Hagerty.com

Why you should avoid flat-back diff covers


#1

Gale Banks is back with the next installment of his fascinating series on rear differential science. We’d highly recommend watching Part 2.1, as this is where Banks first introduces us to the brilliance that is the clear diff cover. This transparent lexan unit provides us a killer view of the chaotic churning fluids that live beneath your car.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/articles/2018/10/05/why-you-should-avoid-flat-back-diff-covers

#2

For years I have lived by the slogan “if it isn’t broken don’t fix it”. Stock rear ends have survived quite well over time with the diff covers the manufacturers supplied, even in severe duty applications. Just because some company says their product is new and improved does not make it so. However many a company has made a fortune using the words “new and improved” when in fact their product is no better than what it is meant to replace. The dual chamber master cylinder is new and improved for safety reasons but if a single master cylinder’s brake system remains intact with no leaks it gets the job done just as well as the single chamber master cylinder.


#3

Brilliant Tommy. A Model T will get me across the country just as well as a late model vehicle… I guess A/C, 4 wheel disc brakes, etc are overrated. While I agree that there is a lot of “new & improved” that is marketing hype, your statement is ridiculous at best…


#4

You wrote: “The dual chamber master cylinder is new and improved for safety reasons but if a single master cylinder’s brake system remains intact with no leaks it gets the job done just as well as the single chamber master cylinder.”
What you (hopefully) meant was: "…“The dual chamber master cylinder is new and improved for safety reasons but if a single master cylinder’s brake system remains intact with no leaks it gets the job done just as well as the DUAL-CHAMBER master cylinder.”
Yes, but not-quite as safely… :stuck_out_tongue:
Al Z.
Al Z.


#5

Al Z…I appreciate your correction of my mistake. You’re right I did mean “dual chamber” and confess to not proof reading my statement. However I disagree with your assertion that a dual chamber system is any safer than a single chamber system as long as a single chamber system is not compromised. I have an unrestored '56 Mercury survivor in excellent shape that has a single pot master cylinder and has safely stopped this car for 62 years. The emergency brake works well too. I agree the dual master cylinder is a safety thing and why it came about but people believe the dual brake system works better when in fact it does no better stopping the car than a single pot, as long as the system is not compromised. That was the point of my comment.