Does the foot brake of a car stop all 4 wheels

When disc brakes were first put on production cars, they actually put emblems/badges on the back of car that said something along the lines of "Caution: This vehicle has disc brakes!" so people without them wouldn't tail-gate you, and ram into you when they couldn't stop.

Putting drums on the back is not "to shift braking to the front." The front brakes do most of you braking because of geometry and physics. If you put the same brakes on the back of a car as the front, and then did brake tests with the front brakes missing, and then the back brakes missing, you'd only notice a small amount of brake loss with the back ones missing, but catastrophic loss with the front brakes missing. The back brakes are there not so much to add brakeing pwer (which, of course they do) but more to help keep the vehicle in line, and tracking straight. Keeps the back end from coming around a little bit.

If you've ever ridden a bicycle, the front brakes can stop you quicker than the rear brakes (Of course, you just want to make sure you're not leaning forward, or going down hill when you do it) even though they are the same brakes.
 
Semi off topic here but has anyone driven a car with 4 wheel drums? I drove a friends 66 Mustang that had such a setup but with only the right front actually working! My god that was scary, I'm used to having to push the pedal hard because of non-power brakes but pushing with all my leg strength and having the car stop like its engine braking is terrifying!
Seems like all 6* mustangs have that issue. Pushing as hard as possible in the '69 with drums just could not stop the car within a reasonable distance. Swapping to a vacuum assisted booster with front-discs stops the car on a dime.
 
I always wondered how a burnout works, since the foot brake stops all wheels. The rear breaks being much weaker is an explanation, but still, they should get extremely hot. Anyone with practical experience?
 
Besides the fact that they DO get hot, and a burn-out works because while all 4 brakes are put on...the power is usually only going to two...the brakes can keep the car from moving as long as the tires getting the power are getting enough power and speed that they have less grip than the "stopped" wheels.

No bones about it, though; prolonged, and it cooks the brakes.
 
Last edited:
Seems like all 6* mustangs have that issue. Pushing as hard as possible in the '69 with drums just could not stop the car within a reasonable distance. Swapping to a vacuum assisted booster with front-discs stops the car on a dime.

Yep lucky my 67 came with discs up front. Stops very well you just have to use a little more might. I took it to get inspected once and the bonehead didn't realize it had manual brakes. During the subsequent braking test he didn't get it to stop in the required distance so he failed it and told me I had a problem with my brakes. I replied, "you do realize it doesn't have power assisted brakes, right?" He gave a stupid look and I told him I wanted my money back because I was taking it to someone with a mild understanding of cars. Well I didn't say that exactly but that was my reasoning.

I did have a scary moment before that though in the 67 when my brakes essentially just let go. They worked enough to stop the car but it really was terrifying it felt like I was in no control whatsoever of the car.
 
Before stripping my '68 Bronco, it had 4 wheel drums with no power assist. They'd stop you, but compared to the brakes on my '00 Cougar they needed a lot of pedal force and even they they were pretty weak. During the rebuild, it is getting front discs and vacuum assist.
 
IMO, it's not difficult to stop a car without power assist with disc brakes. If you can deliver the force it'll stop just as well. I don't even think driving without power steering is all too hard. Although a Bronco does way considerably more than a mustang so I can't comment on how difficult it would be to make it stop without power assist.
 
Top