2nd Generation (GE 08-present)The New Fit... Generation specific talk and questions here.
Welcome to Fit Freak!
Welcome to Fit Freak,
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
I believe Rear Discs cool quicker than a rear drum setup so anyone who wants to AutoX or hit a road course hard would want discs all the way around.
~SB
Modifying the rear brakes would put you in a class the fit simply cant compete in making it useless for autoX. In fact H stock is the only class the fit is okay in. However we still get raped by the Mini Cooper.
Anyway if anyone actually pisses away the money to do this please do some sort of before and after testing so we can lay this myth to rest.
drums are more economical and good enough blah blah, but it's still inferior to discs. Leaving the carwash approaching a red light, I knew the brakes were wet because I know how long it takes my car to stop from 40mph in dry weather. When wet, it takes twice as long. Also, you can't check the shoe thickness like you can with disc pad thickness...you have to pull the wheel off yourself or pay someone to inpspect. DRUMS ARE POS.
What a bunch of wonderfully useful information. So did you measure stopping distance/time wet vs. dry?
Are you implying disc brakes don't get wet?
Are you implying someone with mechanical knowledge can't check brake shoe wear?
Yes, disc brakes are superior but they have their place and drum brakes have theirs. Unless you are doing it for COSMETIC reasons or if you are seriously racing in an open class and have done tons of other modifications then a rear disc brake conversion is useless.
I'm not trying to dump on this thread. I support people converting to rear disc for the above reasons. I just want to make clear the benefits you get for what you pay.
For the price to convert the drums to disks just isn't worth it. Want a better braking car? Buy a Viper or a 2001 Pt Cruiser. When those were new it would get from 60 to 0 in 120 feet.
__________________
09 GE8 MT Sport, in Milano Red
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konservative
Im 6'5" and I have sat in the drivers seat but not test driven the GE. I fit quite well, the fit seemed huge on the inside for being a compact outside its crazy.
Used to have an engineer friend that spent quite a bit of time on this subject. Stated that disc brakes were inferior to drums for the amount of force that was applied to brake (ie under the right conditions brake drums were superior in stopping power to disc brakes for equivalent braking effort). Rear brakes are "self energizing" (look it up). What he did say that even though disc breaks took a lot more force, they worked consistently in all kinds of conditions. If you ever drove through a deep rain puddle on a car with drum breaks you would find that you effectively had NO brakes when they were wet. I'm with the previous responder; give us some stopping distances with both (maybe our Asian friends can give us their advertised stopping distances with discs) so that we can compare.... then determine if it is worth the expense (for non-race use).
While I agree with you on your conversion reasoning, I'm not sure that's a good argument.
Don't most of the Fit's/Jazz's outside the US have rear discs? I was under the impression the reason the US Fits had rear drums was as a cost savings measure. I could be wrong though, I frequently am
__________________
It was culture shock, going from one to the other
Wow that's interesting, because on the CRX the drum brakes were lighter than the Si's disc setup.
Apples to turnips. You woulden't compare systems on vehicles that are about 1000 lbs apart would you? Plus the Si might stop shorter because of antilock....
I used to drive a Ford Focus and it had WONDERFUL brakes on it. The rear were drum and in that case they were quite good. The front were quite powerful and when combined with discs rears, it was almost too much. You had to proportion the rears so weakly that the performance was not much better than stock. With the rear drums a simple shoe upgrade as well as tire upgrade yeilded very good results. It just depends upon what the requirements are.
1. Our cars are low cost
2. Our cars are low cost
3. somewhat fun and sport for the 1st time car buyer and affordable.
clearly our cars were not meant to be agressive in acceleration or deceleration. But it would be nice if somebody did make a kit to retrofit the SI systems or for that matter any Honda system. IMHO they should have designed the car with a similar knuckles to the civic so that brakes might be retrofitted. But that would have been somewhat thinking ahead.
__________________
1989 Mustang - DART 363 with supercharger..slow
2009 Hyundai Genesis
2009 Honda Fit Sport - mostly stock
Last edited by biscuitninja; 10-28-2009 at 08:16 PM.
Apples to turnips. You woulden't compare systems on vehicles that are about 1000 lbs apart would you? Plus the Si might stop shorter because of antilock....
I used to drive a Ford Focus and it had WONDERFUL brakes on it. The rear were drum and in that case they were quite good. The front were quite powerful and when combined with discs rears, it was almost too much. You had to proportion the rears so weakly that the performance was not much better than stock. With the rear drums a simple shoe upgrade as well as tire upgrade yeilded very good results. It just depends upon what the requirements are.
1. Our cars are low cost
2. Our cars are low cost
3. somewhat fun and sport for the 1st time car buyer and affordable.
clearly our cars were not meant to be agressive in acceleration or deceleration. But it would be nice if somebody did make a kit to retrofit the SI systems or for that matter any Honda system. IMHO they should have designed the car with a similar knuckles to the civic so that brakes might be retrofitted. But that would have been somewhat thinking ahead.
I don't think they were referring to a CRX and a Civic Si but the CRX and a CRX Si which I believe had Rear Disc Brakes.
In general Disc brakes do better in winter months as well as there is less buildup of Ice/snow on a disc setup. The brake pads scrape the rotors clean.
~SB
__________________ 2009 Honda Fit Sport
Economy(calculated): AVG - 38.59mpg @ 4041 miles | Best - 41.89mpg | Last - 38.31 mpg
Future/Current Upgrades: Subs & Amp Install | Graco Nautulus "High Performance" Car Seat | Valentine1 Radar
Former/Current Cars: '86 Prelude Si. 2.0 | '93 Integra GS | '98 Civic EX | '00 Integra GS-R | '06 Ridgeline RTS | 07 Altima 3.5SE
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
hmmm..I wonder how many of you are actually pushing your Fit so hard that you really need rear disks....today's drums are a lot better than most people think.
Me..me..me. (see Fit leading ... 0n you tube). And they are much better at stopping the Fit than the drums. the discs also feather (modulate) better than my drums.
What a bunch of wonderfully useful information. So did you measure stopping distance/time wet vs. dry?
Are you implying disc brakes don't get wet?
Are you implying someone with mechanical knowledge can't check brake shoe wear?
Yes, disc brakes are superior but they have their place and drum brakes have theirs. Unless you are doing it for COSMETIC reasons or if you are seriously racing in an open class and have done tons of other modifications then a rear disc brake conversion is useless.
I'm not trying to dump on this thread. I support people converting to rear disc for the above reasons. I just want to make clear the benefits you get for what you pay.
Drum brakes are a pain-in-the-butt for mechanics. we all do our best to pass that job on. And double or triple the cost to the owner. And why do Americans get drums when the rest of the Worlds Fits get discs?
And yes we did compare braking in the dry: discs stop my Fit 10 feet quicker from 60 mph on same tires on same road.
Used to have an engineer friend that spent quite a bit of time on this subject. Stated that disc brakes were inferior to drums for the amount of force that was applied to brake (ie under the right conditions brake drums were superior in stopping power to disc brakes for equivalent braking effort). Rear brakes are "self energizing" (look it up). What he did say that even though disc breaks took a lot more force, they worked consistently in all kinds of conditions. If you ever drove through a deep rain puddle on a car with drum breaks you would find that you effectively had NO brakes when they were wet. I'm with the previous responder; give us some stopping distances with both (maybe our Asian friends can give us their advertised stopping distances with discs) so that we can compare.... then determine if it is worth the expense (for non-race use).
Dave
self-energising? both drums and discs are applied by force from a piston and discs, being direct, are a lot more forcedful because of the leverage on shoes.
PS after converting to disc rears we compared prior stopping distances with the new ones. On average, stopping distance from 60 mph were reduced 8.82 ft and 3 sigma statistics clearly showed the discs were superior.
And changing pads is a half hour work compared to 2 hours for drums. Which is probably why Honda puts disc rears on Fits sold elsewhere.
self-energising? both drums and discs are applied by force from a piston and discs, being direct, are a lot more forcedful because of the leverage on shoes.
PS after converting to disc rears we compared prior stopping distances with the new ones. On average, stopping distance from 60 mph were reduced 8.82 ft and 3 sigma statistics clearly showed the discs were superior.
And changing pads is a half hour work compared to 2 hours for drums. Which is probably why Honda puts disc rears on Fits sold elsewhere.
I think he meant drum brakes have a self-applying property, that is, you can design them so that the rotation of the drum forces the shoes to bite harder.
Anyway, I don't think anybody's denying that discs have more stopping power than drum brakes, just that it is likely not necessary in a front-heavy car like the Fit (unless you're racing it)... under heavy braking, I can't imagine the rear tires have more grip than the drum brakes can provide.
And if I'm not mistaken, most cars' e-brakes are drums... and those are usually strong enough to lock the rear wheels right? (Otherwise you probably couldn't use it to get the rear to slide out, I'd guess?)
__________________
2009 SSM Fit Sport AT with Navigation
![Lyon[Nightroad]'s Avatar](http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/customavatars/avatar31469_1.gif){kind=avatar}
![Lyon[Nightroad] is offline](http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/skynetimages/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Lyon[Nightroad] relies on Rep Points to live](http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Lyon[Nightroad] relies on Rep Points to live](http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
Linear Mode
