my supercharged fox back in the day on the third of fourth back to back hammering umm had no pedal fuck fade lol....

I have sn 95 brakes kinda on my vert now and im sorry to say i believe they work way better....hands down

and an added bonus ever break an axle with drum brake s opps


rear disk is like a cheezy c/clip eliminator lol

just my 2cents[/quote]

They are both shitty brakes.
My argument is which ones will experience brake fade stopping from 120 repeatedly first? The car with SN95 brakes or the car with stock fox brakes?

As you guys know my wife is an avid road course nut. She only tolerates my drag racing because she likes v8 muscle cars. But I had the chance to experience my 96 GT on Sebring, I drove her 96 Cobra on Sebring,.. and I drove her 87 GT with AOD on Sebring. And my experience with my 96 was terrible. The car bare made 3 laps. The instructor made me bring the car because it was unsafe. A year later we had her 87 GT on the roadcourse and it ran 10 lapse. Yes the brakes were shot afterward. Pads glazed over, rotors had heat cracks in them,.. they were done. But,.. it finished the heat where my 96 could not. You guys will never hear me say that Fox brakes are good or great brakes. They are adequate for normal daily driving and not much more. But the SN95 brake are no better. And worse on the front in my opinion because of the tiny brake pads they use. Drive a 99 - 04 GT and romp on the brakes at speed,. then go back to the 94 - 98 and repeat it. The 94 - 98 brakes suck. The simple addition of rear discs does not make them outstanding brakes like they are making them out to be. I just can not agree with that. Maybe in a lighter coupe they work better. I dont have that experience. But I know how they are stock vs stock and other then the Cobra,.. the GT brakes sucked... PERIOD.


Oh and +1 for the caliper holding the rear axle in if it breaks. No argument from me for that usage.

Hurst