According to MotorTrend 1994 GT Curb Weight = 3258lbs,. I think they are off by 200lbs's but who am I to argue.
1994 Ford Mustang GT - Mustang Specifications - Motor Trend Magazine


And I want to make something clear before things get bent out of shape. I said my 93 GT (Full weight car,.. no weight modifications unless you count centerlines as a weight mod) was only 76lbs lighter then my 96 GT. My 96 GT had a QA1 tubular k-member. It still had stock a-arms at the time it was weighed. So the k-member was only worth 60lbs of weight savings,.. not the full 80lbs that coil overs and tubular a-arms would have given the car.

The typical SN95 car weighs in just shy of 3500 LBs. The 99 - 04 Cobra's picked up 150 lbs by the addition of the IRS plus the New Edge cars picked up 75lbs from their new sheetmetal and design. A 87 - 93 Fox GT had a curb weight of 3300lbs. A 87 - 93 5.0 Fox coupe was 3100 lbs. Those were the advertised weights by Ford and by Magazines I had read at the time.

So dont put me out on a limb and say Hurst says they are only 76lbs difference. My cars had a 76lb weight difference. But neither of my car were stock.

Hurst

 

Damn Hurst....dont put you on a limb....you typed it

 

Yeah but you know what I meant. Your spinning it like I meant all SN95 cars and thats not true. Bitemark has his Cobra down to 3000lbs. That doesnt mean all SN95 cars are 3000lbs. I said what my cars weighed,.. I was comparing what I had experience with at the track and how the brakes compared to each other.

The 94 - 98 cars are not that much heavier then the 87 - 93 cars. I'm talking about GT vs GT,.. not GT vs LX coupe. I had to make that clear or you'll twist that too,.. Oh but Hurst said!! Your worse then my kids. Sheesh.

Hurst

 

when you post something stand behind it....It didnt twist shit, I QUOTED WHAT YOU SAID!!! and you say well I meant......... point proven

 

Whether deliberately or not you've been exaggerating, manipulating and contorting what I have said all through this post. Maybe I'm not understand your context,.. but thats how it has come across to me.

Hurst

 

I guess its hard to express things on here the right way. I guess we'll call a truess here you keep drums and I'll run disc. Go to the track (not that curvey track either), to an event and look around a little bit. I can guarantee to you wont find enough drum brakes to count fingers on one hand. That is real world results for me. These are not street cars that do it for bling.
Go back to the beginning and read from the start, maybe you can understand were I'm coming from....Maybe

 

I agree,.. the vast majority are running rear discs. They are also not running any form of stock brakes on the front either. And thats been part of what I have been trying to get across.

Hurst

 

I have to laugh at this......why are they running rear disc if they have good front brakes? That is my point, front brakes alone (aftermarket or not), are not sufficient at those speeds. Unless I misunderstood again, you said drums are sufficient as long as your running better front brakes? Correct me if I'm wrong

 

Rear drums are sufficient to a degree. I would imagine at 160+ mph they would heat up very quickly but the loss would only be marginal as the control is maintained by the front wheels and the majority of stopping is done by the front wheels. Anything over 150+ is supposed to have a chute anyway,.. so that argument is pretty pointless and moot. You can theoretically stop just fine from 100 mph with nothing but front brakes. I dont condone or recommend it. But it is possible.

The entire point I'm trying to make is that rear disc's alone still only account for 10 - 30% of the total stopping force. The harder you brake the more weight you put on the front of the car,.. thus the harder you brake the less force the rear has to effectively stop the car. So if your stopping with say 70% of your brake,.. your rear wheels have up to 30% stopping force and 70% by the front. If you nail the brakes as hard as you can with out locking up the wheels,.. its roughly a 90/10 split. Thats how I have understood the tech articles I have read about braking.

My argument to you is that simply adding rear discs to stock front discs has little advantage other then braking endurance by the resistance to brake fade. It offer no more stopping power then the original braking system.

Now if you go and upgrade the front to 13" vented rotors and a nice caliper package similar to what I am doing,.. and then add a larger disc rotor in the rear to replace the drums,.. you have effectively increased the braking performance. My front brakes with rear discs would be better,.. no argument. But the 90/10 law still applies. My car should stop just fine from 130 - 150 with the brakes I will be using. If my car starts trapping 160 - 170+ I will have a chute and will upgrade the rear brakes to discs just for peace of mind.

There,.. you happy now?

Hurst

 

I aint gonna be able sleep right