Originally Posted by
GNs-r-slow
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.
Originally Posted by
harold harper
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?
If locking up the rear is your only concern for good brakes then we all need to watch out for you,..
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