11" Wagner Brakes

Self adjust vs. manual adjust————-
It’s my opinion both brake types are pretty equal concerning stopping power; provided that the manual brakes are properly adjusted.
On early brakes jeep provided adjustment at both top and bottom end of each shoe.
They went so far as to provide a slot in each drum so that lining/ drum clearance could be gauged with a feeler.
And that’s all very good albeit a pain.
It’s far easier to allow the self adjuster to take up the slack.

IMHO the linings on self adjust brakes wear more evenly due to the fact that the shoes are alway in adjustment.
And also to the fact that there is only the single piston anchor.......
In the real world the drum does not spin in a perfect circle.
Not having a solid lower anchor allows both shoes to better oscillate along with the nonconcentric spin of the drum.

 

I think you will be surprised how effective stock wagon brakes are, when everything is working properly. Even in modern traffic, I haven't felt the need to "upgrade" to discs. My old Wagon would make 31" tires howl an a hard stop. I've never had them fade, but I don't live near any mountains either.
I've always installed the longer shoe forward on the Wagons, and my Tux too.
-Donny

 

"Self energizing" is the term I've always heard for the Bendix style brakes that float at the bottom. Friction from the front shoe forces the back shoe into the drum harder and it takes less pedal effort for the same amount of braking. The Wagner style brakes on the wagon get a little bit of self energizing effect on the front shoe, but friction actually decreases the braking force on the rear shoe. To combat this, some Chrysler stuff in the 40's/50's had a second wheel cylinder at the bottom and a top pivot for the rear shoe so it was also self-energizing:


The Bendix system is overall more effective with the front shoe energizing the back shoe. Also the whole shoe assemble is expanding into the drum so the lining has more even pressure on the drum. The pivoting style are only going to touch near the top of the shoe with significant pressure.

Note, the Bendix style doesn't always have auto-adjusters, those came later. A 1950 Ford has Bendix style brakes, but you have to manually adjust the star wheel as they wear.

As for the length of the shoe lining, I suspect it's to have the pressure on both shoes be even so they wear at the same rate. In the case of the Wagner brakes, the front shoe gets additional force pushing it into the drum from friction while the rear shoe has it's force reduced. The keep the pressure against the drum the same, would would want less surface area on the rear shoe. Pressure is force divided by area. For the Bendix style, the friction on the front shoe pushes the rear shoe harder into the drum. In that case you would want less surface area on the front shoe to keep the pressure equal.

 

Just remember that Wagner and Bendix are merely the manufactures and those names should not be used to define a type of brake system .

For examples: both 9” brake systems used on CJ’s were also Bendix branded brakes and they both used anchored pivot designs. The 10” Wagners used on CJ’s were of a self energize design and only about half of those included the self adjusters.

 

Good point!

 

Looks good to me too.
Simple but effective brake design.
One adjustment per shoe .
When wheel cylinder expands it pushes the tops of shoes outward .
The leading shoe is forced down toward the solid anchor.