BUICK DRUMS-Better Method (?)...Solved MY Issues!

Great idea, I may do this myself.

 

Nice job all around. Lots of z-axis figuring that had to be dead on for the whole deal to work. I'd hate to tally up what a mainstream job shop would charge for that, many turn this type of work away.

Always good to see someone that knows how to put up a rotary table and use it to perfection.

Bob

 

Nice tech piece, very well done.

 

I wonder if the lathe work could be done on the mill with a rotary table? My lathe is only 9" swing, but I have a decent size mill and rotary table.

 

I think it could be done. You'd need a woodruff cutter to replicate the lathe part-off tool. Not as nearly as clean as the lathe, but doable IMO. You can always do the clean up work on the smaller lathe.

Bob

 

Jeff...I really appreciate your "kudos". And let's not forget Brian "Hot Rod Packard" 's immense part in all of this, too. He had all the big machines and REALLY knew how to make 'em go "whir-whir". It's really interesting to see this "tech article" pop back up at this late date. My whole purpose in posting originally was in hopes that it may give a "few" folks some ideas to work with. This particular process IS NOT necessary to run Buick drums in a lot of cases. That's why I TRIED to make it so clear in the beginning as to all the WHYS one needs to ask oneself when contemplating a project like this. Like I said in an earlier post somewhere, SO MUCH depends on WHAT backing plate and bolt pattern you intend to run...almost all of the popular backing plates used with Buicks are spaced differently, inboard or outboard, as compared to each other, as mounted on the Ford spindle. My three big factors were : 1 Chevy bolt pattern. 2 '55 F-250 backing plates. 3 No ugly, left-over holes from the Buick bolt pattern. Again, just glad everyone responding, especially lately, was able to get something positive out of this. DD

 

DD Could you clarify one thing for me. Was any additional work done on the '40 spindles? I have the hub machined from the Camaro rotor, the new bolt pattern drilled in the buick drums and f250 backing plates and the two "spacing rings" made. However, I am working on getting the spindles and I want to confirm that in this process the Camaro "hub" mounts to the '40 spindle without spindle modification and the buick drum should then clear the f250 backin plate? Much thanks.

 

TIMBERTRAM...Interesting that this is still alive and kicking at this late date. You're the first one that I can confirm that has followed through with this swap. OK, the spindles require NO modifications. They DO require the use of (one for each spindle) the bearing adapter rings that Chassis Engineering offered with their disc brake kit. They press-on to the spindle. I was looking at this again recently on the Chassis Eng. website. I believe the whole kit was listed as part # AU-2050. You would think the rings would be available separately. Hope this helps. Hope we didn't bore you with TOO much detail in the original post. The Buick drums DO clear the F250 plates, as is. DD

 

Found this yesterday and its perfect for me. I have a few magnesium wheels in 4 3/4 pattern and building an old school 32 with drum brakes. Thanks alot as this solved my problem!

 

I'll clarify this one for ya, by example. My whole rig, which this whole procedure is based on, started with stock, un-modified '40 spindles. They had a Chassis Engineering disc brake "kit" adapted to the spindles via ONLY the bearing-adapter ring (one each spindle) which is only pressed-onto the STOCK spindle, to adapt the Camaro inner bearing and seal to the UN-MODIFIED spindle. The F-250 backing plate bolts right-up to the spindle...NO MODS. The Buick drum CLEARS the backing plate on mine with NO trimming of the Buick lip. DD

 

DD,

Great tech article. I hadn't looked at it again since it was first on. The only thing I wondered about was why after you made the rings to make the drums fit hub-centric that you also felt the need to attach the drums to the hubs. Nothing wrong with it, but OEM drums have been held on by the wheels for 70 years or so now. I'll admit that it looks pretty nice though hidden.

Anyway - great job by you and the machinist.

Charlie

 

I also have to add my thanks for a very well presented article.

I hate the phrase "back in the day". But When I was young Those of us who worked in machine shops did lunchtime and nightime work for our friends who raced and hot rodded. The bosses used to call it government work. All shops had manual machines and there was always "open" machines to do your own work on on your own time. This is what made hot rodding possible, in my opinion.

And now, us guys have our own machines because all the shops have gone to production machines and the little shops are gone.

Nobody could afford to send this job out to a for profit machine shop. You need to find hobbist guys who have the equipment and skill to do one of a kind jobs. And accept beer as payment.

The spindle/seal adapter also would have been a simple task.

Form follows function. Your project is a perfect example. Nothing that isn't needed.

Frank

 

CHARLIE CHOPS & GAS PUMPER...Again, thank you guys for the kind words. CHARLIE...I have two answers to your above question. First of all, the attachment hardware filled-up the ugly, left-over holes in the drum from the Buick bolt pattern. Secondly, and most importantly, Brian (HOT ROD PACKARD) went to great lengths to make sure every surface on these things was SQUARE and straight...running true and round with no wobble. You'll also remember that the fit of the indexing ring on the hub, and then the fit of the drum onto the indexing ring was a machined, interference fit which he aided in assembly of each by using heat. Not much holding them together but friction. Yes, the wheel will EVENTUALLY hold them in place, but by permanently attaching the two with hardware, there was no chance that the still-remaining machine operations (truing the wheel-mount face and finally truing the brake drum surface) could be compromised by something as simple as flopping the drum down on the shelf and jarring the two surfaces in relation to each other. We just thought it prudent to do it this way. Killed a couple of birds with one rock. Damn, they did turn-out pretty, didn't they. DD

 

DD,

I just knew you would have an excellent answer and I wasn't disappointed. All points well taken. All in all it is a real slick solution.

I did a similar fit up, in terms of a register ring, on the quick change axles in the '32 roadster I'm building. But, I milled the 5" bolt circle stud holes out radially into a slot to fit 5.5". Everything looks to run true. Not as elegant as your solution but it works. That all came from using Wilson Welding finned backing plates and having to space the axle bearing in further to move the axles out far enough to get room for the drum width (lots of spline engagement still). Then I discovered that the original axles didn't have enough flange for 5on5.5" so I ordered new axles but couldn't get them with a large enough drum register. Where there is a will there is a way.

Charlie

 

.... Good Tech....Another take ....I accomplished this by using midsize GM car drum brake hubs...and adapter bushings.

 

Great stuff! I have a couple of questions. Are Buick front and rear drums the same and what years did they use the 45 fin aluminum drums?

 

Subscribe

 

The fronts are alum. and the rears are iron, both 12" id. I'm using fronts on all four corners. I don't know if the fronts and rears are otherwise the same...just made fronts fit the rear.


Charlie

 

Thanx Charlie!

 

59 to 64 if I remember right? Might have been 65 but that will get you very close in your search.

 

very well done!

 

My kind of tech!
A picture is worth 1,000 words.
Thanks for putting this together.

 

An old thread, but I am glad to see it brought back up to the top. I have a set of the 45 fin Buick drums just "sittin' and waitin'".