save weight? Really though I much rather maintain disc over drums. The disc conversion, was one of the first mods on my '90 DX. Drums suck ***. The weight diff is not substanial, I swapped the DXes last weekend, they weren't alot different.

 

I agree with that, people think every single ounce counts... drums are a pain in the *** to work on, I had to rebuild most of the crap in there... as a disc looks better, much easier to maintain, and provides better braking - only downfall of all of it is the cost

and does a 90 - 91 CRX Si bolt right onto a 90 civic DX?

 

if just aluminum drums would make his car illegal, i'm sure a rear disc conversion would too, i dont think its even feasible to spend the money on it if wont have any significant advantage over drums in terms of brake power anyways, but i'd just go with the aimco, i think the higher price is in the name..

 

Sorry I got us off on a tangent, guys. I should have been a little more clear. I was only interested in information on replacing drums with drums. I specifically wanted an 88 because I wanted drum brakes. They are lighter and they provide no rolling resistance when not in use. This is a good combo for road racing. While I'm not allowed to swap to aluminum since that wasn't an option for the Si, I CAN swap to the 90-91 CRX disks if I wanted (which I don't).

However, I got some good information from people in this forum that saved me some cash today and I appreciate everyones' input. I swapped out the cylinders, springs, drums, and shoes today and it didn't cost me an arm and a leg. I agree that drums are a pain in the *** to work on, but they last a long time and they do what I want them to do.

 

i road race all so. disc all the way. there is a small amount of weight.

 

I think just get the cheapest ones out there (drums). You are paying just for the company and also check on them where they were made>probably the aimco are made in china hehehehhehehe

 

What kind of cost difference is there between getting a set of rear discs and a set of drums, I personally think discs look cooler even if the stopping power is negligible.

 

When I weighted the racecar after the disc brake swap and no other change, I found out the hard way how much the stuff weighs.

As I have said on this board repeatedly, brakes on a rear wheel drive car, which provide more stoping power than on a Front wheel drive car, account for 12% of braking. It would be less on a FWD car. I would be willing to guess that you could actually race a car without rear brakes and never know it. . It is all about weight vs horsepower. The fastest guys in ITA Crxs don't have rear discs. Because the weight isn't worth the marginal braking improvement.

As far as ease of maintainance goes, knock yourself out. Drum brakes need to be changed out about every 60k miles. That is once every 2 years for me. I'll stick with that. I can change out the shoes twice in the amount of time it takes you to do the conversion if you are fast. That doesn't include you getting the alignment done and my pockets will be fuller.

As far as looks go, let me say one thing I would rather be fast than look fast.

 

60? More like probably 10lbs tops total, the difference in weight wasn't that much. Plus your adding the weight to the back, adding weight to the back of a FWD doesn't matter much, the car can use the better weight distribution.

 

[QUOTE]
As I have said on this board repeatedly, brakes on a rear wheel drive car, which provide more stoping power than on a Front wheel drive car, account for 12% of braking. It would be less on a FWD car. I would be willing to guess that you could actually race a car without rear brakes and never know it. . It is all about weight vs horsepower. The fastest guys in ITA Crxs don't have rear discs. Because the weight isn't worth the marginal braking improvement.

[QUOTE]

I think you are suggesting BRAKE BIAS, and they might be faster but what a pain in the *** to maintance and work on plus there are more parts to break, Disc is more surface stoping the car and you really need to have breakes on the back because if you have huge brakes on the front and rear had small ones, the car would not be planted, If the rear were smaller then the front (because you do not need the same diamater in front and back) but bigger then stock it would help plant the car to the ground and more power to the ground is better.

 

I love this Drum Vs Disc debate (when specifically speaking to CRXs). what's funnier is the people who are responding that drums are the devil and discs are from the hand of god, have very very very little clue.

Why don't you Pro-Rear Disc guys go buy a '88 CRX Si. Do a braking test with new front brake pads/rotors and new rear drums and shoes.

Then swap the rear drums for discs from a 90-91 si. Use new rotors and pads.

compare the stopping distances. Let me know what you came up with.

(by the way, i've done this and the results differ from what you would think).


Rear drums are perfectly suited (on the CRX) to handle the braking needs of virtually any setup (B20T down to D15B). want proof... i have 2 videos. Neither of the videos do you ever hear me complaining about braking issues (like fade, poor stopping distances).

About maintenance? Drums are FAR easier to work on than discs. Why? You have to replace your rear pads far more than I do with shoes/drums. I've had my rear drums/shoes on for a good 2 years. I check the shoes before/after every race...I have yet to replace them since. Only problem... E-brake cable needs tightening.


So, to those who feel the need to post their "go to discs" comments, please have some level of experience with the drums first before you bash. The drums, in the CRX application, work perfectly and do well....and they are lighter (15lbs/side).

If you think 30lbs isn't anything, then why do you buy carbon fibre hoods for the whole 1lb of weight savings? (also, 30lbs equates to roughly 3hp freed up).

 

Adding weight is NEVER good. Moving weight is.

Just because you see guys with 20lb slabs bolted to their passenger seat area, doesn't mean they wanted to. It's because they have to meet weight requirements and they do so by relocating the weight to a better area.

Think of it like this. Min class weight is 1950. You gut the car and find you have a 1900lb car, with you in it. You add 50lbs to the pass. area to help with the corner weighting.


Oh, and Travis. just stick with the autozone specials. They should work fine.



[Modified by Driven, 9:48 AM 4/4/2003]

 

[/QUOTE]you really need to have breakes on the back because if you have huge brakes on the front and rear had small ones, the car would not be planted, If the rear were smaller then the front (because you do not need the same diamater in front and back) but bigger then stock it would help plant the car to the ground and more power to the ground is better. [/QUOTE]


What???????

The harder you brake, the more weight shifts to the front of the car. Your rear tires a very close to having no weight on them at all. The only thing bigger brakes would do at this point is to lock up the rear tires quicker.

Try this, the next time you are alone on the road, pull up your parking brake until the car stops. See how effective that is. Next, drive along and pull it up until you feel it slowing the car. Now, hit the brakes hard. Do the rears lock up??

By the way, to get more power to the wheels, you want the fronts to have the weight on them, not the rears.

 

don't rear discs have the ability for better control....