‘61 Newport that is new to me- sorting her out and trying to identify some parts….

[Nellie Newport]

Hi everyone,

My wife brought home a’61 Newport 2door automatic coupe with a 361 & 2-barrel carb. The car has has experienced a lot of neglect, and I have been charged with getting the car roadworthy again. I figured I would keep a single thread on the car, to keep the “adventure” all in one place.

I have a service manual and the parts manual is on the way. I will be disassembling the entire front suspension to replace all bushings, ball joints, bearings, brakes, steering links and rod ends- Everything under the car is toast.

Someone converted the front brakes to disc, using a kit that utilizes GM calipers and presumably GM rotors. They chopped the top off of the brake pedal assembly and installed a Bosch brake booster where the original master cylinder used to mount.

The rear axle has been replaced with a flange axle unit with non self-adjusting drum brakes. The car has been lowered slightly, and is wearing aluminum 18” rear and 17” front mag wheels- some of this I am simply going to have to keep for now, as the priority is to get it safe and reliable to drive. The rear 275 rear tires with the wrong backspacing will have to go, as it rubs badly on even mild turns…although, with the rear shackles having essentially no bushings left, that surely must be making things worse.

I have been researching a bunch of things, and am putting together a plan of attack. I have run into a few brick walls so far, and would really appreciate any info you guys might be able to share regarding the pics below. I don’t know much about Chryslers (but I can see that is going to be changing, if I am to get the car sorted out.

Are replacement torsion bar adjusting bolts available for the Newport? I cannot find them. Are the cylinder-shaped nuts also not being reproduced?

Could someone please help me identify a few things?

1. Front brake calipers and rotors (they are seizing up) - I’m trying to find replacements.
2. Does anyone know year/make/model the rear axle came out of? Is it a Chrysler part?
3. Is there an easy swap for a later model power steering pump & brackets for this 361? I need to replace the slotted-style steering pump, and am hoping not to have to replace it with the original style pump.
4. Is the oil pan specific to this car? Somebody hammered out a smashed oil pan, and I would really like to find one that doesn’t look like hammered dog poop!

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Than you,
Dave

 

[live4theking]

For your front end parts you should talk with @mobileparts, he's a member here. I don't know about the torsion bar adjusting bolt, maybe one of the big outfits that sell restoration parts. Murray Park out of Ohio should be able to help if you are going to try to put things back the way they were from the factory.

 

[Big_John]

The rear end is easy. The casting number on the center section ends in 489, that means 1969-74 and since it has "69 300" written on it, I'd say it came out of a '69 Chrysler 300.

The oil pan should have an embossed 3 digit number on it and you should be able to figure out, hopefully this website will help. Oil Pans

 

[Big_John]

The calipers are GM. I can't make out the number well enough to figure an application.

 

[Nellie Newport]

Thanks for the info and tips guys!

 

[CBODY67]

Most of the front disc brake, non-Chrysler/aftermarket, calipers usually use a "D52" GM pad. That pad is extremely common, as should be the calipers. In the aftermarket realm of thing, EVERY brand of brake pad must have the "D52" designation in their part number, somewhere. Usually in the middle of their brand-specific prefixes and suffixes.

Good heavens! Lowering blocks! Hadn't seen those for ages.

For some reason, that power steering pump bracket looks modified to me. You can get a conversion kit from one of the Mopar perf parts vendors to put a later-model Saginaw pump and brackets where the previous, over-engineered for many people's taste, Chrysler flex-mount bracket used to be. Might need some hose fitting adapters, due to the model year?

For mist anything related to Chrysler Letter Cars, which can have some cross-over for normal Chryslers 1955-1965, www.jholst.net is the place to find many things.

The original power brake booster was mounted above the master cyl, which made checking brake fluid harder than normal. It would be interesting to see what they used for the power booster and how it all fits together in the available space!

You might want to soak the t-bar adjusting bolts in penetrating oil. They are designed to be something of a "prevailing torque" design so they don't easily back-off from their adjustment. A long wrench is needed to deal with their greater-to-move torque requirement. So looking at the rust on the caliper body, might want to soak the bolt threads (from the topside) with a good penetrating oil before seeking to adjust the bars from what they currently are.

Is the parking brake and front driveshaft u-joint mechanism still intact? Or did it get converted to something more modern with the 1969 rear axle swap?

Chrysler did some or most things differently than either GM or Ford did, back then. Usually to a higher degree of execution which some people didn't understand "Why?" they did it that way. There was usuallhy a good engineering reason, though. Like the flex-mount power steering pump bracket mechanism! Quite ingenious to get the pump to lean into the belt so the belt didn't squall like similar GM cars' pump belts did when the wheel was held against full lock when parking and such. Plus, with the base tension level decreased, the belts lasted much longer, too. But, with age and use, the pumps ended up being a bit cock-eyed as most people adjusted them "normally" rather than "like a Chrusler product", so the pivots and rubbers wore and deteriorated much sooner. Which is shy your pump brackets are "different" than as designed. Our '66 Newport 383 has the original pump bracket, with the pump sitting crooked. Still works as designed, though, which i all that matters to me.

In www.mymopar.com, there are the many Chrysler MasterTech videos which the dealership techs watched to keep up with new model years and features, plus some basic information on operating systems. LOTS of good information there, if you need it. Those videos are "as produced", which means any audio came from a record player with a vinyl record for each video. IN the earlier 1970s, they switched to BetaMax tapes.

So, welcome and enjoy the uniqueness of Chrysler PRoducts of that era!
CBODY67

 

[Nellie Newport]

Most of the front disc brake, non-Chrysler/aftermarket, calipers usually use a "D52" GM pad. That pad is extremely common, as should be the calipers. In the aftermarket realm of thing, EVERY brand of brake pad must have the "D52" designation in their part number, somewhere. Usually in the middle of their brand-specific prefixes and suffixes.

Good heavens! Lowering blocks! Hadn't seen those for ages.

For some reason, that power steering pump bracket looks modified to me. You can get a conversion kit from one of the Mopar perf parts vendors to put a later-model Saginaw pump and brackets where the previous, over-engineered for many people's taste, Chrysler flex-mount bracket used to be. Might need some hose fitting adapters, due to the model year?

For mist anything related to Chrysler Letter Cars, which can have some cross-over for normal Chryslers 1955-1965, www.jholst.net is the place to find many things.

The original power brake booster was mounted above the master cyl, which made checking brake fluid harder than normal. It would be interesting to see what they used for the power booster and how it all fits together in the available space!

You might want to soak the t-bar adjusting bolts in penetrating oil. They are designed to be something of a "prevailing torque" design so they don't easily back-off from their adjustment. A long wrench is needed to deal with their greater-to-move torque requirement. So looking at the rust on the caliper body, might want to soak the bolt threads (from the topside) with a good penetrating oil before seeking to adjust the bars from what they currently are.

Is the parking brake and front driveshaft u-joint mechanism still intact? Or did it get converted to something more modern with the 1969 rear axle swap?

Chrysler did some or most things differently than either GM or Ford did, back then. Usually to a higher degree of execution which some people didn't understand "Why?" they did it that way. There was usuallhy a good engineering reason, though. Like the flex-mount power steering pump bracket mechanism! Quite ingenious to get the pump to lean into the belt so the belt didn't squall like similar GM cars' pump belts did when the wheel was held against full lock when parking and such. Plus, with the base tension level decreased, the belts lasted much longer, too. But, with age and use, the pumps ended up being a bit cock-eyed as most people adjusted them "normally" rather than "like a Chrusler product", so the pivots and rubbers wore and deteriorated much sooner. Which is shy your pump brackets are "different" than as designed. Our '66 Newport 383 has the original pump bracket, with the pump sitting crooked. Still works as designed, though, which i all that matters to me.

In www.mymopar.com, there are the many Chrysler MasterTech videos which the dealership techs watched to keep up with new model years and features, plus some basic information on operating systems. LOTS of good information there, if you need it. Those videos are "as produced", which means any audio came from a record player with a vinyl record for each video. IN the earlier 1970s, they switched to BetaMax tapes.

So, welcome and enjoy the uniqueness of Chrysler PRoducts of that era!
CBODY67

Wow, that was really helpful- thanks. I have been studying the torsion rod and lower arm removal procedure, but I’m not clear on whether or not it is necessary to remove the torsion bar in order to remove the lower front suspension arm. If I can’t find new t-bar bolts, and I don’t have to remove the t-bar, then I probably won’t.

The car does have the original Torqueflite and parking brake. I have already removed the drum and am going to find someone who can skim it for me. New shoes and operating cable are going in, and I will arc the shoes by hand. I’m also going to install an intermittent warning beeper when the ignition is on and the parking Brake is on- no more driving around with the parking brake on- which was obviously done many times from the looks of the drum!

Thanks for the parts sources. The videos sound great- I’m going to look into those as well.

The Bosch brake booster has an actuating rod that is attached to a clevis pin on the pedal lever. I don’t know what the original pedal assembly looked like before they cut it up, but you can see in the pic how the gold pushrod attaches to the pedal- the master cyl is bolted onto the front of the booster, conventional style. The real problem with this setup is that it puts the booster and the master very close to the exhaust manifold- they get quite hot. I will be installing a thermal barrier over the left hand exhaust manifold to protect the brake setup… hopefully everything doesn’t become a Rube Goldberg creation. I hate daisy-chaining off of somebody else’s hack job…oh well.

 

[Nellie Newport]

The rear end is easy. The casting number on the center section ends in 489, that means 1969-74 and since it has "69 300" written on it, I'd say it came out of a '69 Chrysler 300.

The oil pan should have an embossed 3 digit number on it and you should be able to figure out, hopefully this website will help. Oil Pans

That is a really cool site- thanks Big John!

 

[Nellie Newport]

Things are moving along... rear axle is almost out and new parts for the front suspension are on the way. I am still researching a front sway car for this car- we live where there are nothing but twisty roads, and after the one drive before she went up on blocks, I will say that this car really needs a front sway bar for these roads....

I found a used front anti sway/roll bar set-up, but it is only 3/4" diameter and the arms on the factory bar are very long- I really cannot imagine that the factory bar does much at all to tame the roll.

The car needs something like 1 1/4" diameter or greater. Nobody makes a kit (I spent hours searching), so I am now searching for a company that can bend a custom bar for me, and possibly use most of the original sway bar hardware to mount it.

Discovered that the brake booster came off of a 2000 Ford Ranger...

The front calipers have cast-in number of 5474339.

 

[CBODY67]

Thanks for the additional information and pictures!

As "bad" as the car might not be in the turns, as to lean, when it was designed in 1957, sway bars were no bigger than about 3/4". Those, plus the firmness of the torsion bars, kept the cars much flatter in the turns than anything else back then. The 1965-'73 C-bodies used a set-up where the bar attached to the strut rods. Seems like Firm Feel makes a bigger sway bar kit for the '65+ C-bodies, but the way it looks, not nearly as "direct" as I might desire, fwiw. Seems like the '70-era Imperials had a front sway bar that was different?

There are some interesting YouTube videos, "On The Test Track With The 1957 Chryslers", which compare the handling of the 1957 Chryslers to their GM competitors. VERY graphic and interesting! There are also a couple which include the 1958 Mercury, too. There are also similar videos all the way into the 1962 model year. Cornering, suspension "flatness" in the curves, plus OEM shock absorber calibrations, and stopping were all better in the Chrysler products. THEN the driving scenes in "It's a Wild, Wild, Wild World!" movie really showcase the OEM suspensions on the old bias-ply tires of back then! Many scenes with the vehicles in "hard cornering".

There are a few somewhat recent threads in here of the aftermarket Firm Feel front sway bar upgrades.

It should be noted that as the front torsion bars are "relaxed" to achieve a lower-than-factory front ride height, the spring rate of the bars DECREASES too, making them softer in ride and lateral resistance to lean.

As to the rear, you can look at the 1975-'78 Chrysler B-body Cordobas and such. A friend put one on a '65 Monaco 2dr hardtop using the Cordoba's factory mounts and then having to narrow the bar's front mounts a bit (using heat) to mate with the Monaco's rear frame rails. Those were usually about .5", but the police cars were up to about .75", as I recall.

Chrysler tended to resist using rear sway bars until they couldn't, in the middle 1970s on B-body cars. If you look at the movie shots of the cars in turns, the "wheel lean" is not nearly as great as it normally is for a GM or Ford chassis. With the outer wheels going slightly into "negative camber" in turns, to better brace the outside wheel sidewall for better cornering. Same on the inside wheel going into positive camber for the same reason. As the car leans, the suspension geometry counteracts that to keep the tires more perpendicular to the road surface.

Also, to aid handling, steering response, and front tire life, run the front tires 2psi higher than in the rear. For me, on the older bias-ply tires on our '66 Newport, that was 30/28. Which can be more like 32/30 with modern tires, or higher to your taste. Just my long-tire experiences. Works with other vehicles, too. On a front-wheel drive, add 4psi to the front over the rear, due to the greater front weight bias.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[detmatt]

Not all oil pans have numbers stamped into them.
I think this is the same as yours. It measures about 5.5” deep at the deepest point by the drain plug.
I can get more measurements off of it if needed and it is available for sale.
I think the pick up goes with it. Both came with a ‘66 Imperial parts car that did not have an engine or trans when I got it.

 

[Nellie Newport]

Not all oil pans have numbers stamped into them.
I think this is the same as yours. It measures about 5.5” deep at the deepest point by the drain plug.
I can get more measurements off of it if needed and it is available for sale.
I think the pick up goes with it. Both came with a ‘66 Imperial parts car that did not have an engine or trans when I got it.
View attachment 674381View attachment 674382View attachment 674383

Thanks, PM sent.

 

[Nellie Newport]

Thanks for the additional information and pictures!

As "bad" as the car might not be in the turns, as to lean, when it was designed in 1957, sway bars were no bigger than about 3/4". Those, plus the firmness of the torsion bars, kept the cars much flatter in the turns than anything else back then. The 1965-'73 C-bodies used a set-up where the bar attached to the strut rods. Seems like Firm Feel makes a bigger sway bar kit for the '65+ C-bodies, but the way it looks, not nearly as "direct" as I might desire, fwiw. Seems like the '70-era Imperials had a front sway bar that was different?

There are some interesting YouTube videos, "On The Test Track With The 1957 Chryslers", which compare the handling of the 1957 Chryslers to their GM competitors. VERY graphic and interesting! There are also a couple which include the 1958 Mercury, too. There are also similar videos all the way into the 1962 model year. Cornering, suspension "flatness" in the curves, plus OEM shock absorber calibrations, and stopping were all better in the Chrysler products. THEN the driving scenes in "It's a Wild, Wild, Wild World!" movie really showcase the OEM suspensions on the old bias-ply tires of back then! Many scenes with the vehicles in "hard cornering".

There are a few somewhat recent threads in here of the aftermarket Firm Feel front sway bar upgrades.

It should be noted that as the front torsion bars are "relaxed" to achieve a lower-than-factory front ride height, the spring rate of the bars DECREASES too, making them softer in ride and lateral resistance to lean.

As to the rear, you can look at the 1975-'78 Chrysler B-body Cordobas and such. A friend put one on a '65 Monaco 2dr hardtop using the Cordoba's factory mounts and then having to narrow the bar's front mounts a bit (using heat) to mate with the Monaco's rear frame rails. Those were usually about .5", but the police cars were up to about .75", as I recall.

Chrysler tended to resist using rear sway bars until they couldn't, in the middle 1970s on B-body cars. If you look at the movie shots of the cars in turns, the "wheel lean" is not nearly as great as it normally is for a GM or Ford chassis. With the outer wheels going slightly into "negative camber" in turns, to better brace the outside wheel sidewall for better cornering. Same on the inside wheel going into positive camber for the same reason. As the car leans, the suspension geometry counteracts that to keep the tires more perpendicular to the road surface.

Also, to aid handling, steering response, and front tire life, run the front tires 2psi higher than in the rear. For me, on the older bias-ply tires on our '66 Newport, that was 30/28. Which can be more like 32/30 with modern tires, or higher to your taste. Just my long-tire experiences. Works with other vehicles, too. On a front-wheel drive, add 4psi to the front over the rear, due to the greater front weight bias.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

CBODY67, That history on sway bars is very interesting. I also never considered the fact that the car has been lowered and how that would affect the spring “preload” with torsion bars.

The first YouTube video was pretty cool- it looks like Chrysler had a lot more engineering that went into their suspension damping than GM…. The cone slalom and braking tests were almost not believable…was Chrysler really that superior of a design compared to the GM full size cars?

Part of the plan is to get the ride height back up again- the rear lowering blocks are coming out and I’ll be adjusting the torsion bars to raise the front end by roughly an amount equal to the rear.

On another note, nobody around here could figure out how to skim the parking brake drum- the machine shop gave up, and two brake shops couldn’t get their equipment to work with the small drum. I came up with the idea of finding an old Torqueflite trans output shaft, and found an old trans shop that had one laying around. He mounted the drum on it, put it in a lathe and trued up the drum. All for the tidy sum of $88.00. My, the world has changed… but we got the job done.

Axle comes out tomorrow- the 2.76 gearing is too low with the 27” tires the car will be rolling on. More pics tomorrow.

 

[CBODY67]

Yep, the "smooooth ride" GM cars were really that poor in the handling department. Their orientation was "boulevard ride" (usually about 40mph or so) rather than 75mph roads with turns in them. Fords tended to be better, though, but still lacked shock absorber control. The comparison to the '58 Buick is very telling, as is the similar '58 Mercury comparison on an up and down road surface. The TF always won the hill retardation tests, whether against Ford or GM. Plus the hill climbing tests, too.

I suspect the car came with a 3.31 rear axle gear.

Glad you got the parking brake drum refinished.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[Nellie Newport]

Today the rear axle was removed for rebuilding, and I bought rebuilt GM calipers. When I removed the front hub/rotors, there were no washers behind the axle nuts- I found that very disturbing and a really dumb thing for anybody to do….argh! Glad I am taking things apart to have a look inside.

I am having a heck of a time figuring out what the front rotors came off of- there is a bearing adapter on the front spindle, and the rotors are what appear to be GM type- they have the integral hub, but with a 5x4.5 bolt pattern. I have used a CCP kit that was identical to this, but is was on my ‘50 Chevy 3600. I am stumped on this one…..

I am unaware of any kit for the ‘61 Newport that does not use a custom hub with a separate rotor. I am wondering if the spindles are from a different car…? the rotors have no markings whatsoever.

At the rear of the car, the ‘69 Chrysler 300 rear end has drums mounted that are 11” x 3”…..but it has 2.5” wide shoes in there….

I understand that the width of the shoe that I will use will be dependent upon the brake cylinder that is installed, because the distance of the wheel cylinder bore center measured from the backing plate will control how wide I can go with shoes. My FLAPS says that the ‘69 300 rear end with 11” drums can have a brake shoe width of 2.5”, 2.75”, or 3.0”.

None of the auto part stores around here have replacement wheel cylinders. I am guessing that the wheel cylinders on the axle might not be ‘69 300 cylinders…the whole brake set up might just be something cobbled together (there is no self adjuster hardware in there).

Any ideas about the front rotors and what wheel cylinders I could use to be able to install 2.75 or 3.0” wide shoes??

Any help appreciated!

Got the parking brake back together with a new cable installed- that was fun…

Crap, I put the parking brake adjuster in backwards! Luckily I haven’t put the drum back on yet…

 

[CBODY67]

The JOYS of buying and rebuilding a car that somebody else "did things to" years ago!

Get the stamped bearing numbers on the ends of the front wheel bearings and get into a buyer's guide for bearings, as to inner diameters, outer diameters of the bearing cup, and once found, then see what they fit. No GM cars used the Ford/Chrysler bolt pattern, as you might know. Seems like the old Scarebird website had some "hacks" of what to use for such things, using then-common auto supply-available items? Might check the listings at www.rockauto.com for some quick-ref numbers.

How do you know the rear axle is from a '69 Chrysler 300? I suspect that all wheel cylinders were the same, just the width of the brake shoes AND backing plates changed with the wider shoe width. A factory disc brake '69 Chrysler would have had 2.5" rear shoes, typically, while the power drum brake 300s would have had 3" wide rear brakes, at least in 1968 model year cars. To verify, head over to www.hamtramck-historical.com and look in the "Library" section for 1969 Chryslers and find the data books, then look for the brake section. I suspect it might detail which brakes were used for power disc brake cars. Might take some digging, but you might find them there.

I did a quick Google search for "1961 Newport front disc brakes" and found several results, but ONE was to a thread in the Forward Look Chrysler forum, which mentioned Chrysler rotors and GM calipers.

Take care,
CBODY67

 

[Nellie Newport]

The JOYS of buying and rebuilding a car that somebody else "did things to" years ago!

Get the stamped bearing numbers on the ends of the front wheel bearings and get into a buyer's guide for bearings, as to inner diameters, outer diameters of the bearing cup, and once found, then see what they fit. No GM cars used the Ford/Chrysler bolt pattern, as you might know. Seems like the old Scarebird website had some "hacks" of what to use for such things, using then-common auto supply-available items? Might check the listings at www.rockauto.com for some quick-ref numbers.

How do you know the rear axle is from a '69 Chrysler 300? I suspect that all wheel cylinders were the same, just the width of the brake shoes AND backing plates changed with the wider shoe width. A factory disc brake '69 Chrysler would have had 2.5" rear shoes, typically, while the power drum brake 300s would have had 3" wide rear brakes, at least in 1968 model year cars. To verify, head over to www.hamtramck-historical.com and look in the "Library" section for 1969 Chryslers and find the data books, then look for the brake section. I suspect it might detail which brakes were used for power disc brake cars. Might take some digging, but you might find them there.

I did a quick Google search for "1961 Newport front disc brakes" and found several results, but ONE was to a thread in the Forward Look Chrysler forum, which mentioned Chrysler rotors and GM calipers.

Take care,
CBODY67

Thanks for that info. The axle still has the salvage yard yellow paint markings “69 300”. I realize this cannot be relied upon, but when I brought the axle to the axle shop they said the markings were accurate. Who knows…

I still have some doubt, but what I am wondering right now is- was it a normal practice to run 2.5” shoes with a 3” deep drum? I haven’t seen that before.

That front spindle bearing adapter sleeve was mass produced by some company- perhaps not around anymore… I figured the hub must be from either a Chrysler or a Ford.

I’m sure this will end up documenting a pretty interesting front disc brake conversion- 2000 Ford Ranger power booster, generic GM master cylinder, GM calipers and either a Ford or Chrysler hub. Frankenstein Chrysler!

More research to do..thanks for the link.

 

[noah300g]

Hi everyone,

My wife brought home a’61 Newport 2door automatic coupe with a 361 & 2-barrel carb. The car has has experienced a lot of neglect, and I have been charged with getting the car roadworthy again. I figured I would keep a single thread on the car, to keep the “adventure” all in one place.

I have a service manual and the parts manual is on the way. I will be disassembling the entire front suspension to replace all bushings, ball joints, bearings, brakes, steering links and rod ends- Everything under the car is toast.

Someone converted the front brakes to disc, using a kit that utilizes GM calipers and presumably GM rotors. They chopped the top off of the brake pedal assembly and installed a Bosch brake booster where the original master cylinder used to mount.

The rear axle has been replaced with a flange axle unit with non self-adjusting drum brakes. The car has been lowered slightly, and is wearing aluminum 18” rear and 17” front mag wheels- some of this I am simply going to have to keep for now, as the priority is to get it safe and reliable to drive. The rear 275 rear tires with the wrong backspacing will have to go, as it rubs badly on even mild turns…although, with the rear shackles having essentially no bushings left, that surely must be making things worse.

I have been researching a bunch of things, and am putting together a plan of attack. I have run into a few brick walls so far, and would really appreciate any info you guys might be able to share regarding the pics below. I don’t know much about Chryslers (but I can see that is going to be changing, if I am to get the car sorted out.

Are replacement torsion bar adjusting bolts available for the Newport? I cannot find them. Are the cylinder-shaped nuts also not being reproduced?

Could someone please help me identify a few things?

1. Front brake calipers and rotors (they are seizing up) - I’m trying to find replacements.
2. Does anyone know year/make/model the rear axle came out of? Is it a Chrysler part?
3. Is there an easy swap for a later model power steering pump & brackets for this 361? I need to replace the slotted-style steering pump, and am hoping not to have to replace it with the original style pump.
4. Is the oil pan specific to this car? Somebody hammered out a smashed oil pan, and I would really like to find one that doesn’t look like hammered dog poop!

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Than you,
Dave

View attachment 674098View attachment 674099View attachment 674100View attachment 674101View attachment 674102View attachment 674103View attachment 674104View attachment 674105View attachment 674106View attachment 674107

I would bet the disc brake conversion is by the AAJ brake conversion company. For Chryslers with 15" wheels, they usually specify GM calipers from a Monte Carlo of the late 70's, and a rotor from a 79 Cordoba. For cars with 14" wheels, the rotors have to come from an A body like a Dart in order to fit the smaller wheels/rims. The 'shim' is provided by them in the kit, along with the caliper bracket. Everything else comes standard from any auto parts store. If you contact them, they'll be very helpful as to the rotor they recommend for a 61 Newport conversion kit.
There is a red light in the middle of the instrument cluster that is supposed to light up when the parking brake is engaged so you don't drive with the brake set on. It's not really designed to slow the car down in an emergency, just to clamp the driveshaft so the car doesn't roll away when parked. No need to arc shoes to a perfectly turned drum.
The power steering pump is not supposed to have that extra brace on the front of the mounting bracket. It is designed to move/rock and not be held in that constant position. Proper adjustment procedure is in the shop manual. Also, there is only a 'supplement' for 61 Chrysler shop manuals, so you really need a 60 shop manual along with the 61 supplement to get all the info.

 

[Nellie Newport]

I had thought the disc kit might be from Scarebird..I appreciate the tip on AAJ- that gives me two kits to look at before I have to pull the bearing numbers and start digging into application lists- thank you.

I do have the ‘61 manual supplement. The parking brake light on the instrument cluster works, however, I have decided to put a beeper in the circuit as well to notify when both the ignition and the parking brake are on.

The later model rear end with flange axles that is in the car has provisions for rear parking brakes- if, after replacing the parking brake components and setting it up, and I am still, not happy with its performance, I will remove the shoes from the parking brake drum and convert the system to a rear parking brake….we have nothing but hills here and I don’t want to be flinging out a wheel chocks every time we have to park the car. I had a parking brake system like the ‘61 Chrysler on my old Toyota Land Cruiser- it worked great, and would hold that truck on any grade. Hopefully. Won’t need to convert the parking brake…at least the option will always be there.

Interesting about the power steering pump. I am going to look into that. Because the car will be more of a “driver”, I will probably box that pump for the next owner and go with a Saginaw.

Update on my progress: I removed the front suspension and all steering tie rods. I did not have a ball joint remover large enough to get the ball joints off, so I’ll have to rent one. Then I’ll unscrew them from the arms.

One of the torsion rod swivels gave up its threads- something I was hoping would not happen. Before moving them I soaked them in Aerokroil and used a brass brush to clean the exposed threads. It worked nicely on one side, but not the other. Found a used set on eBay and will try one of those swivels. I am surprised that there aren’t more NOS sets around…but can understand how people might be hoarding these.

I really don’t like re-using “single use only” hardware whose sole purpose is to hold the car up, but have no other choice here, unless I had new sets machined. I am wondering how many models and years this particular bolt/swivel set was used, and how many of those cars are still on the road? If I did have sets machined, how many would want a set? Surely, they won’t be cheap…..

Interesting discovery when disassembling the front end- the right shock (see pic) was installed with only the top washer and the rubber bushings. After I removed the right torsion bar, I grabbed the upper A-arm and started moving the suspension up and down to see what it felt like without the torsion rod. As I did so, I observed the shock top freely rising and falling through the shock tower hole….with no bottom washer, there was nothing to retain it when the suspension was compressed.

I wonder how many years the car was driven with no right shock attached? There were other strange discoveries, such as the cupped washers on the front struts being installed backwards. While I am a little upset about some of the findings with this car, I am becoming increasingly happy about he fact that I decided to pull everything under the car apart! No wonder it handled like an old trailer!


More disassembly will happen later….but now I can get under the car and clean the front subframe and paint it.

Swivel giving up its threads…probably happened before I touched it, seeing as the car was lowered…but who knows. The bolt on This side was easy to turn from the get go…now I know why!

right front shock- no bottom washer…

Right front shock, as I found it…

 

[CBODY67]

Thanks for the updates on your progress, with pictures!

Glad you're making good progress to get things as they should be, too.

Seems like Chrysler considered their parking brake on the transmission to be a safety issue, as it was separate from the normal use of the existing rear brakes and cables others used. That was mentioned in some of the later 1950s to earlier 1960s dealer training videos, as I recall.

Please keep us posted on your progress,
CBODY67