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