Lower cost front lightweight drag brakes? - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
 5Likes
  • 1 Post By Sicklx5oh
  • 2 Post By Saleen414
  • 1 Post By TomR
  • 1 Post By Saleen414
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 20 Old 11-05-2016, 05:55 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
bamabox's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Hartford, CT
Posts: 676
Garage
Lower cost front lightweight drag brakes?

Anybody ever research and figure out a lower cost way to do lightweight front brakes, vs the usual suspects.........aerospace, strange, or wildwood? They all seem to run 650-800 dollars. I was thinking of a non-vented single layer disc like the rears, but on the front. And maybe a smaller caliper. Been looking but have not come up with anything. Drag only, 2950 race weight, trap speed 114. Switching to manual brakes and steering this winter and the flaming river manual rack, steering shaft, lightweight quick disconnect steering column and wheel, manual master cylinder kit is adding up fast. Throwing another 750 on top of that getting to be real money. Any ideas?


99 coupe. C4/8” 5000 stall w/2003 Mach crate motor FRPP stock N/A, Kooks LT's and X,dumps no muffs. 4.56's
Best ET 11.42 Best MPH 116.33Best 60" 1.49
Coincidence. A convenient and overused word for the mentally lazy.
bamabox is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 Old 11-14-2016, 08:04 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Northern, VA
Posts: 2,780
front brakes off a 4 cyl car?

But what's your safety worth? I know wilwood will do a non-drilled front. At least that was an option when I bought a set 7-8 years ago.

I like the saying.. buy once, cry once. If you know where you're heading, bite thte bullet and buy the part you're going to need down the line. (This is just one man's opinion)


O.G. X275 racer
1.17 60' [email protected] with the angry peanut!
1.16 60' [email protected] on 1 gun (In testing)
88gtguy is offline  
post #3 of 20 Old 11-14-2016, 08:19 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: south, us
Posts: 2,916
Well, there isn't maybe 10 lb difference between the stock V8 brakes and the 4 cylinder brakes, and about every other stock-style front brake setup that could be used (like ranger/bronco 5 lug swap).

Aerospace is nice and light. But I didn't care for their customer service.
Strange is pretty good stuff! And I did like the way they handled my transaction.
Lamb is pretty much top notch and they are popular in the high end drag racing circle.
SSBC isn't too bad either but I am not sure about any weight savings.

Unfortunately, all of them are going to be expensive. BUT....you're looking at about a tenth improvement in ET in the 1/8 mile-probably a litlte more in the 1/4. When I did mine, I did all 4 corners and used Aerospace (which, BTW they may have a sale going on right now....worth looking into!). I used 2 piston calipers front and then 4 piston on the rear. I wish I'd have used 4 piston on the front but it works well the way it is. This was on a Ford Maverick that had Mustang 2 front discs and GM Metric rear disc "kit". The Aerospace brake kit alone was worth 143 lbs weight lost, and .15 ET improvement. Best of all, the kit is safe, stops well, pads last forever. Once it's on, it's basically maintenance free-although-I flush the fluid fairly often just for something to do more or less.

Costwise, I think aerospace is the least expensive. But still expensive nonetheless. Just checked their web page, they're showing 30% off and free shipping on all orders over $99. This can potentially save you a bunch of money if you're doing a brake kit. I'm thinking about a vacuum pump.
toddturbo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 20 Old 11-14-2016, 10:05 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Northern, VA
Posts: 2,780
IMO, strange may be the best bang for the buck as far as quality, and performance and weight.

Where I put my money this time through is The Brake Man (TBM). These are on the lines of your Lamb, but I think the TBM stuff is better. As best as I can tell, they are the lightest brakes out there, also offer the least rolling resistance, have killer performance and to top it off, just look amazing.

Frame of reference on weight. For my set-up, and this is a old GM A-Body, Strange front pro-race brakes are 34lbs for the whole kit. hubs, hats, calipers pads... both sides.. Pretty good.. much lighter than stock. The TBM set-up is just under 20lbs. A 14lbs savings between race brakes, that also offer less rolling resistance as well.. BUT there's quite the price tag that goes with it, but it was worth it to me.

It's all about what the final goals are..

O.G. X275 racer
1.17 60' [email protected] with the angry peanut!
1.16 60' [email protected] on 1 gun (In testing)
88gtguy is offline  
post #5 of 20 Old 11-21-2016, 11:52 PM
Registered User
 
Sicklx5oh's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: WI
Posts: 78
With only 114mph trap speed you don't even need aftermarket brakes just get some powerstop drilled and slotted rotors. I was running 130+mph for 2 season's while I was running n/a and they held up fine. Now I have Wilwoods.
TomR likes this.
Sicklx5oh is offline  
post #6 of 20 Old 11-22-2016, 09:00 PM
Corral Elite Member
 
Saleen414's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Levant, Maine
Posts: 2,259
I took a sixty five Mustang that was running 10.4 in the 1/4 with stock 4 wheel drum brakes and converted over to 4 wheel race disc brakes and picked up....NOTHING in the 1/4 mile. Total weight loss was like 49 lbs, and a lot of that was rotating weight and it made no improvement in ET. It made a HUGE improvement in slowing the car down from 127 mph speeds.
TomR and speedmullen like this.

1989 Saleen 414 358cid SBF 2.8L Kenne Bell S/C
26 X 8.5 Hoosier
Best 1/4 mile time 8.623 @ 159.82 mph with a 1.34 60' (5.57 1/8th at 128)
Best 1/8 mile time 5.339 @ 133.46 mph with a 1.29 60'
08' Bullitt #4097 N/A 340ish RWHP <<<<<FOR SALE!
Saleen414 is offline  
post #7 of 20 Old 11-24-2016, 09:44 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
bamabox's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Hartford, CT
Posts: 676
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicklx5oh View Post
With only 114mph trap speed you don't even need aftermarket brakes just get some powerstop drilled and slotted rotors. I was running 130+mph for 2 season's while I was running n/a and they held up fine. Now I have Wilwoods.
I have the powerstops you mentioned. I'm undertaking this for weight on the nose. Those rotors and stock calipers are very heavy. And yes, at 114 trap speed if I went full length of the runout at my track I think I could stop with the E brake

99 coupe. C4/8” 5000 stall w/2003 Mach crate motor FRPP stock N/A, Kooks LT's and X,dumps no muffs. 4.56's
Best ET 11.42 Best MPH 116.33Best 60" 1.49
Coincidence. A convenient and overused word for the mentally lazy.
bamabox is offline  
post #8 of 20 Old 11-29-2016, 12:51 PM
Registered User
 
TomR's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 4,941
Garage
All of this can come down to science instead of Internet myth.

If a car and driver weighs 3000 lbs and has 400 HP, the weight to power is 7.5 :1. Assuming you get the power to the ground, that would be a 11.40 at 117.5 MPH

If you pulled 50 lbs of static weight that would be a 7.375:1 Weight to power. The ET would be 11.34 and 118.2 MPH. Removing 50 lbs is like adding 6.8 HP in a 400HP 3000lb car.

Because this is a wheel and the hub area, it has far less impact than a flywheel or even weight out at the tire outside.

If you pulled 50 pounds of rotating weight from a disk 12 inches diameter at wheel speeds, you would save 790 joules. That's about 0.1 wheel horsepower gain over the length of the track by removing 50 lbs at a 12 inch diameter area of the hub or hubs.

The bulk of any gains you will see has NOTHING to do with the weight rotating. It is just about the same as pulling static weight of whatever you pull. All you are doing is making the car lighter by whatever weight you save, just about like changing a seat or hood.

Now figure out the cost for that change, because you sure are not going to save 50 lbs. This is why I have stock brakes, and no plans to change them unless I need better brakes.





The most meaningless place to save rotating weight is at the hub area of a wheel.
speedmullen likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
89 LX. 363, single turbo, Super Vic EFI, TFS high port heads by TEA, solid roller, glide. Holley HP EFI. (exact combo varies)
TomR is offline  
post #9 of 20 Old 12-01-2016, 05:43 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
bamabox's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Hartford, CT
Posts: 676
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomR View Post
All of this can come down to science instead of Internet myth.

If a car and driver weighs 3000 lbs and has 400 HP, the weight to power is 7.5 :1. Assuming you get the power to the ground, that would be a 11.40 at 117.5 MPH

If you pulled 50 lbs of static weight that would be a 7.375:1 Weight to power. The ET would be 11.34 and 118.2 MPH. Removing 50 lbs is like adding 6.8 HP in a 400HP 3000lb car.

Because this is a wheel and the hub area, it has far less impact than a flywheel or even weight out at the tire outside.

If you pulled 50 pounds of rotating weight from a disk 12 inches diameter at wheel speeds, you would save 790 joules. That's about 0.1 wheel horsepower gain over the length of the track by removing 50 lbs at a 12 inch diameter area of the hub or hubs.

The bulk of any gains you will see has NOTHING to do with the weight rotating. It is just about the same as pulling static weight of whatever you pull. All you are doing is making the car lighter by whatever weight you save, just about like changing a seat or hood.

Now figure out the cost for that change, because you sure are not going to save 50 lbs. This is why I have stock brakes, and no plans to change them unless I need better brakes.





The most meaningless place to save rotating weight is at the hub area of a wheel.

My main concern is getting weight off the nose. So going manual steering and brakes, getting rid of hydraboost and all the associated lines, and lightweight brakes. I realize the rotating weight part of the equation is worth little. Just want a better balanced car. Rear of car weights nothing.

99 coupe. C4/8” 5000 stall w/2003 Mach crate motor FRPP stock N/A, Kooks LT's and X,dumps no muffs. 4.56's
Best ET 11.42 Best MPH 116.33Best 60" 1.49
Coincidence. A convenient and overused word for the mentally lazy.
bamabox is offline  
post #10 of 20 Old 12-04-2016, 11:43 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: south, us
Posts: 2,916
Aerospace front brake kit, ship weight was I think 22 lbs (including the box). I pulled all the Mustang 2 stuff off, and weighed it by itself, and it was 94 lbs (calipers, rotors, etc). That was both sides. I don't remember the exact to the tenth figures but it was a huge difference.

I had S-10 Metric front discs on the rear (a common swap)-which worked great. Removed and put Aerospace 4 piston kit on in it's place (9" rear) and lost another 60-70 lbs (total).

Rolling weight might be "meaningless" but it's still weight that the car has to lug down the track. On mine it was worth .15 in the 1/8 mile. Most guys I have worked with over the last decade who have went from stock style brakes to lightweight drag brakes have all picked up with one or two exceptions. I can't for the life of me see where it is considered "almost meaningless"; not based on my (and others' who I know of and have worked alongside) experiences.


'92GT, 427" and '93 "LXVO" coupe
toddturbo is offline  
post #11 of 20 Old 01-28-2017, 10:50 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
bamabox's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Hartford, CT
Posts: 676
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by toddturbo View Post
Aerospace front brake kit, ship weight was I think 22 lbs (including the box). I pulled all the Mustang 2 stuff off, and weighed it by itself, and it was 94 lbs (calipers, rotors, etc). That was both sides. I don't remember the exact to the tenth figures but it was a huge difference.

I had S-10 Metric front discs on the rear (a common swap)-which worked great. Removed and put Aerospace 4 piston kit on in it's place (9" rear) and lost another 60-70 lbs (total).

Rolling weight might be "meaningless" but it's still weight that the car has to lug down the track. On mine it was worth .15 in the 1/8 mile. Most guys I have worked with over the last decade who have went from stock style brakes to lightweight drag brakes have all picked up with one or two exceptions. I can't for the life of me see where it is considered "almost meaningless"; not based on my (and others' who I know of and have worked alongside) experiences.
To your point, whenever you do a drag calculator to give estimates of ET and MPH based on HP and yes, WEIGHT. So to say that removing weight from the car, regardless of it's category, makes little or no difference, flies in the face of physics.

99 coupe. C4/8” 5000 stall w/2003 Mach crate motor FRPP stock N/A, Kooks LT's and X,dumps no muffs. 4.56's
Best ET 11.42 Best MPH 116.33Best 60" 1.49
Coincidence. A convenient and overused word for the mentally lazy.
bamabox is offline  
post #12 of 20 Old 02-13-2017, 10:50 AM
Corral Elite Member
 
Mustangmichael's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dayton, OH, home again!
Posts: 4,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamabox View Post
To your point, whenever you do a drag calculator to give estimates of ET and MPH based on HP and yes, WEIGHT. So to say that removing weight from the car, regardless of it's category, makes little or no difference, flies in the face of physics.
He addresses the reduction in et at the start of his post, he was referring to additional gain of performance due to the weightloss being rotational weight. At least that's what I took from his post. And I have agree with that part of it. I lost close to 80 lbs or more going to my race aerospace brakes from the stock fox v8 fronts. This included what I had to cut off the spindle.

Michael Bell
email:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

92 coupe, coyote 5.0, turbo, manual trans, project in progress....

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mustangmichael is offline  
post #13 of 20 Old 02-14-2017, 09:05 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
bamabox's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Hartford, CT
Posts: 676
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustangmichael View Post
He addresses the reduction in et at the start of his post, he was referring to additional gain of performance due to the weightloss being rotational weight. At least that's what I took from his post. And I have agree with that part of it. I lost close to 80 lbs or more going to my race aerospace brakes from the stock fox v8 fronts. This included what I had to cut off the spindle.
What and why did you have to cut the spindle?

99 coupe. C4/8” 5000 stall w/2003 Mach crate motor FRPP stock N/A, Kooks LT's and X,dumps no muffs. 4.56's
Best ET 11.42 Best MPH 116.33Best 60" 1.49
Coincidence. A convenient and overused word for the mentally lazy.
bamabox is offline  
post #14 of 20 Old 02-21-2017, 02:52 PM
Registered User
 
Just Chuck's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 1,364
You could drop some weight with PBR dual piston aluminum front calipers.

1989 LX 5.0 - 333 Mexican block, Eagle 4340 neutral3.25" crank, Probe SRS 9cc dome .040 psitons AFR 185 Comp heads, FTI HR cam 239/244 613/613, Edelbrock Victor 5.0, 90mm TB, BBK 1 3/4, C4 and 4500 Circle D converter, 4.10 gears

2012 GT/CS 5.0 - Yellow Blaze Tri-Coat metalic, A6, HID.
Just Chuck is offline  
post #15 of 20 Old 02-22-2017, 01:29 PM
Corral Elite Member
 
Mustangmichael's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dayton, OH, home again!
Posts: 4,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamabox View Post
What and why did you have to cut the spindle?
When you install the front aerospace race brakes, the caliper mounting "ears" have to be cut off to clear the new rotor and caliper combo. Then the dust shield mounting holes have to be drilled and tapped out to a 3/8" bolt to mount the caliper mountimg bracket to the spindle. This is fox stuff.

Michael Bell
email:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

92 coupe, coyote 5.0, turbo, manual trans, project in progress....

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mustangmichael is offline  
post #16 of 20 Old 03-03-2017, 04:18 PM
Registered User
 
TomR's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 4,941
Garage
Anyone know the weight of Fox front brakes?? It looks like the Mustang II brakes were 94lbs.

The 93 Cobra rears with all parts are 48.7 lbs. I expect the Fox front to not be that much more, are they??


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustangmichael View Post
He addresses the reduction in et at the start of his post, he was referring to additional gain of performance due to the weightloss being rotational weight. At least that's what I took from his post. And I have agree with that part of it. I lost close to 80 lbs or more going to my race aerospace brakes from the stock fox v8 fronts. This included what I had to cut off the spindle.
Exactly. The fact it is rotating is meaningless when the weight is so close to the center line of rotation and the weight is not spinning up and down real fast all the time.

A wheel hub or disk is virtually the same as removing that weight as static weight.

How much weight loss helps depends on the power and how much the car weighs.

I just changed my 89 from drums to 93 Cobra discs on the rear. The entire rear brake system weighed 48.7 lbs.

My stock rear drum system parts weighed 44.2 lbs.

This swap gained 4.5 lbs. My car is 3000 lbs so I gained 0.15% weight, which with 1000 HP is like losing 1.5 HP. In the 1/8th mile, which is all I do, I'll only gain about .03 seconds for 50 lbs weight loss.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
89 LX. 363, single turbo, Super Vic EFI, TFS high port heads by TEA, solid roller, glide. Holley HP EFI. (exact combo varies)
TomR is offline  
post #17 of 20 Old 03-04-2017, 09:58 AM
Corral Elite Member
 
Saleen414's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Levant, Maine
Posts: 2,259
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomR View Post
Anyone know the weight of Fox front brakes?? It looks like the Mustang II brakes were 94lbs.

The 93 Cobra rears with all parts are 48.7 lbs. I expect the Fox front to not be that much more, are they??




Exactly. The fact it is rotating is meaningless when the weight is so close to the center line of rotation and the weight is not spinning up and down real fast all the time.

A wheel hub or disk is virtually the same as removing that weight as static weight.

How much weight loss helps depends on the power and how much the car weighs.

I just changed my 89 from drums to 93 Cobra discs on the rear. The entire rear brake system weighed 48.7 lbs.

My stock rear drum system parts weighed 44.2 lbs.

This swap gained 4.5 lbs. My car is 3000 lbs so I gained 0.15% weight, which with 1000 HP is like losing 1.5 HP. In the 1/8th mile, which is all I do, I'll only gain about .03 seconds for 50 lbs weight loss.
At this point it is more productive to add 50 hp than to lose another 50 lbs in weight. Probably cheaper too.
TomR likes this.

1989 Saleen 414 358cid SBF 2.8L Kenne Bell S/C
26 X 8.5 Hoosier
Best 1/4 mile time 8.623 @ 159.82 mph with a 1.34 60' (5.57 1/8th at 128)
Best 1/8 mile time 5.339 @ 133.46 mph with a 1.29 60'
08' Bullitt #4097 N/A 340ish RWHP <<<<<FOR SALE!
Saleen414 is offline  
post #18 of 20 Old 03-06-2017, 09:32 AM
Registered User
 
TomR's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 4,941
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saleen414 View Post
At this point it is more productive to add 50 hp than to lose another 50 lbs in weight. Probably cheaper too.
I initially stripped out weight and got it lighter, but now it is heavy again.

As I beef the car up and add power or make it safer it gets heavier.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
89 LX. 363, single turbo, Super Vic EFI, TFS high port heads by TEA, solid roller, glide. Holley HP EFI. (exact combo varies)
TomR is offline  
post #19 of 20 Old 03-06-2017, 10:23 AM
Registered User
 
PowerHungry89's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 39
Hey Bamabox I was wondering if you'd be interested in selling me your hydroboost and lines going to and from the power steering once you go manual? Thanks
Please PM me if you would like to sell.
PowerHungry89 is offline  
post #20 of 20 Old 03-08-2017, 10:22 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
bamabox's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Hartford, CT
Posts: 676
Garage
PM sent

99 coupe. C4/8” 5000 stall w/2003 Mach crate motor FRPP stock N/A, Kooks LT's and X,dumps no muffs. 4.56's
Best ET 11.42 Best MPH 116.33Best 60" 1.49
Coincidence. A convenient and overused word for the mentally lazy.
bamabox is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale Baer Ss4 front drag brakes and rears Wildstreet Suspension 10 10-18-2014 09:00 AM
For Sale Racecraft - Strange front and rear drag suspension brakes ryans88gt Suspension 9 09-05-2014 10:57 PM
MUSTANG FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM INSTALL (05-10) [email protected] S-197 Mustang (2005-2010) 0 08-23-2013 12:14 PM
For Sale 96 Cobra Drag Roller SHALOM96 Mustangs For Sale/Wanted, 1994-1998 16 01-13-2012 01:25 PM
Mod Shootout racers heres your chance to be heard Dave King GT & SOHC 237 12-19-2001 09:53 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome