$125 for '74 maverick spindles/rotors/calipers...$40 for the rear disc./complete setup...(swapped 4 drums for 4 rotors)
it depends what all you need... as Dave mentioned, you may need hoses. I paid $160 for 2 rear drums so as you see it will depend on what shape your current system is in. you may be able to turn your drums (app. ($40) for all 4. I see you have replaced the front...wheel cylinders... brake shoes... that should give you an idea what the rear would cost. did you have the front drums turned at that time?
Unfortunately they were not turned. They were in somewhat rough shape. And I plan on keeping the drums with this set up
Unfortunately.. turning drums/rotors is the ONLY way to get that "perfect new brakes" feel. If they're in decent shape you can forego the process.. but the car will not stop any quicker than freshly turned ones would though. The old unevenly worn and sometimes glazed(heat polished) drums/rotors will usually also eat the shoes/pads quicker too.
Nothing wrong with drum brakes on a street driven car if they are adjusted correctly. Agreed disc brakes work better when wet and don't require much up keep, but to slow your roll at 100mph the drum brakes will win every time because they have more contact area. The main reason newer car have disc is because the cost in manufacturing them over the cost of drum brakes. If this was a racecar disc will run cooler than drum. Think of how many big tractor trailers on the road that still have drum brakes.
if they are rough as you mentioned.. it's very much worth it and can make the car stop better and stay perfectly straight during an emergency stop.
never could achieve that on my totally rebuilt...drum/drum...system. always had a dart one way or the other...(may have been the...high performance... brake shoes)...
LOL.. Frank.. I hope you're not sore about my previous "junk pad" comments as they were just opinions based on my experiences so far and I meant no disrespect at all. And if you couldn't get those new brakes to stop straight?.. I think you might need to find a new "brake guy". Or maybe a new "suspension guy".. or possibly even a new "alignment guy". PS. I probably should have used the word "help" before that bolded out statement above as we all know new brakes won't cure other underlying issues.
"Horsepower" has nothing to do with it. The car weighs 2900 to 3200 pounds, and can travel at highway speeds just like any car with a high-powered V-8. Having good stopping power has nothing to do with how much power the engine makes. A powerful engine just accelerates faster. Drum-brakes on the front of a Maverick/Comet are horrible. Do you understand now??
Simply not true. Disc brakes have always been more expensive than drum brakes, which is why only the more expensive American cars got discs back in the late '60s/early '70s. Drum brakes will fade from a 100mph stop every time. Big rigs still run drum brakes because they don't make discs that large. To suggest that drum brakes offer any superiority whatsoever over disc brakes is misguided and ludicrous.
I didn't say drum brakes have superiority to disc. I said drums have more stopping power because of the contact area (and also by design). Drum brakes can take a 100 mph stop before fading, I done it many of times. Granted I wouldn't want to race 2, 3 or 500 miles at Bristol today with drum brakes but Nascar drivers were racing with drum brakes back in the 50's and 60's. On a every day street car, not a big rig, how many times will you be on the brakes enough to cause serious fading. BTW...Newer big rigs do have disc brakes. Even trains have disc brakes, which is a heck of a lot bigger/heavier that a tractor trailer. Mater of fact...I have 4-wheel disc brakes on my Maverick so I'm not against disc brakes. I not against drum brakes either.
