Brake shoe issues on 1964 C10 280 v 228 shoes

[Trump]

Ok, so I decided to go through all the drum brakes on my '64 C10 because I was getting some squeeling. I have run into several issues one of which is the shoes. So I will start with that issue.

1. All parts suppliers seem to say that the #280 shoes are to be used on the front and rear with the 7018 hardware kit to be used on the rear and the 7017 hardware kit to be used on the front. Upon disassembling my old brakes, I found the hole for the rear shoe retainer to be snug with the retainer cup. However, when I tried to assemble them with the #280 shoes, the hole for the retainer cup was significantly larger and did not fit snug. To me the snug fit makes sense because it acts as a pivot point for the rear shoe lever assembly. I had a set of #228 shoes and the retainer fit snug like the set of shoes that was in it before and it seemed happy. So which is it, the #280 like they all say, or #228 shoes that fit like the last ones that were on it? Is the significant difference in size between the retainer cup and hole in the shoe a big deal? I would think that it was cause a lot of excess movement....

2. My stock backing plates have no adjustment holes in them. The adjustment holes were actually in the drums themselves. The new drums have no adjustment slots. Has anybody run into this issue? I am considering drilling the backing plates or the drums. Likely the backing plates so the drum balance isn't thrown off. Is this what others are doing?

3. My front hubs are riveted to my front drums. The drums are wasted. I was just planning on separating the two and stick the hub back on without attaching it to the new drum and just slip the drum over it like the rears. Is there any issue with this. Why would the hubs have been riveted to the drums in the first place? Seems pointless.

Last but not least.... Is it possible that a previous owner swapped these brakes to full-size car brakes at some time? The #228 shoes that fit so well came from the full-size GM cars of the same era. Any way to tell if this is the case for sure?

I'm just a bit hesitant to move forward with the #280 shoes after seeing what was in it before. At this point it's hard to tell which is the correct shoe, or if it even matters.

Any info would be appreciated. Thanks.

[62 Longbed]

Thanks for posting this .. Ordered all of the brake parts for my sons 63 truck .. I will have to see what I get ..

[aerotruk63]

YouTube slideshow link from a 63 T-O-P I converted to digital. 4:57 shows just a washer instead of the recessed piece as you have in the picture. http://youtu.be/T6qTqJ-tdrE

You can safely separate the riveted drums from the hub. Both my trucks are separated drums/hub.

Are your backing plates pressed on spline or the four bolt flange mount?

Are those Wagner part numbers your quoting?

[Trump]

aerotruk- Thanks for the diagrams, unfortunately, I don't think I am any closer to an answer.

Mine has the bolt on backing plates. The part numbers are bendix part numbers which also seem to correlate to various other manufacturer's numbers. In my case "Duralast" (autozone brand)

My best guess at this point is that the #280 and the #228 must be interchangable. I say this because if you go to RockAuto.com they list both numbers as being used for the front or rear. If you go to Autozone.com, they only list the #280 as being for the front and rear, but if you go into the store, their computer says #228 for the front and #280 for the rear.

The only differences that I can tell between the shoes is that the #280 have slightly more pad material than the #228. Of course that is in addition to the retaining holes being bigger in the #280 versus the #228.

So I'm really no closer in the matter, I think it will be a case of flipping a coin and making the call. I'm not real happy about the loss of the adjuster holes in the drums. I find it really weird that chevy didn't use the adjuster slots in the backing plates.

[Trump]

Update for anybody following this....

Here's what I ended up doing.

I used the #228 shoes in the front and rear. Seemed like a better fit. Had to drill slots in the backing plates to access the adjusters. I left my front hubs and drums separated. I hope this works out well. I don't see why it wouldn't. Will report back with any additional findings later if there are any issues.

[BigDan3131]

The bigger issue is your trying to buy parts from places where they have no real idea about what your talking about. I go to these guys: http://brakeperformance.com/brake-dr...rake-Drums.php

[Trump]

Originally Posted by BigDan3131

The bigger issue is your trying to buy parts from places where they have no real idea about what your talking about. I go to these guys: http://brakeperformance.com/brake-dr...rake-Drums.php

The website that you gave says the #280 shoes just like all the other stores, so I am not sure how exactly it is any better. But I would imagine that for over double the price of what I paid for my original set of #280, they must make up for it somehow.....?

The real issue is interchange parts not being the same. The #228 is a wagner number. The #280 is a bendix number. All sorts of companies make the same parts with the same numbers. However the wagner and bendix ones that are supposed to interchange, are different from each other. Truthfully, either could probably be used but the #228 shoes fit better on my stock setup and with the required hardware kit that is specified for both bendix and wagner.