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