I need rear brake shoes on my CRX. Should I worry about a performance shoe or even what brand? I know there was mention of a performance shoe available that was put on a project car in the last GRM mag but I can find no info from the manufacture. I don't know what pads are on the front as they were there when I bought the car but I think they are stock replacements.
I do intend to autocross the car next year and will upgrade the front pads and all the lines to steel braided at that time.
I don't forsee upgrading to rear discs. Hell, I don't even think it would be necessary considering the weight of the car.
It is also my daily driver.
Front wheel drive cars don't use their rear brakes much. That's why many, even today still have drum brakes. Under braking as much as 90% of the braking work is done by the front disc brakes. Most road racers i know that race cars with rear drum brakes just use off the shelf brake shoes. Even on FWD race cars with rear disc brakes street pads will be use instead of "racing" pads.
My thoughts also but I wanted to check with the GRM brain trust.
Keep the lessons coming please
Front or rear wheel drive doesn't make a difference, weight transfer is weight transfer. The fronts do 90% of your braking.
Off the shelf rears are fine.
I'm at 145k miles with my Protege, and only now is the right rear brake showing signs of needing replacement--in the spring.
I used to autocross a '90 Civic hatch, and I put good pads on the front (Hawk HP+) and just plain OEM shoes on the back, and ended up having a problem locking up the front wheels when I really didn't want to. I wish I had known about http://www.porterfield-brakes.com/ back then.
RoosterSauce wrote:
I used to autocross a '90 Civic hatch, and I put good pads on the front (Hawk HP+) and just plain OEM shoes on the back, and ended up having a problem locking up the front wheels when I really didn't want to. I wish I had known about http://www.porterfield-brakes.com/ back then.
What would you have done differently?
porksboy wrote:
RoosterSauce wrote:
I used to autocross a '90 Civic hatch, and I put good pads on the front (Hawk HP+) and just plain OEM shoes on the back, and ended up having a problem locking up the front wheels when I really didn't want to. I wish I had known about http://www.porterfield-brakes.com/ back then.
What would you have done differently?
I would have got some Porterfield brake shoes to balance things out. I also considered some R compound tires, in which case weight transfer to the front would increase. I didn't want to change my springs because, braking aside, it handled pretty well. I think I had 450 in/lb up front, and 550 in/lb in the rear.
triumph5 wrote:
Front or rear wheel drive doesn't make a difference, weight transfer is weight transfer. The fronts do 90% of your braking.
Off the shelf rears are fine.
I'm at 145k miles with my Protege, and only now is the right rear brake showing signs of needing replacement--in the spring.
I agree with T5. When a buddy of mine began running his 87 Civic in SCCA Improved Touring, I crewed for him. We started with race compounds on the rear, but went back to street shoes because the race shoes never got hot enough to deliver consistant results. The car was really "twitchy" and unpredictable with race compounds out back.
Only advice I have, is don't cheap out when you buy the shoes. The cheap compounds will grab when they are damp, growl when they are hot, unbond themselves at the worst time.... Spend a couple extra bucks, you'll be happier. And thats all shoes, not just Honda.
friedgreencorrado wrote:
triumph5 wrote:
Front or rear wheel drive doesn't make a difference, weight transfer is weight transfer. The fronts do 90% of your braking.
Off the shelf rears are fine.
I'm at 145k miles with my Protege, and only now is the right rear brake showing signs of needing replacement--in the spring.
I agree with T5. When a buddy of mine began running his 87 Civic in SCCA Improved Touring, I crewed for him. We started with race compounds on the rear, but went back to street shoes because the race shoes never got hot enough to deliver consistant results. The car was really "twitchy" and unpredictable with race compounds out back.
This is why Porterfield has two compounds. The R4 is for racing and require heat to work, and R4s are for street use, and would be better for use on rear end of a lightweight car, and for autocrossing.
RoosterSauce wrote:
friedgreencorrado wrote:
triumph5 wrote:
Front or rear wheel drive doesn't make a difference, weight transfer is weight transfer. The fronts do 90% of your braking.
Off the shelf rears are fine.
I'm at 145k miles with my Protege, and only now is the right rear brake showing signs of needing replacement--in the spring.
I agree with T5. When a buddy of mine began running his 87 Civic in SCCA Improved Touring, I crewed for him. We started with race compounds on the rear, but went back to street shoes because the race shoes never got hot enough to deliver consistant results. The car was really "twitchy" and unpredictable with race compounds out back.
This is why Porterfield has two compounds. The R4 is for racing and require heat to work, and R4s are for street use, and would be better for use on rear end of a lightweight car, and for autocrossing.
Good to know! I'm an old VW racer (SCCA IT), and thinking about building something for track days. Don't know if it's going to be the (A2) GTI or the green Corrado yet. The GTI's a 92 an 8v with drums on the back. Are both compounds called R4, or was that a typo?
My 70 Firebird, 3500 lbs. stock setup single piston front/drum rear. Heavier car on road courses, long straights with higher speeds than Auto-X. Stock rear shoes glazed right up, semi metallics overheated and cracked right down the middle, Porterfield custom made shoes with Raybestos race compound which worked awesome combined with Porterfield race pads up front. Swapping to 14" Baers all around.
friedgreencorrado wrote:
RoosterSauce wrote:
friedgreencorrado wrote:
triumph5 wrote:
Front or rear wheel drive doesn't make a difference, weight transfer is weight transfer. The fronts do 90% of your braking.
Off the shelf rears are fine.
I'm at 145k miles with my Protege, and only now is the right rear brake showing signs of needing replacement--in the spring.
I agree with T5. When a buddy of mine began running his 87 Civic in SCCA Improved Touring, I crewed for him. We started with race compounds on the rear, but went back to street shoes because the race shoes never got hot enough to deliver consistant results. The car was really "twitchy" and unpredictable with race compounds out back.
This is why Porterfield has two compounds. The R4 is for racing and require heat to work, and R4s are for street use, and would be better for use on rear end of a lightweight car, and for autocrossing.
Good to know! I'm an old VW racer (SCCA IT), and thinking about building something for track days. Don't know if it's going to be the (A2) GTI or the green Corrado yet. The GTI's a 92 an 8v with drums on the back. Are both compounds called R4, or was that a typo?
No typo. R4-S is for performance street applications.
http://porterfield-brakes.com/images/portstrt2008_11_06_02_45_30.pdf
In reply to RoosterSauce:
Thanks!
