briane

What is the difference in the rear brake shoes between the 1969 Hurst Olds and the 442? They had different part numbers when introduced.
Thank you.

joe_padavano

Where are you getting this information? My parts books dated Sept 1968 and Jan 1972 both show exactly the same rear brake shoe part numbers for all 1968-69 Olds A-body cars except the Vista (which used the wider 2.5" rear shoes).

briane

July 1969 Parts Book Joe. The Group for just brake linings also indicates a distinction between the H/O and 442.

joe_padavano

OK, apologies. I was looking in Group 5.018, not 5.017. This is from the Jan 1972 edition.






Interestingly, P/N 5467472 was previously used on 65 A-body and 64-66 Jetstar 88 cars. They are not the metallic linings used for Police applications. Since the rear brakes are pre-installed on the rear axle housing, that would mean that the rear axle assemblies for the H/O would have had a unique part number.





Here's what they look like.

69HO43

The final supersession sprawling web and tangents I can find on these ends up with 18029594.

Organic.

ACDelco 18029594 ACDelco Gold Brake Shoes | Summit Racing

Yes, besides the different brakes, the 69 H/O axle assembly showed a different production part number (406222 with 3.23, 406223 with 3.42 and 406224 with 3.91), a different two-letter code (SH, SJ, SL), but used the same brake drums, axles, and center section/gear set part numbers as a G80 equipped 442.

briane

Thanks for uncovering the current part number. I image there is a long trail to get to that. Could the original distinction possibly have been riveted versus non-riveted lining attachment?

joe_padavano

18029594 is just the generic 9.5" x 2.0" brake shoes that are shown for just about every GM application. That P/N specifically is for the 1985-90 B-body cars with the small brakes. It superseded just about every prior 9.5 x 2.0 application. Whatever was unique to the 5467472 shoes will not be featured in these.

briane

Joe, I'll concur with you comment regarding 18029594 not being a meaningful reference. I'm thinking of the photos you posted of the 1969 part number shoes having riveted linings. I have a set of the first superseded number and they also have riveted linings. Could the 1969 442 original shoes possibly have bonded linings and hence the different part number?

joe_padavano

Good question, but unfortunately I can't find a photo of original 5470826 shoes.

69Oldsman

My 69 has regular brake shoes on the back. Nothing fancy.