Rear brake size? Really ford!

[G RUSH]

If it's "looks" you're after you can buy those plastic clip on fake caliper covers. :lol:

If it bothers you that much, surely rear 4 pots aren't that expensive if the fronts are a fairly reasonable price (I saw posted elsewhere)...

Sponsored

 

[GTP]

Damn never thought I would get such an ass chewing over this subject

Saul Goodman. ;)

We do a lot of bench racing on this forum. And our "test track" is more like an obstacle course with great risk everywhere waiting to turn our lives upside down.

 

[86merc]

You have to remember you have a 13" rotor as well. Older cars had like 9" rotors. A larger rotor has a better mechanical advantage over the smaller rotors. It also allows for a larger pad surface area. So with that 13" rear rotor, larger pad & caliper bore you have a very capable rear brake set up to match that 6 piston set up.


But a nice looking 4 piston set up would be appreciated. Lol

 

[Anthony@HTM]

I have 6 HPDE days
2 of those were on the 4 piston calipers, no issues.

I decided to go and upgrade to the 6 piston brembos and they are phenomenal.

The car is extremely stable under hard braking.

My last point is that my rear pads are still in good shape whereas the front pads are 50% toasted.

If you just want the look then caliper covers are it.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

Damn never thought I would get such an ass chewing over this subject

:lol:....no ass chewing. It is all in good fun. I agree, aesthetically, the rears are not attractive.

 

[ScottsGT]

Being an owner of a Vintage Mustang also, I see lots of build threads where guys are installing the largest rotor brake package they can find on these early cars. Which requires 18" wheels that just look out of place on a '65-'73. (well, to me at least) Now these are guys building a car to take to shows or cruise the local hamburger joint, not track guys. I keep reminding then that the much lighter car really doesn't need that much rotor for street use. Spend your money on something more beneficial and stick to the SN95 brake conversion.

 

[Lone Survivor]

Nissan have got it right in an aesthetic way.

Image from http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/201304/2014-nissan-370z-nismo-7_600x0w.jpg.

 

[Impulsed7]

I HPDE as well, with a few time trials. Front stock pads didn't last long, but the rears were showing little wear. Until I upgraded the front pads to XP10's. Toasted the rear (stock pads) in 3 sessions, but I am extremely hard on brakes. This is also on an ecoboost 4 piston front setup, so believe me, you got enough brakes.

 

[ForTehNguyen]

want to brake better? Buy better tires

 

[Zerobar78]

Ford has done this for years with tiny rear brakes, were lucky with these cars as my new edge had barely a 9" rear rotor and was useless for anything other than street duty, the brakes on the S550 are vastly superior to the older cars.

While the factory system is well balanced and fine for 90% of the driving we all do at the track the car will likely benefit from some slightly better brakes in the rear, be it a single pot or more. I'll be able to form a much better opinion once I get mine on the track, my old Mustang had too much load on the front brakes and helped me catch them on fire twice.

 

[Whiskey11]

You have to remember you have a 13" rotor as well. Older cars had like 9" rotors. A larger rotor has a better mechanical advantage over the smaller rotors. It also allows for a larger pad surface area. So with that 13" rear rotor, larger pad & caliper bore you have a very capable rear brake set up to match that 6 piston set up.


But a nice looking 4 piston set up would be appreciated. Lol

The 05-10 Mustangs had an 11.2" rear rotor with a 12.4" front rotor. I'm not sure that changed at all through the 11-14 years either, but if it did, it wasn't a huge upgrade. As others have said, most of your braking is done up front. All of your braking is limited by your tire grip. If you don't have the tires, more brakes aren't going to help you slow down any unless the pad is fading.

 

[Impulsed7]

While the factory system is well balanced and fine for 90% of the driving we all do at the track the car will likely benefit from some slightly better brakes in the rear, be it a single pot or more. I'll be able to form a much better opinion once I get mine on the track, my old Mustang had too much load on the front brakes and helped me catch them on fire twice.

Probably only needs better pads at all four corners...

All I am waiting on is someone to make track pads for the rears. When I ran street pads at all four, at the track, the fronts wore from brand new to about 30%, and the rears may have worn a hair, if that. MOST of the braking is done up front, until you change front compounds only.

I will report back when I see a compound change at all four corners.

 

[Zerobar78]

Probably only needs better pads at all four corners...

All I am waiting on is someone to make track pads for the rears. When I ran street pads at all four, at the track, the fronts wore from brand new to about 30%, and the rears may have worn a hair, if that. MOST of the braking is done up front, until you change front compounds only.

I will report back when I see a compound change at all four corners.

That seems to be what's happening to most, very heavy wear on front pads and almost none in the rear.

On my new edge the heavy front bias made the car loose(and bad nose dive) on hard braking and I had to counter with much higher friction pads at the rear which tore up rotors faster. Once I made the switch to Wilwood fronts and Cobra rears I was able to better balance the car with not so much of a difference in pad compound, Wilwoods in the rear would have been ideal but budget kept that from happening.

 

[86merc]

The 05-10 Mustangs had an 11.2" rear rotor with a 12.4" front rotor. I'm not sure that changed at all through the 11-14 years either, but if it did, it wasn't a huge upgrade. As others have said, most of your braking is done up front. All of your braking is limited by your tire grip. If you don't have the tires, more brakes aren't going to help you slow down any unless the pad is fading.

ok, I exaggerated a little. The foxbody drums were 9" and the rear disc brakes were like 10.5". That coupled with a 11" front rotor and small bore caliper. Even though those cars were lighter the brakes were horrible! That is a long way from a 13" rotor and big piston caliper & 15" rotor 6 piston caliper up front. I remember when every one was geeked the Cobra got 13" rotors up front. Now they have that size rotor on the rear of the new PP cars.

It seems tires are always over looked in braking. Everyone wants drag radials to get the car to hook but no thought of how a tire change can effect braking.

 

[midnite9150]

That seems to be what's happening to most, very heavy wear on front pads and almost none in the rear.

On my new edge the heavy front bias made the car loose(and bad nose dive) on hard braking and I had to counter with much higher friction pads at the rear which tore up rotors faster. Once I made the switch to Wilwood fronts and Cobra rears I was able to better balance the car with not so much of a difference in pad compound, Wilwoods in the rear would have been ideal but budget kept that from happening.

that was also a function of the poor stock suspension design. a torque arm alleviates a lot of that

Sponsored