Hey guys, well im back in a fox, I didn't think I ever would be after I got my wheels stolen from me and I parted out my old coupe. Well, now I'm in a 91 GT (soon to get rid of the ugly GT kit and get some nice LX panels instead) and plan on doing an SN95 five lug conversion all the way around, I already have the rear end, the problem I'm having is figuring out the right backspacing I'm going to need to have the rear wheels fit under the car and not look hillbilly/mexican/retarded with the tires sitting beyond the body. I'm planning on running a 275/60/15 MT ET Street on the rear with a 8in wide wheel. I know on a stock length rear with this combo and a 5.5 BS the wheel sits nicely inside the fenderwell, I also know that the SN95 rear end is 3/4in wider on both sides than a fox, I understand this is easily a math question but I'm looking for someone who has done it before and also some pictures. Thanks in advance!

-Miles.

 

Here is a fine example of the stance/fitment I'm looking for shown here on "EVIL1's" Twilight blue coupe
http://forums.corral.net/forums/show...1080738&page=2

 

Get midnightcoupe to send you some pics, I know he just got 15 X 8's and he has a latemodel disc rear under his coupe. I want to say you need a 6.5, he can tell you for sure what he has.

 

You can get the stance. Thats easily done with setting up the suspensionand has nothing to do with the BS of the wheels.

He's got 275/60 tires stuffed back there which your not going to be able to do with SN95 axles on the back. His wheel choice is 15x8 with 5.5 BS. That right there says he is running stock fox width rear end. 275/60/15 tire is the same thing as a 28x12 ET STREET. You would need a 6.5 BS on a 8" wheel to fit that. With SN95 axle width a 275/50 tire like what FrankTF is running will fit better with out major issues. You may need to massage your fender lip a little bit. Figure with an SN95 axles width,.. add an inch of BS to what would 'normally' be used. 15x8 with 5.5 BS becomes 15x8 with 6.5 BS. 15x10 with 6.5 BS becomes 15x10 with 7.5 BS.

If you just wanted to go 5 lug it would be easier to just do the rangers axles and drums. Then you could use the regular sizes for your rear wheels.

You dont 'NEED' rear discs for better stopping. 90% of the stopping is done on the front wheels. Drums are more then capable of handling 10% of the stopping power. But,.. if you (have to have) discs, then swapping in a 94 - 98 SN95 axle is the fastest, easiest and probably the most affordable way to get 5 lug and discs all in one package.

Hurst

 

Use Ranger axles and modify the caliper brackets to work. Hurst...dont understand you say you dont need rear disk? FMS started making a kit a long time ago because even the realized Fox brakes need a lot of help. Then in 94 everyone had rear disk.

I modified rear bracket and run 10's with a 6.5 BS. I would roll the fenders for a street car

 

i used 5.5 on 15x8 backspace for my turbocoupe rear end. it sets wheels almost flush with the fenders with tires.

 

94 - 95 GT's with 4 wheel disc (Non ABS cars) do not stop any better then 87 - 93 GT's with disc/drum. Can look up specs if you dont believe me. The 87 - 93 actually stop quicker. Its not until ABS comes into play that the SN95 cars stop quicker. 96 - 98 GT's have the same shitty brakes as the 94/95 cars. 94+ Cobra's stop better because they have a nice large 13 inch rotor up front with a semi decent dual piston PBR caliper. For drag racing,.. even a 9 second car running 150mph does not need disc's on the rear. My father inlaws 4100lb all steel 49 Chevy business coupe ran 9's with 140 mph trap speeds and never had any problems stopping with rear drum brakes.

A larger front rotor with better calipers up front would stop the car much better then adding rear discs to a stock front brake setup. For a road race setup,.. yes. Rear discs will work much better then rear drums. It will reduce brake fade,.. and only for that reason do disc brakes work better then drums. But for normal daily driving and drag race only setups that dont see constant back to back 100 mph stabbing of the brakes,.. no You dont need rear disc brakes. Sorry.. I dont agree Tommy. Rear drums are more then capable of handling the 10% stopping power needed to bring the car to a stop. Thats why your front disc pads will be replaced at least 2-3 times before rear brake shoes (drums) or pads (discs) will need to be changed.

Edmunds.com quote:

Drum vs. Disc:

In today's automotive pantheon, it's not uncommon to find four-wheel disc brakes as standard equipment on medium-priced, non performance-oriented models. The majority of new vehicles, however, continue to utilize a front-disc/rear-drum brake setup. What does this say about the current state of braking systems? Are these manufacturers sacrificing vehicle safety in order to save a few bucks by installing disc brakes on only the front wheels?
While a "yes" answer would certainly be great for increasing Town Hall traffic, the truth is that today's disc/drum setups are completely adequate for the majority of new cars. Remember that both disc and drum brake design has been vastly improved in the last 20 years. In fact, the current rear drum brake systems on today's cars would provide better stopping performance then the front disc setups of the '70s. And today's front disc brakes are truly exceptional in terms of stopping power. Combined with the fact that between 60 and 90 percent of a vehicle's stopping power comes from the front wheels, it's clear that a well-designed, modern drum brake is all that's required for most rear wheel brake duty.
High performance cars like the Viper, 911 and Corvette can justify a four-wheel disc brake system, especially if their owners participate in some form of sanctioned racing activity on the weekends. The rest of us get more of a benefit from the lower cost of drum brakes. Expecting every vehicle built today to come with four-wheel disc brakes would require an across-the-board increase in purchase price, and that could stop new car buyers much quicker than any brake system.


Hurst

 

You comparing apples to oranges......Fox brakes on a Fox suck in stock form. You are comparing stock brakes on 2 different body styles (different cars, weights) Why didnt for leave drums on the sn-95's and up if they were good brakes? Why does everyone upgrade from drums, if disc on rears are not needed?

 

Maybe I'm not explaining this in a way you can understand or I'm just coming across wrong.

Yes,.. Rear disc brakes are better then rear drum brakes. NO ARGUEMENT. But listen to what I am trying to explain. Rear discs are NOT NEEDED to improve stock front brakes. Adding rear discs to a stock 87 - 93 will not add any more stopping power then what is already there. The only thing it might improve on is brake fade where there is a lot of high speed braking.

People upgrade to disc brakes because for a variety of reasons. #1 reason is bling. I mean come on,.. 17" Cobra-R or 18" Saleen wheels with a drum poking through the middle,.. eeew. #2 is they are convinced they need rear discs to stop better. #3,.. they really do need rear discs to stop better for road racing and upgrade the front and rear brakes,. end result.. the car does stop better.

Tommy,.. 87 - 93 Fox vs 94/95 SN95 (non ABS) are about as close to comparing apples vs apples as your going to get when comparing a newer generation vs an older one. You can not find any other 2 cars out there are are closer then a Fox vs SN95. They are identical underneath. The front brakes are nearly the same size. And to be technical,.. the fox brake pads are larger then 94 - 98 front brake pads. SN95 brake pads are a tiny little square thing compared to fox brake pads. 94 - 98 GT front brakes suffer from severe brake fade if you put them under extreme braking conditions. My 96 GT didnt even make 1 full lap at Sebring before I experienced brake fade and by my 3rd lap I had to bring it in because my brakes were boiling and I had the pedal lay on the floor a couple times.

As far as different weight? um,.. Tommy. 3388lb 93 GT vs 3464lb 96 GT,.. thats only 76lbs difference. And the 94 - 98 have rear disc brakes.. it should stop better according to you right?

Hurst

 

Most that do the swap, swap front and rear. Dont think he'll swap just the rear to keep 4 lug front. Rotor surface area is where better brakes come in not pad suface area. Look at any aftermarket brakes and they all use tiny pads and larger surface area rotors. When your car get going....I wanna see how long it takes you to upgrade to rear disc.

Also with rear disk you wont keep the 90/10 ratio for the brakes. Add a adjustable prop valve and lean on the rears more. Aerospace and Strange has dual rear calipers for looks? Why didnt they do dual front calipers? I mean 90% is the front brakes right? Dont buy stock in EVERYTHING you read on the intraweb