HOW TO: Install SRT Brembo Brakes on a non-SRT Durango

zwade · Jul 12, 2021

Hey guys, I noticed there isn't much in terms of how to videos on the Durango. This is a popular swap that is extremely easy to do so I wanted to make a video that was TO THE POINT. No extra chit chat or bs. These 5-6 minute videos show everything you need to do to install the SRT Brembo Front and Rear brakes on a non-srt Durango. This video assumes you know how to jack the car up and put it on stands and take the wheel off. Didn't want to waste time videoing that bs.

I also did a comparison of completely stock 2016 R/T brakes 60-0mph stopping stats vs the Brembo brakes with powerstop rotors/pads 60-0mph stopping stats. Be sure to look that up in the performance section of the forum.

I also went an extra step and listed all the parts needed to do this with part numbers! I didn't have the money for aftermarket wheels so I just used 1" spacers and kept the stock r/t wheels. I linked the spacers below. Enjoy:

Here are the parts needed to complete this swap:

Front Right Brembo Brake Caliper 68146610AA (REQUIRED) $332.79: https://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinfo....

Front Left Brembo Brake Caliper 68146611AA (REQUIRED) $368.79: https://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinfo....

Powerstop Z26 Front Rotor and Pad Combo Kit (comes with everything you need, clips, pins, etc. You can get a lower end kit, I went with this high end performance kit) (REQUIRED) $285.79: https://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinfo....

Rear Left SRT Brembo Caliper 68146613AA (REQUIRED): More Information for MOPAR 68146613AA

Rear Right SRT Brembo Caliper 68146612AA (REQUIRED): More Information for MOPAR 68146612AA

Powerstop Z26 Rear Rotor and Pad Combo (comes with everything you need, clips, pins, etc. You can get a lower end kit, I went with this high end performance kit) (REQUIRED): More Information for POWER STOP K595626

Titan 1" Hubcenteric Wheel Spacers (REQUIRED) $105.90 for F&R: https://amzn.to/3r4W3MH

Brake Fluid DOT 4 or DOT 3 $8.50: https://amzn.to/2TZaLZw

Brake Cleaner (REQUIRED) $9.81: https://amzn.to/3hXwo4f

RTspddmn · Jul 14, 2021

Great Video, I'm looking to do the rears too, do you by chance have the part number for the rear calipers? Thx.

zwade · Jul 16, 2021

RTspddmn said:
Great Video, I'm looking to do the rears too, do you by chance have the part number for the rear calipers? Thx.

just go to rock auto and enter your vehicle as a jeep srt or durango srt and they will come up under the caliper section

raykseto · Jul 21, 2021

Nice video, Did you have an issue with starting the threads from the flare nut into the brake line?

I had an issue when installing mine. (at all 4 corners

) ended up using a deburring tool to open up the SS line a bit and a thread file to take down the first thread on the flare nut.

I locked the brake line into the bracket with the spring clip and then I was able to get it started after that by using channel locks to press the flare nut while turning it with a 12mm wrench.

NOTE: Based on my personal experience, get the big bottle of brake fluid. You don't want to run out during this job!!

zwade · Jul 26, 2021

raykseto said:
Nice video, Did you have an issue with starting the threads from the flare nut into the brake line?

I had an issue when installing mine. (at all 4 corners ) ended up using a deburring tool to open up the SS line a bit and a thread file to take down the first thread on the flare nut.

I locked the brake line into the bracket with the spring clip and then I was able to get it started after that by using channel locks to press the flare nut while turning it with a 12mm wrench.

NOTE: Based on my personal experience, get the big bottle of brake fluid. You don't want to run out during this job!!

I had an issue installing stoptech ss lines and ended up just not installing them. The line into the caliper itself though I had no issue with

zwade · Aug 9, 2021

Okay everyone I just updated the top post with a video of how to do the rear srt brembo brakes. Basically the same process:

Abunchahicks · Aug 9, 2021

Did the rear Powerstop kit come with the correct caliper pins? The Z23 kit did not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

zwade · Aug 9, 2021

Abunchahicks said:
Did the rear Powerstop kit come with the correct caliper pins? The Z23 kit did not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it did, everything fit perfect

Brad zellner · Dec 5, 2022

I’ve been looking all over trying to find SRT brembos but no luck til now. Definitely following this post. Was thinking about new rotors and pads but the calipers are affordable. I figured I’d need to pay like $4k

Enthusiast · Dec 8, 2022

Great videos and instructions! Please provide the 60-0mph before and after stopping stats or a link to the results. Thanks!

Just for the fun of it:
It would be interesting to see how much braking power is required to stop the Durango 60-0 before and after the mods considering the weight and traction are equal between tests.

This will help calculate the reduced number of feet traveled and the difference in the amount of force required. The test is a great comparison where the weight will probably be very close and the traction the same (same road surface, tires, rims, and weather conditions). The anti-lock brake system will also help reduce the human error part once you stab the brakes. The tire compound and width may be even more important once the stopping force exceeds traction, which the stock brakes may already do, without knowing the test results. Another important performance metric not measured in the one or two 60-0 stopping distance tests is the durability, heat dissipation, and brake fade factors. In a perfect world, a lab test on a machine would be ideal but then there is reality that often stumps the best engineers

.

For example:
A stock Ferrari F2004 traveling at 60mph requires 3,057lbs of braking force to stop the 1,334lb vehicle in 53 feet. (764lbs force/tire, souped-up go cart)

A stock Durango SRT traveling at 60mph requires 6,019lbs of braking force to stop the 5,502lb vehicle in 110 feet (1,505lbs force/tire, the flying brick)

With unlimited traction (wrong) the SRT requires 12,614lbs of braking force to stop the 5,502lb vehicle in 53 feet (3,154lbs force/tire, impossible dream fantasy)

A stock Durango RT traveling at 60mph requires 5,023lbs of braking force to stop the 5,176lb vehicle in 124 feet (1,256lbs force/tire, the bigger flying brick)

Brembo brakes should take off 14+ feet travel distance on the RT stopping distance, in theory, with the right traction. Interesting to find out the results. If less than 14 feet improvement, then the SRT benefit may be the tire traction difference on the SRT with wider tires. If there is no change in stopping distance between the stock and Brembo mods then all of the SRT improvement is tire traction alone.

It would be interesting to know the maximum braking force between the stock and Brembo brakes on a lab machine and if the difference is even a factor with the existing tires and traction.

Ferrari F2004 Calculation:
Mass: 605kg (1,334lbs)
Velocity: 26.8224m/s (60mph)
Stopping Distance: 16m (53ft)
Braking Force: 13,601N (3,057lbs)

Formula:
F=(.5∗M∗V²)/D

Calculator:
Braking Force Calculator - Calculator Academy

cambo · Dec 8, 2022

The wider tires must have an impact as well. Skinny tires will activate the ABS quicker, I had some jack ass pull off the left hand shoulder on a major highway from a dead stop into my lane. He started rolling I looked in my rearview saw a large gap behind me figuring he was picking up some speed to merge in, no concern that I was rolling along at 75 as he entered at about 5mph I slammed the brakes and wow the R/T tow n go stopped hard gave me enough time to swing into the middle lane and narrowly miss rear ending them. Watch out for the Gold colored range rover with 5% tint on the front windows and tinted windshield...

Enthusiast · Dec 8, 2022

Good performing brakes combined with defensive driving is very important. When visiting south Florida many years ago on I-95, an unsafe 80+ driver entered the on-ramp going 40mph and cut across all three lanes of traffic into the far left high speed lane, still traveling at 40mph. I was in the far left lane also doing 75mph. It was like . . . I'm coming over, I'm coming over, I'm coming over, in slow motion. "Almost" 10 accidents in heavy traffic to avoid the very calm offender who may not have even realized they did anything wrong, especially if they do not use the rear or side view mirrors. We got lucky with no accidents.

Does the RT tow-n-go have upgraded brakes?

PatentlyPhil · Feb 10, 2023

Enthusiast said:
For example:
A stock Ferrari F2004 traveling at 60mph requires 3,057lbs of braking force to stop the 1,334lb vehicle in 53 feet. (764lbs force/tire, souped-up go cart)

A stock Durango SRT traveling at 60mph requires 6,019lbs of braking force to stop the 5,502lb vehicle in 110 feet (1,505lbs force/tire, the flying brick)

With unlimited traction (wrong) the SRT requires 12,614lbs of braking force to stop the 5,502lb vehicle in 53 feet (3,154lbs force/tire, impossible dream fantasy)

A stock Durango RT traveling at 60mph requires 5,023lbs of braking force to stop the 5,176lb vehicle in 124 feet (1,256lbs force/tire, the bigger flying brick)

Brembo brakes should take off 14+ feet travel distance on the RT stopping distance, in theory, with the right traction. Interesting to find out the results. If less than 14 feet improvement, then the SRT benefit may be the tire traction difference on the SRT with wider tires. If there is no change in stopping distance between the stock and Brembo mods then all of the SRT improvement is tire traction alone.

It would be interesting to know the maximum braking force between the stock and Brembo brakes on a lab machine and if the difference is even a factor with the existing tires and traction.

Curious about your assumptions here, because this is fundamentally flawed and doesn't seem to meet even the low bar of SWAG criteria.

srt_blubyu · Feb 10, 2023

not sure about that..

cambo said:
The wider tires must have an impact as well. Skinny tires will activate the ABS quicker, I had some jack ass pull off the left hand shoulder on a major highway from a dead stop into my lane. He started rolling I looked in my rearview saw a large gap behind me figuring he was picking up some speed to merge in, no concern that I was rolling along at 75 as he entered at about 5mph I slammed the brakes and wow the R/T tow n go stopped hard gave me enough time to swing into the middle lane and narrowly miss rear ending them. Watch out for the Gold colored range rover with 5% tint on the front windows and tinted windshield...

not sure about that.. the weight of the Durango is what it is.. no matter the tire width. If the durango is 50/50 F/R and L/R you can divide the weight of the Durango by 4 and thats the weight on each tie.. then divide that corner number by the inflation on your tire (36psi) and youll have how many inches of tire patch contact the ground.. it seems Width just changes orientation of contact patch.. or maybe more accurately the LxW ratio.

PatentlyPhil · Feb 10, 2023

srt_blubyu said:
not sure about that.. the weight of the Durango is what it is.. no matter the tire width. If the durango is 50/50 F/R and L/R you can divide the weight of the Durango by 4 and thats the weight on each tie.. then divide that corner number by the inflation on your tire (36psi) and youll have how many inches of tire patch contact the ground.. it seems Width just changes orientation of contact patch.. or maybe more accurately the LxW ratio.

Wider tires do offer a marginal benefit up to a certain point, but you are right that it's not nearly to the degree many people think. What typically happens is that people go from stock tires to a higher performance, and wider, tire and then misattribute the difference in performance primarily to the width. You see this on forums all the time with "XYZ stock tire sucks" threads. Attached is from Goodyear, who supported testing of just this question. They ran a series of controlled track tests with the same tire in different sizes. And while the 255 DID outperform the 225 almost across the board (225 had better braking in the wet), the difference was largely in the noise in terms of seat-of-pants feel (less than 1%). Things like wheel width will affect the performance of a tire. Likewise, different offsets have different effects on dynamic handling. But in general, the impact on performance is largely attributable to compound/tread pattern over tire width.

Enthusiast · Feb 11, 2023

PatentlyPhil said:
Curious about your assumptions here, because this is fundamentally flawed and doesn't seem to meet even the low bar of SWAG criteria.

Thank you for your opinion. I used math to support my argument. All assumptions were clearly expressed and my calculation methodology referenced. If my math was in error or other variables not considered, I would acknowledge the error and learn. I use this forum to learn and I enjoy the interaction. I cannot learn from you and I do not enjoy your interaction. Sorry, your judgement has no supporting argument. I am not curious why.

PatentlyPhil · Feb 12, 2023

Enthusiast said:
Thank you for your opinion. I used math to support my argument. All assumptions were clearly expressed and my calculation methodology referenced. If my math was in error or other variables not considered, I would acknowledge the error and learn. I use this forum to learn and I enjoy the interaction. I cannot learn from you and I do not enjoy your interaction. Sorry, your judgement has no supporting argument. I am not curious why.

That seems to be a bit of an aggressive reply. I was asking BEFORE pointing out/correcting your errors intentionally, in the event you had a purpose for the assumptions you made.
For example - you are using the published weight of a RWD R/T with braking performance numbers taken from Motor Trends testing of an AWD R/T. Likewise the SRT numbers you are using don’t match Stellantis published numbers. Was there a reason you used this data in your examples?

Sorry if you felt offended by my reply, and that alone has determined you “can’t learn” from me. If you change your mind, I’m happy to help you learn.

Enthusiast · Feb 13, 2023

PatentlyPhil,

No apologies necessary. I am not offended. Using your words, your information is "fundamentally flawed and doesn't seem to meet even the low bar of SWAG criteria". That is without "pointing out/correcting your errors". If I stop there, as you did, then maybe you can understand my intolerance and response. No apologies, and definitely not aggressive. I hope you were not offended. In my opinion, this is a bad way to start a dialog brother. It may easily lead to miscommunication. However, claiming that you reserved your supporting argument until a clear purpose was made is really disingenuous.

I will try to make the purpose of my argument clearer. The semantics of different data sources, e.g. Motor Trends Vs. Stellantis and RWD vs AWD, is not the point. The same goes with marginal tire size surface area increase = marginal traction increase. This is obvious but I appreciate the fact many people do not realize this. However, if you prefer to use the Stellantis data, no problem. I will use data from your preferred source reference Stellantis. According to Stellantis data below, the difference in curb weight between the RWD 5.7 RT and the AWD 6.4L SRT 392 is only 202 lbs. If you compare the difference between the Citadel 5.7 and SRT, it is only 163 lbs. (3% curb weight difference). If you already looked at the data, you already know this and did not mention that there was no negligible difference in curb weight between the two vehicles using the Stellantis data. Again, disingenuous and diverting from the whole point or purpose of the argument.

Regardless of your intentions, I did learn something with your interaction. Sometimes it is not what you say but how you say it and to what audience. We all learn differently. Again, I tried my best to communicate my thoughts without being offensive. A summary of the purpose is as follows:

Purpose:

Premise:
Upgraded break power over stock brake power does not improve vehicle stopping distance if the stock breaks are able to achieve and maintain the maximum force before loss of traction during braking.

Assumptions:
1) Vehicle weight, tire size, traction, environmental, and human conditions are relatively equal. Comparison of different vehicle models must consider those differences. A mathematical model or calculation is less objective for comparison.

2) If vehicle weight is relatively the same, and traction capability is increased, even marginally, "where it may exceed the stock breaking power", then improved braking force will improve braking distance.

Conclusion:
Related to the purpose the forum discussion on how to upgrade your breaks, it is a great resource and well done. Other than using mathematics to objectively calculate braking distance using mass velocity, stopping distance and braking force for comparison, upgrading the brakes may not be a bad idea even if traction is not increased to realize the benefit. Brake fade and durability are very important factors that may be improved by upgrading your brakes, especially in a high-performance environment or driving conditions that exceed stock brake capability.

Enthusiast · Feb 13, 2023

PatentlyPhil said:
That seems to be a bit of an aggressive reply. I was asking BEFORE pointing out/correcting your errors intentionally, in the event you had a purpose for the assumptions you made.
For example - you are using the published weight of a RWD R/T with braking performance numbers taken from Motor Trends testing of an AWD R/T. Likewise the SRT numbers you are using don’t match Stellantis published numbers. Was there a reason you used this data in your examples?

Sorry if you felt offended by my reply, and that alone has determined you “can’t learn” from me. If you change your mind, I’m happy to help you learn.

FYI - If you want to compare AWD vs. AWD, there is only 8lbs. difference between the Citadel 5.7L AWD & the 6.4L AWD SRT 392 Durango, according to Stellantis. Even if I had a typo for either vehicle weight or because of different data sources, the results would have been nearly the same. Any stopping distance improvement would not be because of the upgraded brakes, if both vehicles were able to maintain maximum braking power before loss of traction during braking. Again, upgrading the brakes may not be a bad idea considering brake fade and durability improvement under performance conditions. If the stock brakes were actually underpowered and not capable of maximum braking power before loss of traction, then this would be a different story and the upgrade brakes would provide immediate braking distance improvement. The "Just for the fun of it" comparison was just an example how the math works regardless of the data. You can plug in your own vehicle numbers based on whatever source you desire including a weigh station.
Cheers.

PatentlyPhil · Feb 13, 2023

Enthusiast said:
PatentlyPhil,

No apologies necessary. I am not offended. Using your words, your information is "fundamentally flawed and doesn't seem to meet even the low bar of SWAG criteria". That is without "pointing out/correcting your errors". If I stop there, as you did, then maybe you can understand my intolerance and response. No apologies, and definitely not aggressive. I hope you were not offended. In my opinion, this is a bad way to start a dialog brother. It may easily lead to miscommunication. However, claiming that you reserved your supporting argument until a clear purpose was made is really disingenuous.

I can understand where you are coming from, and I can see why you had the reaction you had. But I also I think you're misinterpreting what I said - I'm not asking for the purpose of your looking at this from a theoretical perspective, I'm speaking solely to the purpose of relying on mixed source data to support the theoretical discussion. I may not have been as clear as I had imagined I was being, though I am happy to "start over" with my comments/supporting arguments to bring us back on topic.

The issue I poorly communicated that I had with your post was that you were comparing an SRT to an R/T based on erroneous data. I disagree with how you arrived at your 14+ foot reduction theory, the use of the work model as the basis for comparison in the first place, and the assumption of validity you credit the results of your comparison with. Here are my notes:

First, let me say that we are in 100% agreement on the fact that tires dominate single-stop braking performance, provided you are capable of locking up the tires (or engaging ABS) with whatever brakes you have.

The data you used in your models is erroneous, and I see that you acknowledge that.
- I think you would agree that it's disingenuous to arbitrarily mix/match data when discussing mathematical models.
The work model is vastly oversimplified and eliminates nearly all critical variables
- Again, I think you'd agree. The constraints of the model severely limit it's ability to support all but the most basic of conclusions.
If we want to assume that MT and Stellantis followed identical test protocols with all variables between them being identical (which we should not, and is a massively inappropriate assumption):
- Stellantis published a 115' stopping distance for the SRT at a 5,378lb curb weight. Brake force = 5627.98lbf @ 60mph
- Motor Trend published a 124' stopping distance for their R/T at a 5,426lb curb weight. Brake force = 5266.08lbf @ 60mph
  - Using the same basis of comparison as you used initially, there is only a 9' potential improvement, not 14'+, by installing Brembo's on an R/T.
- If you ignore the junk data leading to this comparison, you COULD argue that the SRT "braking system" is capable of generating ~362lbf more brake force than the R/T. That is, as I said, a meaningless comparison because of the paradigm of "junk in, junk out"
- To reach the conclusion about stopping distances you wanted to make, you overlooked a CRITICAL fact...
The "brake system" as a whole MUST be capable of generating the calculated force needed to stop the vehicle in some distance.
- "Brake system" in this model includes everything related to stopping the vehicle; tires, suspension, brake hardware, and any braking or drivetrain software that manages grip on decel.
If you want to use the work model to try and estimate the braking performance of an R/T with SRT brakes, the only way this model will let you do that is by swapping the entire "braking system" from one vehicle to the other.
- That means the "braking system" you install on your R/T is now capable of generating the 5627.98lbf that the SRT is capable of.
- Using Stellantis published data only, and factoring in the above, you have an AWD R/T with the SRT "braking system" stopping from 60mph in 113.61'.
- This result confirms the problem with using the work model in the first place - the only variable here is curb weight.
- Therefore the only conclusion you can draw from this model is that, all-else being equal, a lighter lighter vehicle requires less distance to stop.

Conclusion:
The work model at this level doesn't provide a useful basis for mathematical comparison of the braking systems on an SRT vs. an R/T given the data we have to work with. The only valid conclusion this model can produce is, as I mentioned, a lighter vehicle stops in less distance - all else being equal. No further conclusions can, or should, be drawn from this approach to determining brake performance. That includes objectively qualifying a performance difference between two different vehicles, or a change for a hybrid of different vehicles; you really don't even have the factual basis to say that this model suggests that an SRT stops in less distance than an R/T.

Remarks:
If Stellantis has, somewhere, published 60-0 stopping distances for an R/T (and, again we assumed that all tests were performed according to the same standards and under the same conditions) then we could use this model to determine the relative performance between each vehicles respective "brake system". Still not very useful, but at least it's something a little bit closer to apples:apples than what we have now.

Odds are good that most people considering the swap have made up their mind, and this level of detail is largely irrelevant to their decision.

That said, the approach I would have taken would have been analyzing the threshold force criteria for locking up a rolling mass, and then analyzing the brake assembly to determine whether or not the brakes are capable of generating that amount of force and with how much margin. If the R/T brakes can lock up an SRT's rotating mass with reasonable pedal input and room to spare, then no further discussion is really needed - Brembo's won't decrease stopping distance to any significant degree.

I do think we are getting off-track here, however, so I'd like to leave this at rest now. I would be happy to continue over PM about this type of thing if you're interested @Enthusiast.

HOW TO: Install SRT Brembo Brakes on a non-SRT Durango

zwade

RTspddmn

zwade

raykseto

zwade

zwade

Abunchahicks

zwade

Brad zellner

Enthusiast

cambo

Enthusiast

PatentlyPhil

srt_blubyu

PatentlyPhil

Attachments

Enthusiast

PatentlyPhil

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

PatentlyPhil

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities