Wheel Fitment Question
Bondsman
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,023
Likes: 0
Team Geritol Racing
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 5,759
Likes: 0
Screw all that. The real reason for brake upgrades on a Fox are so you can run some sexeh rims. Harold can't stop now because I bought his brakes so I can roll on bling some day. 
Now, the important thing is what's all this about flipped MK VII rotors. Somebody draw me a picture.
Now, the important thing is what's all this about flipped MK VII rotors. Somebody draw me a picture.
__________________
YO! Barry! You LOST!
YO! Barry! You LOST!
h9
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,888
Likes: 0
Maybe I can help you guys compare on your own.
Take a 94 - 98 Mustang GT. Find a stretch of highway thats safe. Take it up to 120mph and stand on the brake until you slow down to 45 or so. And I mean stand on them like a freight train was crossing the road and your life depended on it. Then immediately take it back up to 120mph and stand on the brakes a second time and take it down to 45 or so. On the second hit you should experience some pretty bad brake fade. If you try it a 3rd time,.. you'll find yourself with half the pedal you had when they were cold and it may fall to the floor completely so be warned.
Now,.. do the same with a 87 - 93 5.0 car. To make this comparison fare,.. the 5.0 car must have good rotors with less then 80k miles on them. Not one with 200k on paper thin rotors with a half failing brake system with swollen soft lines and leaking calipers etc etc. Do it with an open mind and dont set up the Fox for failure from the start.
The 87 - 93 should make it the 2nd time with minimal brake fade. On the 3rd it will experience some moderate brake fade,.. about as much as the SN95 would on the second stab.
That same kind of braking is whats done at Sebring on the back straight into turn 17,... then up the front into turn 1 and then into turn 3. Very fast track that can be brutal on brakes.
Hurst
Take a 94 - 98 Mustang GT. Find a stretch of highway thats safe. Take it up to 120mph and stand on the brake until you slow down to 45 or so. And I mean stand on them like a freight train was crossing the road and your life depended on it. Then immediately take it back up to 120mph and stand on the brakes a second time and take it down to 45 or so. On the second hit you should experience some pretty bad brake fade. If you try it a 3rd time,.. you'll find yourself with half the pedal you had when they were cold and it may fall to the floor completely so be warned.
Now,.. do the same with a 87 - 93 5.0 car. To make this comparison fare,.. the 5.0 car must have good rotors with less then 80k miles on them. Not one with 200k on paper thin rotors with a half failing brake system with swollen soft lines and leaking calipers etc etc. Do it with an open mind and dont set up the Fox for failure from the start.
The 87 - 93 should make it the 2nd time with minimal brake fade. On the 3rd it will experience some moderate brake fade,.. about as much as the SN95 would on the second stab.
That same kind of braking is whats done at Sebring on the back straight into turn 17,... then up the front into turn 1 and then into turn 3. Very fast track that can be brutal on brakes.
Hurst
Team Geritol Racing
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 5,759
Likes: 0
Up the ante...I want to see the test done side by side on runway 36 at St. Pete International.
Now...flipped MK VII calipers? I need something to go with my flipped MK VIII fan.
Now...flipped MK VII calipers? I need something to go with my flipped MK VIII fan.
__________________
YO! Barry! You LOST!
YO! Barry! You LOST!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,486
Likes: 0
So you think no matter what size my front brakes are that I still need rear discs to stop the car? I so wish I still had my 96 and my 93 running right now to show you how wrong you are.
i will tell you what,instead of going back and fourth about whats better.lets do a test.your drum brake fox vs my coupe 4 wheel disc.full weight coupe.and we can do those back to back brake test and c how loses out first.and we can c who stops with out locking up the rear.what you think?
Full weight coupe? Yeah,.. a 3100lb car vs a 3400lb GT hatch? To make it a far test,.. both cars need to be a fox coupe or hatch. One with 94 - 98 SN95 brakes and the other with stock brakes.
I'd love to take you up on the offer,.. I'd even put cash up on the line. How ever my car has no engine. I have no other Mustangs anymore. All gone. Just the 93 left and I lost my job in the middle of setting it up for a turbo 351. I dont graduate till 2012,.. so unless we can find 2 similar cars that meet a fare criteria.. there is nothing we can do except sit here and argue over bench braking,.. LoL
A real test,.. and if we can get 2 cars together and do some legitimate testing,. I would put money on the table that says a fox Mustang with 94 - 98 SN95 4 wheel dics brakes will experience brake fade stopping repeatedly from 120 mph before a fox with stock disc/drum brakes will. Thats a mans test right there,.. and if we can hold off till after the holidays,.. I will put up and match any (reasonable) cash amount. Both cars have shit for brakes. The real argument is,.. which one is shittier?
Hurst
__________________
Originally Posted by Tiffiny
"We all heart the Hurst"
Last edited by Hurstmeister; Nov 12, 2009 at 05:41 PM.
I can fix your bullshit
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 0
A real test,.. and if we can get 2 cars together and do some legitimate testing,. I would put money on the table that says a fox Mustang with 94 - 98 SN95 4 wheel dics brakes will experience brake fade stopping repeatedly from 120 mph before a fox with stock disc/drum brakes will. Thats a mans test right there,.. and if we can hold off till after the holidays,.. I will put up and match any (reasonable) cash amount. Both cars have shit for brakes. The real argument is,.. which one is shittier?
Hurst[/quote]
my supercharged fox back in the day on the third of fourth back to back hammering umm had no pedal fuck fade lol....
I have sn 95 brakes kinda on my vert now and im sorry to say i believe they work way better....hands down
and an added bonus ever break an axle with drum brake s opps
rear disk is like a cheezy c/clip eliminator lol
just my 2cents
Hurst[/quote]
my supercharged fox back in the day on the third of fourth back to back hammering umm had no pedal fuck fade lol....
I have sn 95 brakes kinda on my vert now and im sorry to say i believe they work way better....hands down
and an added bonus ever break an axle with drum brake s opps
rear disk is like a cheezy c/clip eliminator lol
just my 2cents
__________________
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,486
Likes: 0
A real test,.. and if we can get 2 cars together and do some legitimate testing,. I would put money on the table that says a fox Mustang with 94 - 98 SN95 4 wheel dics brakes will experience brake fade stopping repeatedly from 120 mph before a fox with stock disc/drum brakes will. Thats a mans test right there,.. and if we can hold off till after the holidays,.. I will put up and match any (reasonable) cash amount. Both cars have shit for brakes. The real argument is,.. which one is shittier?
Hurst
Hurst
I have sn 95 brakes kinda on my vert now and im sorry to say i believe they work way better....hands down
and an added bonus ever break an axle with drum brake s opps
rear disk is like a cheezy c/clip eliminator lol
just my 2cents[/quote]
They are both shitty brakes.
My argument is which ones will experience brake fade stopping from 120 repeatedly first? The car with SN95 brakes or the car with stock fox brakes?
As you guys know my wife is an avid road course nut. She only tolerates my drag racing because she likes v8 muscle cars. But I had the chance to experience my 96 GT on Sebring, I drove her 96 Cobra on Sebring,.. and I drove her 87 GT with AOD on Sebring. And my experience with my 96 was terrible. The car bare made 3 laps. The instructor made me bring the car because it was unsafe. A year later we had her 87 GT on the roadcourse and it ran 10 lapse. Yes the brakes were shot afterward. Pads glazed over, rotors had heat cracks in them,.. they were done. But,.. it finished the heat where my 96 could not. You guys will never hear me say that Fox brakes are good or great brakes. They are adequate for normal daily driving and not much more. But the SN95 brake are no better. And worse on the front in my opinion because of the tiny brake pads they use. Drive a 99 - 04 GT and romp on the brakes at speed,. then go back to the 94 - 98 and repeat it. The 94 - 98 brakes suck. The simple addition of rear discs does not make them outstanding brakes like they are making them out to be. I just can not agree with that. Maybe in a lighter coupe they work better. I dont have that experience. But I know how they are stock vs stock and other then the Cobra,.. the GT brakes sucked... PERIOD.
Oh and +1 for the caliper holding the rear axle in if it breaks. No argument from me for that usage.
Hurst
__________________
Originally Posted by Tiffiny
"We all heart the Hurst"
Last edited by Hurstmeister; Nov 12, 2009 at 06:17 PM.
The OP was asking about putting sn95 disc on a fox and you said it wasnt worth it.....Its alright mang 
h9
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,888
Likes: 0
i forgot to add,i have 2001 brakes up front.not the 94-98 cast iron calipers.the reason you don"t get as much brake fad because those dam drums don"t do any dam work to heat up enough to cause brake fad.to bad your car was up and running.i would just like to try it for the hell of it.i still my try.where is a big enough straight away?LOLmy car still stock engine,it needs room to build up speed lol!
