3 ms·
There's nothing wrong with rear drum brakes. They last longer than disc brakes, are cheaper, and easier to service. You don't need rear disc brakes unless you'r
by everdrive 3y ago
There's nothing wrong with rear drum brakes. They last longer than disc brakes, are cheaper, and easier to service. You don't need rear disc brakes unless you're in a performance vehicle. If people really cared about braking, they'd be making cars lighter.
- rspeele 3y agoI interpreted GP's comment less as "drum sucks compared to disc" and more as "well, it's got brakes" being the only listed safety feature, on a car that is sold in some markets without even airbags. It's kind of like the old "front fell off" sketch: > [Senator Collins:] No, rubber’s out .. Um, They’ve got to have a steering wheel. There’s a minimum crew requirement.” > [Interviewer:] What’s the minimum crew? > [Senator Collins:] Oh, one, I suppose. Or the Simpsons gag about the Carnivale knockoff TV set: > It features a two pronged wall plug, pre-molded hand grip wells, durable outer casing to prevent fall-apart.
- everdrive 3y agoAh, then that went right over my head. Of course, the car would certainly be less safe without brakes.
- mirsadm 3y agoI don't think it was a dig at drum brakes but rather listing having read brakes as a safety feature.
- callalex 3y agoI think the comedy comes from listing “this car has brakes” as a safety feature, as that’s the only thing they could come up with. Like, of course the car has brakes, it’s a car. I suppose the steering wheel is also a safety feature as it helps you to avoid collisions in some cases…