Chrysler 300M Enthusiasts Club
  • Anti rattle clips

  • Talk about changing your own brakes
Membership Banner

Talk about changing your own brakes

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
 #88983  by Scott1094
 
Opinions please.
New front brake pad set came with the spring spreader anti rattle clips. The car came with the standard anti rattle clips. Which is preferred? Looks like a simple change over if the spring clip option is the winner.
Thanks.
Scott

User avatar
 #89000  by vegas
 
the "spring spreader" is NOT an anti rattle clip, I think you may be confused. The "spreader" merely separates the pads when you are not braking to reduce to reduce friction on the rotor and up mpg, according to chrysler, by 1mpg, whether it does that or not is up for debate.

An anti-rattle clip is a TOTALLY different animal. The "spring spreader" isnt even neccesary, and I have never seen an aftermarket pad come with them, I have HEARD that if you buy pads from chrysler they come with them though.

User avatar
 #89001  by Bill Putney
 
Certain brands do come with them. I recommend them. They certainly can't hurt in the rotor heat/warpage/pad filming department - every little bit helps. You can order them separately thru dealer. Will have to search for P/N.

User avatar
 #89008  by EasyRider300M
 
I thought the spreaders only were mounted on the rear pads. I know I ordered a set of the rear spreaders from Junior. I ordered an extra set for my next change.

User avatar
 #89011  by Scott1094
 
To all,
Are you saying to use both? The only way I see for them to fit would be in place of the anti-rattle clips. Am I missing something?

By the way, I emailed Hawk performance last Friday and they replied today. Seems that they added W/O ABS in error and will remove it in their next printing of the catalog. The Hawk pads listed on Tire Rack are the correct pads for our cars.

Scott

User avatar
 #89020  by vegas
 
EZ, spreaders were on both front and rear.

As for anti rattle clips and spreaders, yes you should use both, although I dont have either on my car at the moment, you can get by without them if you have to.

User avatar
 #89023  by EasyRider300M
 
anyone have pics of these two items (spreader--anti-rattle clips)

User avatar
 #89036  by vegas
 
Image

I dont have a pic of the spreader, but the fsm in 02 NEVER MENTIONS IT, thus my conclusion that it aint important at all, and it shows the attached clips on the pads as the anti rattle clip, so appartenly the part that I have seen on some that slides over the spot on the knuckle where the caliper makes contact is a different part, and also not shown in the fsm.

User avatar
 #89037  by Bill Putney
 
scott1094 wrote:...The Hawk pads listed on Tire Rack are the correct pads for our cars.

Scott
FWIW - The Hawk pad listings are also in error on the type of front pads that best fit our cars. They list FSMI type 730 for our car. They should be listing type 591 instead. The only difference is the pad retainers (the spring metal that pull the pads tight against the calipers).

The 730's will work - they just don't fit the calipers nearly as well. One problem with Tire Rack is that they don't give the manufacturer's part number - they go strictly by application. The result is you will not get the best fit pad for our cars. Perhaps you can talk to them on the phone and tell them you want the Hawk HPS pad but you want the one with 591 in the Hawk part number - not the 730 listed for our car. Unless you get a reall hard head, perhaps they will accommodate you. Or - look at Hawk's applications listings and find an application that calls for the 591 (should be some other Chrysler product - posibly 1st gen LH - not positive) and lie to Tire Rack and tell them that that's the car that you have when you order.

BTW - Hawk is not the only pad manufacturer whose apps. lists are screwed up for our cars - I get the impression that they are working from mis-information that DC put out somewhere along the line.

EDIT: If you tell them you need pads for a '94 Concorde, you will get the 591 type pads. You will be glad you did.

User avatar
 #89039  by Bill Putney
 
vegas wrote:EZ, spreaders were on both front and rear.
No. *Fronts* *only*.
As for anti rattle clips and spreaders, yes you should use both, although I dont have either on my car at the moment, you can get by without them if you have to.
If anti-rattle clips are the spring retainers, I was not aware that you could get pads without them. Are you sure about that?

User avatar
 #89040  by Scott1094
 
To all that want to see the retractor clips go to the BRAKE SECTION, page two and look for RETRACTOR CLIP MYSTERY SOLVED (MAYBE) Bill has some fine photos of both the retractor clips as installed and what he calls the wear clips found on some of our "M's". I did do a search and got no results so I must have used the wrong terms looking for them. Anyhow, it looks like I'll go ahead and pull the wear clips and insert the retractor clips and see what happens.
Scott

User avatar
 #89047  by Bill Putney
 
Thank you Scott! You are correct. In fact I was in the middle of putting together another post to try to clear up some of the misinformation in this thread, but am only getting frustrated because the forum is as slow as molasses tonight (maybe too many of us on here at one time?). Will follow this post with a complete summary of correct info. if I can pull up the threads and photos I need.

User avatar
 #89066  by Bill Putney
 
Well - I give up. I have wasted - absolutely wasted - well over an hour trying to use the forums tonight to straighten out misunderstandings about the differences between the pad retainers (AKA anti-rattle clips), anti-wear clips, and pad retractors (AKA pad spreaders). I have spent probably a half hour *twice* pulling up threads to pull photos from, and the server has lost the post twice. I will not go thru that again tonight. Maybe in a day or so if the server gets straightened out and I get over my frustration. This is ridiculous.

But Scott - you seem to have the right idea in spite of bad information that's been posted in this thread.

User avatar
 #89069  by vegas
 
Bill- you are right on the anti rattle clips, the post where I state I didnt have them, I was under the impression that they were the "anti-wear" clips. Of course all our pads have anti rattle clips.

When in stock form, my M had the "pad spreaders" on ALL four wheels, not just the front. I have not reinstalled "pad spreaders" on any wheels, and I also have never had or seen the "anti-wear" clips except in one or two pics taken and posted here. My point overall is that the FSM never mentions "anti-wear" clips, or "pad spreaders" at all, and thereby I am willing to bet 99.9% of M's no longer have them installed, because if there aint a reference to it in the manufacturers own FSM, it aint gonna get done. Just checked my AllData as well, NEVER makes mention of them either, and I have been to a dealer and searched these parts out, if you dont know what to look for and do the job yourself, those parts will never be put back on your car, and whether or not they even make a difference....... :?

User avatar
 #89086  by Bill Putney
 
True enough Pete.

Below is the equivalent figure from the '99 FSM (also on AllData for subscription for a '99). Notice the pad retractors. That and some photos and other discussion was what I was getting frustrated with last night trying to post.

My (conspiracy) theory on this, which i have stated before, is that Chrysler designed them in and kept the parts available for initial 2nd gen. LH production just long enough to meet the legal requirements to establish the mpg figures for their CAFE numbers. Then for a while, they were not available. A year or so ago, they suddenly became available again - if my theory is correct, for the LX platform to legally establish the mpg figures for them (that assumes that they use the same part on their calipers - I'm not sure about that). My paranoia about this is reinforced by the part not being shown in the parts pdf figures - a part number is given, but a dash is shown for the part reference number in the figure - a pre-meditated shell game (when you asked for them, the parts guy would end up ordering the anti-wear clips instead - which I've not seen in any parts or FSM documentation - most people wouldn't know the difference or care).

Interesting what you say about pad spreaders on the rear - that is the first I had heard of that. Even my '99 FSM doesn't show them (in the equivalent rear brake figure).

Image

User avatar
 #89088  by vegas
 
I think your theory is right on Bill.

User avatar
 #89098  by EasyRider300M
 
I only had new retractors (spreaders) installed on the rear during my last brake change. I didn't see any on the fronts and not even sure there is a place to mount them. Someone on the board mentioned the rear spreaders so I ordered 2 pairs--one for a spare. Had no idea they made them for the fronts too although that would make sense. Anything that may help mpg and rotor life is well worth the small investment in time and the few dollars for the parts.

User avatar
 #89104  by vegas
 
The argument really is though, at least mine is, and bill will probably agree, those things probably only last a few hundred miles of effective life at most. After heating and cooling violently and rapidly over and over again, that magnesium or whatever it is, loses its springiness, I think they only helped during the short period of time that testing occurred, I really doubt their long term usefulness, if it was that easy, ALL makes and models would be using them, but right now it appears only chrysler does and it looks as if it is to keep competitive with mpg's of other competitors, DC has among the leading automakers some of the WORST fuel economy numbers. :?

User avatar
 #89107  by EasyRider300M
 
DC has among the leading automakers some of the WORST fuel economy numbers.
For a large vehicle, I think the M's mpg numbers are pretty good from what I experience and see from other members. But some of their other vehicles, expecially their trucks, probably have pretty bad numbers.

User avatar
 #89141  by Carfan77
 
Many GM powertrains, especially the pushrod engines are remarkably fuel efficient and Chrysler is behind the curve in that regard. My Dad's 4.8L 270 HP Silverado gets about 18 MPG overall. Even with the 5 speed transmission and 400 less pounds our Jeep ekes out 16 with a 4.7L 230 HP engine. Corvettes get in the high 20's pretty easily, as do large Buicks. I'm not sure what the Northstar in Cadillacs and now Buicks manages, but the 3.5L twin-cam "short-North" in my Intrigue was not great for fuel mileage.