If you where in germany they would make fun of your drum brakes

das drum brake das must be antique...

stole that quote from someone just had too....

 

All bets are off with 2001 GT brakes compared to stock Fox. 2001 is basically Cobra brakes with a smaller rotor. Some vented rotors and they will take 100mph drops all day long.

And Tommy,.. if someone on a budget has $150 and a choice to spend it on an SN95 rear or to use ranger axles and drums. My vote will be ranger axles and drums all day long. I never said rear discs arent worth it. Who am I to judge what something is worth? You need some nappy time,.. wake up then go back and read what I said. I said I ,.. as in ME ME ME,. dont need rear discs. I dont think anyone who doesnt upgrade their whole brake system,.. (and 94 - 98 GT front brakes is not an upgrade in my opinion). I'm talking unless your willing to do it right with a real upgrade like PBR or Brembo there is no point in putting rear discs on the back. Adding an SN95 rear axle and 94 - 98 spindles up front offers no better braking performance then the stock fox parts it replaced. The ONLY way it would be better is if they added the ABS with it. Then I would say,.. hell yeah,.. thats a worthy upgrade because we all know how Mustangs love rain storms and wet roads.

Peace out dawg,..

Hurst

 

They would anywhere in Europe.
But they will here in Florida too!!

Look at the grief I've created by suggesting that drum brakes are just fine for my intended usage!! OMG,.. the sacrilege!! Hurst is going to crash into the sand traps if he doesnt use disc brakes!!!

I've tried to explain to Tommy. My father inlaws 1949 all steel Chevy Business coupe with a race weight of 4100 lbs with me in the car ran 9.80's with 140mph trap speeds. He used a Pinto style suspension kit up front with rack an pinion steering. The front brakes were from a 1985 Caprice with 11" rotors. The rear was a 12 bolt out of a 70 Nova and the drums were left intact. I didnt experience the rear brakes locking up or have any problems stopping from 140 MPH. So I see no reason why my car weighing almost 1000lbs less with much better front brakes wont be able to stop just as easily. Someone explain to me with technical details,.. not pointing out what the aftermarket companies are doing,.. or what other people are doing,.. I want to know the technical reasons why my brake setup with Cobra brakes on the front wont work or be safe????

Hurst

 

I guess I misread this paragraph, of you dont need disc brakes, a budget wasnt never brought up. And for $150 Harold sells the conversion for disc. All Im saying is if you think disc on rear are for looks, you need read try disc on a fox in the rear, because as stated, they are better hand down better braking.

 

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

For the sake of argument,.. we'll use a 1990 Fox 5.0 coupe as a reference.
Let say we keep it 4 lug and keep the stock front brakes.

Your telling me that by simply bolting on a rear disc brake kit, the car is going to stop from 140mph faster then it would with drums on the rear? Am I correct in this assumption?

Explain your logic to me. Point out a technical article that back up your logic. I can point out article after article that shows it does not matter. That 90% of the braking force is done by the front wheels. Improving/upgrading only the front brakes would yield better results than the simple addition of discs to the rear.

I'm not saying that converting to disc brakes on the rear does not have its merits or advantages. It does. But not in the way that you are explaining it to me. I am not going to crash into the sand traps by not having discs on the rear. Why would I go through the trouble of doing a full cage setup and and all of the other safety precautions and not have brakes on the car capable of stopping it from speed? That makes no sense.

I am not advocating that people should not convert their brakes to disc. I am merely stating that unless you upgrade your front to something larger or better, then the simple addition of rear discs is pointless.

Swapping to stock 94 - 98 brakes is not much of an upgrade vs stock Fox brakes in my opinion. The only logical reason to do so would be for an easy and affordable 5 lug conversion.


Hurst

 

That is what it is. Just dont cheap out on a harness so I can give ya hand getting out at the sand trap

 

I can tell you this as a fact....Big Chris' car was a hanful to stop doing 120 in the 1/8 at Lakeland, thats not speculation or opinion that is real world results with Fox brakes. Granite Lakeland dont have a long shut down area, but I damn sure wouldnt wanna go 140+....wouldnt be good

 

I wont be on stock fox brakes. I will have 1996 Cobra spindles up front with 13" vented rotors and dual piston (Cobra) PBR calipers up front. The rear brakes will be stock using ranger drums. She will stop from 140+ just fine. I have used the same brakes stopping the Cobra from 160 and it handled it just fine. Stopping my 93 from 140+ will be cake for these brakes. I never said I was using stock brakes up front. That would be suicidal.

The same brakes handled lap after lap with about 45 minutes of constant 120+ mph braking. Like I said,.. my 96 GT gave out after 3 laps of that crap. The Cobra with vented rotors and DOT5 could run like that all day long.


Hurst

 

I would amagine the fox is lighter than a sn95 .so it should stop better with any upgrade

 

Hurst says 76lbs difference...I thought the sn's were considerably heavier than a Fox. With a 10pt cage and a 351, I will be adding at least 2-300lbs to make 3150