Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: when did mini van first get 5x114 hubs and drums?

  1. #1
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Dr. Johny Dodge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Posts
    1,257

    when did mini van first get 5x114 hubs and drums?

    I'm trying to learn caravan rear brake "trivia" so to say as I want a set of caravan drums/hubs & spindles but in the older 80's car like version and 5x114 hub

    so far I've found the rear hub design changed in 95-6? to the current style that has the big lump on the back of the hub assembly which is unusable

    I found the vans went to 5x114 before this rear end change but so far haven't been able to determine exactly the years the vans got the old style spindles and 5x114 hubs.. so it would help to know

    and was there more than one size drum here?

    & yeah, I know EVERYTHING about them is bigger down to the mounting pad holes - thus my interest

    sidebar.. - I WOULD be interested in a mintish set of O-E drums with the hubs still swedged in with the studs

    I came to looking at this the long round about way
    I looked at my past experience with the o-e rear shelby charger (k car) drums, my rear disc conversions , the attending rattle that can go with them and their used parts ,.. the "whole neon thing" to every thread on rear brakes here and >> there, ..
    and I came to the solution - van brakes

    I'm working to install a duel pivot k frame &92-3 brakes and knuckles - without narrowing it so the extra stack height of the rear van drum & spindle will correct my rear track width , first

    I look at the different setups used and I see the base L body , upgraded as a shelby with K car brakes
    fine .. works good

    I look at the factory rear discs and I see an alternate to the K CAR DRUM
    - but not an upgrade , other than BEING disc which may be debatable

    so, going to the big front brakes I see a front upgrade , but maybe no real back upgrade , just a change in design

    but if those big front brakes are also "just lowly" van brakes .. then the bigger rear van brake .. maybe THAT'S an upgrade??

    as in , MORE brake?

    and maybe the rear disc lock up issue isn't about brake size or so much car weight but rather the design of the rear disc
    - with all it's initial squeeze being in one small point on the rotor - not much larger than the diameter of the caliper piston

    I'm thinking in the van drum I'd have more braking surface and also the initial push in the drum would be spread out much more than the squeeze on the rotors
    - hope this makes some sort of sense (??)

    and as 70-80 percent of your brake "feel" to your foot comes from the back end they might be more user friendly too

    - typing caravan , charger or f150 something something into the google search results in the most frustrating searches ...information overload , usually all starting with 2019 ...!!!
    thus my post above..lol
    Last edited by Dr. Johny Dodge; 07-27-2019 at 02:13 PM.

  2. #2
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Dr. Johny Dodge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Posts
    1,257

    Re: when did mini van first get 5x114 hubs and drums?

    ha! look what I found ... while searching drums for the third time tonight..

    http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/sh...x114-4x100-etc

    so I presume to think I'm looking for 91-4 and maybe part of 95 ?

    I read elsewhere the rear changed for 96 but Idono if it's a running change or model year start up thing

    - I still need to confirm if the 91-4 4x100 spindles are the same as the 5x114" and that only the hub and drum differ..??

  3. #3
    turbo addict JDAWG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hagerstown, Maryland, United S
    Posts
    2,490

    Re: when did mini van first get 5x114 hubs and drums?

    I thought the bolt pattern was 5x114 for the LWB S which was up to 90 and the LWB AS which was 91-95, 96 and up to whatever is a NS body so not sure about their bolt patterns, what's wrong with the 90up Gbody Shelby brakes that swap onto anything?

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Hybrid booster
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Jacksonville
    Posts
    409

    Re: when did mini van first get 5x114 hubs and drums?

    i know some 90 vans were 5.114 factory.

  5. #5
    Garrett booster
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Mothers Proving Grounds
    Posts
    239

    Re: when did mini van first get 5x114 hubs and drums?

    Check the part #s on the '89-'90 Grand Caravan AND THE REGULAR '89-'90 Caravan at your local Mother Mopar Dealership and you'll know the difference.(discs front drums rear) Grand Caravans were 5X114 for those two years and the Regular Caravans were 5X100. When I was looking for a set of 5X114 for my '90 Grand Caravan so I could pitch the hubcaps that were on it when I bought it, some "putz" out in Iowa sold me a regular Caravan and refused to take it back because he was convinced he sold me a wheel off a Grand Caravan, NOT. BUYER BEWARE, I now have ah wall hanger 15" 5X100 SNOW FLAKE, but my spare is still a 5X114 steely mini spare, woopie. Jer
    Last edited by bigbarneycars; 07-29-2019 at 12:00 PM.

  6. #6
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    6,348

    Re: when did mini van first get 5x114 hubs and drums?

    The rear brake lock-up issue is about vehicle dynamics. There's simply not enough load on the rear of the car to take advantage of the torque being applied by the brakes (think about trying to launch our FWD cars, but instead of trying to get the tire to move, you're trying to stop it). It doesn't matter what *type* of brakes are being used, after a certain torque threshold the tires will lock. To solve this, more load must be applied to the tires...basically our FWD cars need rear downforce in order to stop and stay stable during deceleration.

  7. #7
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Dr. Johny Dodge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Posts
    1,257

    Re: when did mini van first get 5x114 hubs and drums?

    awesome guys THANKS much !!

    soo , I'm lookin for 89-90 and 91-94 GRAND caravan stuff - that helps more than you might think as I've never kept up with anything "van" since they first came out in 84

    I've done the rear disc swap a couple of times on daytonas and experienced the rear lock up issue and read of the issue continuing with swaps on chargers with some debate over the disc size

    I've done the base charger to shelby brake upgrade and it worked great so with adding my 93 front brakes I thought I'd try the van drums instead
    - and the extra stack height of the van spindle & hub with match the track width to the front mod with a daytona duel pivot K frame - this moves all 4 wheels about 3/4 inch outboard

    the bigger stronger rear spindles are a bonus too as I'm going to use much more tire and wheel so the leverage forces at the hub will probably be greater
    (5x114,(17x9.5 in 295 30 17.. = a 24 inch diameter tire , 9/10 inch larger than the 205 50 15)

    in my search I went through all the newer rear disc set ups too - along the way I found an article on Modern Performance's neon track car busting a spindle for no apparent reason

    and the new rear disc setups don't look like "much" - engineering a cobble together isn't in my interest either

    and best of all the drums won't rattle like a steel box full of rocks

  8. #8
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Dr. Johny Dodge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Posts
    1,257

    Re: when did mini van first get 5x114 hubs and drums?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper1 View Post
    The rear brake lock-up issue is about vehicle dynamics. There's simply not enough load on the rear of the car to take advantage of the torque being applied by the brakes (think about trying to launch our FWD cars, but instead of trying to get the tire to move, you're trying to stop it). It doesn't matter what *type* of brakes are being used, after a certain torque threshold the tires will lock. To solve this, more load must be applied to the tires...basically our FWD cars need rear downforce in order to stop and stay stable during deceleration.
    I used to go along with this therory but ..

    then I considered the rear discs are the EQUALLEVELLANT to the rear K car drum they replace .. not an upgrade as the front disc can still be the same size as the std K car disc..

    those drums and discs must be able to generate equal braking forces to both fit the exact same application and not create an imbalance
    and I think that panic stop rear lock might therefore be caused by the design of the disc being more efficient than the drum
    and , maybe just a little too efficient at the pinch point in the caliper when you kick the brakes hard thus locking the wheel instantly

    I'm hoping the drums will allow more ease or "slip" in of that initial kick when the shoes hit the drum

    hey it's at the least a worthy experiment that gets my wheels to fit , my track front and back to match again and maybe a work around for massively expensive brakes that .. hopefully aren't needed

    and when they lock at 30-35-40 mph , no amount of downforce is going to really help as at those speeds you won't be making any

    and yeah I discovered the charger's lack of weight in the back when I found out the tires with the most tread ALWAYS stay on the back
    - so it doesn't slide out in turns in the rain fast ones or slow ones

  9. #9
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    6,348

    Re: when did mini van first get 5x114 hubs and drums?

    The rear discs are *not* "equivalent" to the drums...hence the different proportioning valves being used and the original Shelby Charger using the disc/drum NOT having a proportioning valve is a perfect illustration of this. The rear discs create more torque than the drums, especially during initial application. Now I'm curious enough to actually want to do some math! LOL I'm willing to bet that the drums have less local pressure on the shoes than the discs have at the same pedal input pressure. Combined with the difference in surface area between the drum shoes and the disc pads and compound differences it starts to really highlight characteristic differences in the *way* the torque is applied. Geeze...now I want to do a spreadsheet! LOL

    Anyway, it sounds like you're looking for less initial bite from the rear brakes. I combated this with staggered compounds...really aggressive up front, the absolute *least* aggressive out back. That was the key for my particular set-up. BTW, when I track my car, I leave the full size spare and jack in it! The car is more balanced and that extra little bit of weight isn't really noticed.

Similar Threads

  1. CSX hubs and discs on turbo mini?
    By racer-xerols in forum The Original "Turbo Dodge" Cars
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-09-2017, 03:28 PM
  2. R/T Rear Rotors in 5x114.3mm?
    By nemiro in forum Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, Traction
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-26-2015, 12:00 PM
  3. 5x115 Vs. 5x114.3 O.T
    By inplansight in forum Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, Traction
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-08-2010, 10:36 PM
  4. Suspension 220mm rear drums, fits most TDs with rear drums
    By omnigoestohell in forum Parts For Sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-10-2008, 03:09 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •