Avanti Brake Rotors and .330" thickness

[jallen]

Workshop Manual states Minimum .330". Some say not necessary. I want to hear from people who went under the
.330 minimum and what their experiences were. Or if .330 is a minimum thickness that should not be ignored. Thanks

[DEEPNHOCK]

1) Caliper piston extension past it's designed operating range.
2) Heat buildup and warping of the rotor due to loss of mass.
Also....

The minimum thickness is usually set by the government as a maximum allowable wear indicator based on the thickness of a 'new' rotor.
They get their info from the manufacturer.
Where it would affect you is if you were in an accident.
Your rotors could be measured to see if they could have been a contributing factor in the accident.
And that information could be used against you in a lawsuit.
Heck, this information could be used against you in a lawsuit.
I would advise against going thinner than that.

Workshop Manual states Minimum .330". Some say not necessary. I want to hear from people who went under the
.330 minimum and what their experiences were. Or if .330 is a minimum thickness that should not be ignored. Thanks

[N8N]

If nothing else, if the rotors are thinner than that you won't pass a state safety inspection, so if your state has same there's no point in even trying.

nate

[jackb]

I don't know about a saftey inspection...believe me , the way my Parking brake "doesn't" work in my disc brake 63' Cruiser, the thickness would never be questioned.....I pass inspection every year without that (has anyone got a disc brake car with a working P-brake ??). As far as accident and liability...how about being in a 50 yo car to start with....? FWIW - my pass side rotor is "just" under the .330 limit. I had a below limit rear drum in a Champ truck too. I admit it here and now: I drive like a 50 year old car without mods should be driven. A vehicle who's lost some frame thickness, electrical & mechanical effectiveness, 1953 suspension, crank windows (noisy too), ....you get the picture. Not that the 289 doesn't move that thin-tinned Lark around quite well...its only when I have open road to clear her throat and the back road to stand her up and light up some pavement. These, I regularly perform to check her innards & unders...just to make sure the elastics on the panties are tight ...!

[Laemmle]

Very funny love it!

I don't know about a saftey inspection...believe me , the way my Parking brake "doesn't" work in my disc brake 63' Cruiser, the thickness would never be questioned.....I pass inspection every year without that (has anyone got a disc brake car with a working P-brake ??). As far as accident and liability...how about being in a 50 yo car to start with....? FWIW - my pass side rotor is "just" under the .330 limit. I had a below limit rear drum in a Champ truck too. I admit it here and now: I drive like a 50 year old car without mods should be driven. A vehicle who's lost some frame thickness, electrical & mechanical effectiveness, 1953 suspension, crank windows (noisy too), ....you get the picture. Not that the 289 doesn't move that thin-tinned Lark around quite well...its only when I have open road to clear her throat and the back road to stand her up and light up some pavement. These, I regularly perform to check her innards & unders...just to make sure the elastics on the panties are tight ...!