Close



Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 101
  1. #76
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    13,218

    Default

    1979-93 lower front control arms are all the same in regards to overall length and design. The only difference over the years is bushings and ball joints. Obviously the SVO lower front control arms are unique to the SVO.

    SN95 lower front control arms break down into 94-98 and 99-04. Same overall length. The 99-04 offer more tire clearance lock to lock due to change in shape of the control arm.

    If you swap all the brake line, proportioning valve, MC, etc. from the donor car there's no need for adapters. The brake bias might be off a bit, but probably work just fine. You could always gut the Prop valve and install an adjustable in the rear line if there was an issue.
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Ongoing RestoModification
    1984 SVO Awaiting Restoration
    1986 GT Wrecked by PO, but still want to save!

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Underway
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  2. #77
    FEP Power Member qikgts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Rockledge, FL
    Posts
    1,125

    Default

    There are also these two 11" kits from Baer for the front. The first is a street/autocross style kit and second is marketed as being "drag" specific.

    Their descriptions are a little vague regarding mounting and as to what modifications are done to the spindle for each kit. I believe the first link may come with the "old" re-welded style spindle (hence the big price, and I saw an article which showed that style set up which was written by Evan Smith back in I think 2016) and the drag kit requires drilling and tapping the dust shield holes and installing specific brackets. I can only guess the drag set up is "weaker" though they don't say it can't/shouldn't be driven on the street. The brackets that come with the "drag" kit look plenty beefy to me...

    I wonder if there could be some creative mixing/matching/machining brackets/custom rotor rings to come up with a 12 inch version using these as a base.

    https://baer.com/11-Front-SS4-Brake-...g-4261385.html

    https://baer.com/11-Front-SS4-Deep-S...g-4261416.html
    '85 GT

  3. #78

    Default

    Don’t they use the holes where the dust shields mount and cut off the normal ears to go to the bigger brakes?

    The SVO dust shields are different than the 87-93 V8 spindles

  4. #79

    Default

    I was looking at my daughters 2002 Cougar. 4 lug. Rotors are remarkably similar to SN95 rear brakes. That got me thinking — I wonder if these rotors will work with SN95 brackets and hardware combined with stock 4 lug axles.

    Soon I will be in the process of filling an 86 8.8 housing with fresh parts and 3.90 gears. Might be a good time to mock it up.
    Last edited by erratic50; 01-06-2020 at 02:16 AM.

  5. #80

    Default

    I am getting parts for my 79 brake upgrade. I am staying 4 lug and will be using 87-93 spindles with 60mm calipers and the MM upgrade kit. I want to get as close to the track width of the 87 cars. While doing research, I came across a couple of threads on other sites that list the 87-88 Tbird arms at a length of 13.75 compared to Mustangs at 13.00. Combined with the 79's narrower track, using the TB's arms should net a .25" wider track per side or .5" total over the 87-93 Mustang setup. This should provide some (mimimal?) advantage in gaining negative camber and possibly a better travel arch?? I am not a suspension expert and hoping those with better knowledge will weigh in. I don't have first hand experience with the 87-88 Tbird arms so not sure if the spring perch is the same 'depth' as Mustang and what balljoints they use.

    References:

    https://www.stangnet.com/mustang-for...ension.422272/

    79-'88 Mustang K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 22.75"
    '89-'93 Mustang K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 23.75"
    Mustang SVO K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 23.00"


    '79-'88 Mustang K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 30.125"
    '89-'93 Mustang K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 31.125"
    Mustang SVO K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 29.5"

    '79-'93 K-member angle of A-arm off centerline of car - 16.5 deg.
    Mustang SVO angle of A-arm off centerline of car - 14.5deg.

    '79-'88 K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 51.37"
    '89-'93 K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 52.37"
    SVO K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 53.36"

    Stock Mustang A-arms '79-'93 - 13.00" long
    Mustang SVO A-arms - 14.00" long
    1987-1988 Thunderbird A-arms - 13.75" long.

    http://www.svoca.com/forum/showthrea...r-control-arms - SVO Lower Control Arms


    I believe the Turbo Coupe or SN-95 (i.e.- 1994-2004) can work in a pinch. There is a slight difference in over all length from our stock units, but it is at least minimal compared to a regular Fox a-arm. The stock arms are 14" in length between the bushings and ball joint for reference. The TC/94-99/99-04 arms are all 13.75" in length. The 94-99 arms are a step up from the TC arms due to a low-friction ball joint. The late 99-04 are deemed 'best' due to the combination of a low friction ball joint and revised geometry for better turn radius. All versions of Mustang use the same basic a-arm, so you have a large supply in bone yards if that is your choice. One issue with all of these arms is the spring cup isn't as deep as the SVO arm, so if you put stock springs back in you will need to cut them otherwise your nose will be up in the air.
    Last edited by saleen428; 01-06-2020 at 03:02 PM.

  6. #81

    Default

    UPDATE: Did even more research and found a thread that the 78-88 FCA are the same length of 94-95. So you can ignore the prior post.

    https://forums.corral.net/threads/ju...-86-lx.781854/


    Quote Originally Posted by saleen428 View Post
    I am getting parts for my 79 brake upgrade. I am staying 4 lug and will be using 87-93 spindles with 60mm calipers and the MM upgrade kit. I want to get as close to the track width of the 87 cars. While doing research, I came across a couple of threads on other sites that list the 87-88 Tbird arms at a length of 13.75 compared to Mustangs at 13.00. Combined with the 79's narrower track, using the TB's arms should net a .25" wider track per side or .5" total over the 87-93 Mustang setup. This should provide some (mimimal?) advantage in gaining negative camber and possibly a better travel arch?? I am not a suspension expert and hoping those with better knowledge will weigh in. I don't have first hand experience with the 87-88 Tbird arms so not sure if the spring perch is the same 'depth' as Mustang and what balljoints they use.

    References:

    https://www.stangnet.com/mustang-for...ension.422272/

    79-'88 Mustang K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 22.75"
    '89-'93 Mustang K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 23.75"
    Mustang SVO K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 23.00"


    '79-'88 Mustang K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 30.125"
    '89-'93 Mustang K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 31.125"
    Mustang SVO K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 29.5"

    '79-'93 K-member angle of A-arm off centerline of car - 16.5 deg.
    Mustang SVO angle of A-arm off centerline of car - 14.5deg.

    '79-'88 K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 51.37"
    '89-'93 K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 52.37"
    SVO K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 53.36"

    Stock Mustang A-arms '79-'93 - 13.00" long
    Mustang SVO A-arms - 14.00" long
    1987-1988 Thunderbird A-arms - 13.75" long.

    http://www.svoca.com/forum/showthrea...r-control-arms - SVO Lower Control Arms


    I believe the Turbo Coupe or SN-95 (i.e.- 1994-2004) can work in a pinch. There is a slight difference in over all length from our stock units, but it is at least minimal compared to a regular Fox a-arm. The stock arms are 14" in length between the bushings and ball joint for reference. The TC/94-99/99-04 arms are all 13.75" in length. The 94-99 arms are a step up from the TC arms due to a low-friction ball joint. The late 99-04 are deemed 'best' due to the combination of a low friction ball joint and revised geometry for better turn radius. All versions of Mustang use the same basic a-arm, so you have a large supply in bone yards if that is your choice. One issue with all of these arms is the spring cup isn't as deep as the SVO arm, so if you put stock springs back in you will need to cut them otherwise your nose will be up in the air.

  7. #82
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    13,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saleen428 View Post
    UPDATE: Did even more research and found a thread that the 78-88 FCA are the same length of 94-95. So you can ignore the prior post.

    https://forums.corral.net/threads/ju...-86-lx.781854/
    Which 78-88 FCA are you saying are the same as the 94/95? Sorry, but I am not following and just want to make sure that others don't get confused also.
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Ongoing RestoModification
    1984 SVO Awaiting Restoration
    1986 GT Wrecked by PO, but still want to save!

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Underway
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  8. #83

    Default

    Lots of incorrect information in both the Stangnet and Corral threads.

    When Mathis wrote the Mustang Performance Handbook 2, he gave up all editorial rights. So after he handed off the manuscript he was given virtually no chance to edit what they turned into the book. The result of this is that they are a number of errors in the dimensions and information in it.

    Truth follows.

    SVO, SN95 and 1987-88 Thunderbird TC all have FCAs with the same width (14").

    They are NOT the same FCAs as each other. They just have the same pivot to ball joint geometry.

    Fox FCAs (except SVO) have a width of 12.79".

    Thunderbird k-members and FCAs fall into two general geometry groups. Some have the 14" FCAs with a narrower k-member and others have a 12.75" FCA with a wider k-member. Each of these groups uses different front swaybars as the endlink holes are in different locations, so the swaybars are different widths. With the exception of the 1987-88 TC model, I don't have a good breakdown of which cars had which FCAs/k-member.

    With respect to Fox Mustang k-members, there are 6 different models used from 1979-93. All of them have the FCA holes in different locations. In terms of track width, they fall into two general groups.

    1987-93 V8 are 0.9" wider total.

    All 1979-86 and 1987-93 2.3l are narrower.

    All of the above information is from a combination of Ford drawings and/or actual measurements of parts with a CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine).

    Below is a quote from William Mathis himself on writing the Mustang Performance Handbooks. The moral is to be very careful about what you read in a book. The author frequently has very little control over the results.

    "I have watched these forums for years without participation. Even when topics were discussed that affected me, I have remained silent. However, I would like to clarify a few things. When I wrote the Mustang Performance Handbooks, I foolishly thought that what I wrote would actually make it to print. Ten years ago, when I wrote those books, I was unaware that HPBooks had a publishing restriction on the size of the book that could be published. At that time, Price, Stern and Sloan (then publishers of HPBooks) required that all their “how-to” books could not be physically thicker than would permit 3 books to fit in a standard bookrack with ease of insertion and removal. Most bookracks then and now are typically limited to approximately 1.5 inches in depth. You may have noticed this in places like Lowes where the do-it-yourself books are displayed. In my case, what this meant was that my manuscripts were hacked to meet this criteria. Unfortunately, this resulted in publications that barely resembled what I had written. Some of the sections, particularly in the second book (this was actually published as the first book on powertrains), were so modified that the sections were confusing at best, and blatantly wrong at worst. Most of the chassis drawings, including the double-wishbone suspension and tubular crossmembers, were not even included in the book. Actually, I am still puzzled why they chose the drawings they included. I submitted all my drawings in AutoCAD format only to be told they were “too complex” for the eight-grade reader they assumed their market was. To make matters worst, the publisher did not have the ability to read AutoCAD drawings into their print system; so each drawing was run through some sort of graphic program for conversion. The results were drawings that had strange tolerances and looks. This was most evident in the weight and balance drawing in the back of the chassis book where the formulas were improperly converted leaving half the variables out. When I received the published copies, I was livid and demanded the books be withdrawn and corrected. However, I was informed that the contract I had signed gave them final editorial control and basically I should F.O. For those of you that have relied on some of this misinformation I apologize to you and thank for purchasing the books in spite of it.

    William R. Mathis
    Graduate Mechanical Engineer"
    Last edited by Jack Hidley; 01-07-2020 at 04:53 PM. Reason: Missing TC and mispleed Thunderbird
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  9. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wraithracing View Post
    Which 78-88 FCA are you saying are the same as the 94/95? Sorry, but I am not following and just want to make sure that others don't get confused also.
    Sorry, it should have read 87-88 Tbird TC FCA's are the same length as 94-95 Mustangs. I literally was exhausted reviewing and comparing posts across different sites for 4 hours today.
    Last edited by saleen428; 01-06-2020 at 10:44 PM.

  10. #85
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    13,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saleen428 View Post
    Sorry, it should have read 87-88 Tbird TC FCA's are the same length as 94-95 Mustangs. I literally was exhausted reviewing and comparing posts across different sites for 4 hours today.

    I completely understand. Been there myself at times, thanks for the clarification. Although I would add that if the 87-88 T Bird FCA are the same as the 94/95 Mustangs then they are the same as all 94-04 Mustang control arms since the overall length of the SN95 control arms didn't change during the production years. The only change was to the shape for additional tire clearance with the 99-04 models.

    Edit: There were actually changes to bushing design and type, but in regards to interchangeability in regards to overall length, the 94-04 SN95 front control arms are the same.
    Last edited by wraithracing; 01-07-2020 at 08:28 AM. Reason: Additional Comment
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Ongoing RestoModification
    1984 SVO Awaiting Restoration
    1986 GT Wrecked by PO, but still want to save!

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Underway
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  11. #86

    Default

    Thanks Jack always appreciate your input on the forums.

    With my narrow 79 k-member I am leaning toward using the 94+ LCAs. The 99+ sound like a better design in general but how does that translate to my 79 application? Other than the wider track, will the stock sway bar mount up, any issues with the travel arc that will need correcting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    Lots of incorrect information in both the Stangnet and Corral threads.

    When Mathis wrote the Mustang Performance Handbook 2, he gave up all editorial rights. So after he handed off the manuscript he was given virtually no chance to edit what they turned into the book. The result of this is that they are a number of errors in the dimensions and information in it.

    Truth follows.

    SVO, SN95 and 1987-88 Thundferbirds all have FCAs with the same width (14").

    They are NOT the same FCAs as each other. They just have the same pivot to ball joint geometry.

    Fox FCAs (except SVO) have a width of 12.79".

    Thunderbird k-members and FCAs fall into two general geometry groups. Some have the 14" FCAs with a narrower k-member and others have a 12.75" FCA with a wider k-member. Each of these groups uses different front swaybars as the endlink holes are in different locations, so the swaybars are different widths. With the exception of the 1987-88 TC model, I don't have a good breakdown of which cars had which FCAs/k-member.

    With respect to Fox Mustang k-members, there are 6 different models used from 1979-93. All of them have the FCA holes in different locations. In terms of track width, they fall into two general groups.

    1987-93 V8 are 0.9" wider total.

    All 1979-86 and 1987-93 2.3l are narrower.

    All of the above information is from a combination of Ford drawings and/or actual measurements of parts with a CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine).

    Below is a quote from William Mathis himself on writing the Mustang Performance Handbooks. The moral is to be very careful about what you read in a book. The author frequently has very little control over the results.

    "I have watched these forums for years without participation. Even when topics were discussed that affected me, I have remained silent. However, I would like to clarify a few things. When I wrote the Mustang Performance Handbooks, I foolishly thought that what I wrote would actually make it to print. Ten years ago, when I wrote those books, I was unaware that HPBooks had a publishing restriction on the size of the book that could be published. At that time, Price, Stern and Sloan (then publishers of HPBooks) required that all their “how-to” books could not be physically thicker than would permit 3 books to fit in a standard bookrack with ease of insertion and removal. Most bookracks then and now are typically limited to approximately 1.5 inches in depth. You may have noticed this in places like Lowes where the do-it-yourself books are displayed. In my case, what this meant was that my manuscripts were hacked to meet this criteria. Unfortunately, this resulted in publications that barely resembled what I had written. Some of the sections, particularly in the second book (this was actually published as the first book on powertrains), were so modified that the sections were confusing at best, and blatantly wrong at worst. Most of the chassis drawings, including the double-wishbone suspension and tubular crossmembers, were not even included in the book. Actually, I am still puzzled why they chose the drawings they included. I submitted all my drawings in AutoCAD format only to be told they were “too complex” for the eight-grade reader they assumed their market was. To make matters worst, the publisher did not have the ability to read AutoCAD drawings into their print system; so each drawing was run through some sort of graphic program for conversion. The results were drawings that had strange tolerances and looks. This was most evident in the weight and balance drawing in the back of the chassis book where the formulas were improperly converted leaving half the variables out. When I received the published copies, I was livid and demanded the books be withdrawn and corrected. However, I was informed that the contract I had signed gave them final editorial control and basically I should F.O. For those of you that have relied on some of this misinformation I apologize to you and thank for purchasing the books in spite of it.

    William R. Mathis
    Graduate Mechanical Engineer"

  12. #87

    Default

    ALL 1994-2004 (SN95) FCAs have the EXACT same suspension geometry. The 1999-2004 FCAs have a different shape on the backside to allow a tighter turning radius without the tires rubbing on them.

    If you install SN95 FCAs, the swaybar endlinks will not line up. You will have to drill new holes in the FCAs to install the endlinks. These holes will be moved inboard on the FCA about 1".

    Your tie rods will probably not be long enough. You can install Ford SN95 inner and outer tie rods onto your existing steering rack. Or you could install an MMTR-7 bumpsteer kit.

    To adjust camber and get added caster, you will need to install c/c plates on the car.

    If you install SN95 FCAs, you will not be able to install much wider tires and wheels on the car. From that standpoint, this modification is a dead end. If you plan on installing 9" wheels and 255/275 tires in the future, you must keep Fox length FCAs or plan on doing lots of fender work.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  13. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    ALL 1994-2004 (SN95) FCAs have the EXACT same suspension geometry. The 1999-2004 FCAs have a different shape on the backside to allow a tighter turning radius without the tires rubbing on them.

    If you install SN95 FCAs, the swaybar endlinks will not line up. You will have to drill new holes in the FCAs to install the endlinks. These holes will be moved inboard on the FCA about 1".

    Your tie rods will probably not be long enough. You can install Ford SN95 inner and outer tie rods onto your existing steering rack. Or you could install an MMTR-7 bumpsteer kit.

    To adjust camber and get added caster, you will need to install c/c plates on the car.

    If you install SN95 FCAs, you will not be able to install much wider tires and wheels on the car. From that standpoint, this modification is a dead end. If you plan on installing 9" wheels and 255/275 tires in the future, you must keep Fox length FCAs or plan on doing lots of fender work.
    I am sticking with my 8” wheels with 245/40’s. Thanks again for the additional detail. I now have my shopping list complete

  14. #89

    Default

    perhaps we should move the detailed discussion on the car to another thread.

    maybe make an actual K member guide, a control arm guide, etc.

    And of course reference the other discussion

    just trying to keep this thread focused on 4 lug brakes

    thoughts?

  15. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    perhaps we should move the detailed discussion on the car to another thread.

    maybe make an actual K member guide, a control arm guide, etc.

    And of course reference the other discussion

    just trying to keep this thread focused on 4 lug brakes

    thoughts?
    Wait, are you saying that the 87-93 spindles cannot be mounted on 94-04 FCA's? I am staying 4 lug, so not sure why you feel this needs to be moved. It is early in the AM so maybe I am confused.

  16. #91

    Default

    SN95 ball joints will work in 1987-93 V8 spindles. Because the boss on the 1987-93 V8 spindle is taller for the balljoint, when you install the nut on the ball joint stud, you will not be able to install a cotter pin. The SN95 ball joints are not even drilled for cotter pins. If it makes you feel better, you can install the nut with a small amount of blue Loctite.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  17. #92

  18. #93

    Default The Ultimate Four Eyed 4 Lug Brake Upgrade Thread

    Duplicate

  19. #94

    Default

    I did some research today and found some interesting things.....

    In the past many of us have used a 1" bore M1858 master cylinder during brake upgrades along with a stock foxbody booster. It works well with both 4 lug disc and 5 lug four wheel disc setups many of us use....... The down side it requires one adapter or a new line from master cylinder to the brake proportioning valve because one of the fittings does not match up.

    I decided I would do some digging and see if I can solve this problem by finding a more suitable part number that has 100% of the needed fittings already on it. What our cars really need is a 0.5625"-18 primary and a 0.5"-20 secondary line fitting.

    Ideally we would find a master cylinder with the fittings on the opposite side so the lines are kept in tight by the strut tower where they can't get messed up as easily when working with future upgrades on the engine, etc, down the road.

    Another piece of feedback I've heard from time-to-time is that some people would prefer it if the brakes were a little less firm and had slightly more modulation.

    I know from reading that one of the things Maximum Motorsports has done is adapt an SN95 master cylinder to the foxbody because it has a slightly smaller bore master cylinder which gives a little more modulation and a little less brake pedal effort to reach lockup. The kit required to do it does a metric fitting on one end and an SAE fitting on the other to tie the two things together that originally did not belong. A slick approach and it finds a sweet spot between the stock 7/8" bore master cylinder (well...... in fractional terms its actually more like 423/512 .... but who's counting...) vs a 1" bore M1858.

    What if there's a bolt-in master cylinder that has the right fitings and is already the right size? No way of knowing if we don't look so today I started searching for the inlet fitting sizes along with "master cylinder" to see if there is a happy medium that is all entirely SAE and uses the stock lines that are already there.

    I found something that looks interesting. I have not finished researching it by any means. Fitmet of the master cylinder to the booster is an area where I expect there will be challenges unless further research proves otherwise. What I noticed though is the 1976 Dodge Dart 5.2L 2-barrel -- M1707 -- matches the brake line fittings on our foxbody mustangs. It is a 0.9375" bore master cylinder. For those who are wondering -- yes..... that is 15/16 ..... just like the SN95 master cylinders.

    I also noticed that a M1617 is 1" bore. It has a primary of 0.5625"-18 as well, but unfortunately the secondary is only 0.4375"-24 so once again an adapter is needed. Not sure what fitment is like on the master cylinder vs the booster on this one yet either.

    Thanks everyone for the contributions and disucssions on this thread.

    I haven't found any time to play in the garage for the better part of a year - hopefully that will change soon. Glidethunder's ragtop is in deparate need of some maintenance. Its still rocking the original 1986 brake hoses and master cylinder! The perfect time to add in an adjustable proportioning valve and dial in more rear brake bias and go for a firmer pedal with a bigger master cylinder. Then down the road we'll worry about adding a rear disc kit, etc.

  20. #95

    Default

    The problem with going cross-brand on brake parts is things like the mounting is so very different. That's the case with the 1707 which eliminates it in my book.

    I still haven't found an SAE thread master cylinder with mounts that will fit and lines that fit.

    I did notice while searching that the factory line specs mate up to a 1518 master cylinder and the base fits too. Looks like a direct bolt-in 1" bore option with no adapters.

  21. #96

    Default

    We had a master cylinder fail, two rear wheel cylinders with trashed bleeder ports that wouldnt budge, one that's leaking, and had 3 rubber brake hoses in very poor condition on GlideTunder's 86GT convertible.

    In the quest for less pedal travel and a firmer brake feel where it takes more pedal effort to lock the brakes we decided to try switching to a 1" bore master cylinder while staying with Performance Friction pads on stock brakes in front and stock drums in back.

    We could not find the M1858 ANYWHERE so we switched to searching for an M1518. What we ran into was a tale of no adapters to be found. Also as we looked at 5 different master cylinders from 5 different parts stores, the brakeline port sizes were all over the place. Some were cast and some were aluminum too. Pretty much these old Ford master cylinders are being cobbled together during the re-manufacturing process without any attention to the port sizes as long as the bore size lines up with the application it seems.

    As we got tore into the project, things starting going down hill pretty quickly. None of the hard lines would loosen up from the hoses or wheel cylinders. We had a very difficult time getting the passenger side brake line off. the hose turned in the mount and the fitting would not budge on the line.

    For the passenger side ultimately I ended up cutting the rubber hose off then holding the old hose with a vise grip and using very funky looking Vise Grip style tool I found at Oreilly auto parts. The nose of the vise grip is shaped like a V and a thumb comes down on the object being gripped so it gets ahold of it from 3 sides. It worked -- got the hose to thread off. I never did get the fitting to break loose on the line, but I put the new hose back the way the old one came off and we're back in business.

    Out back, the lines looked more like a pretzel by the time they were threaded out of the wheel cylinder. Not much you can do when they won't break loose after multiple applications of the best penetrating lube I know of.

    I taught GluideThunder how to buddy tape lines and bend them to very closely match the originals. If it weren't for the generic fitting on the end, I doubt most people would notice the lines have been changed initially.

    At one point we had an M1525 in our hand that had the same size lines as the car and a 1" bore. We didn't grab it because it looked like the collar around the mount was too large of a diameter for the fox booster because its a bit larger than the factory master cylinder.

    We later realized that we had already had an M1518 bolted up no problem and it was the same size there.

    So my recommendation for a 1" bore at this time is an M1525

    You will pretty much have to stand on the brakes to lock them up, but there's still good modulation but much less pedal travel. I suspect most people will prefer a 15/16" bore master cylinder however.

    I have not found a 15/16 bore master cylinder that uses SAE lines and is the same size as the factory master cylinder yet. I'll keep looking since it would eliminate the need to transition from SAE to metric during the upgrade.
    Last edited by erratic50; 06-15-2020 at 03:28 PM.

  22. #97

    Default

    Sometimes there's a deeper reason for failures. We had a dealer replace the booster 2 years ago due to failure. When the master cylinder came up having problems we did not give it a 2nd thought because the dealer didn't change the old one. Well -- not a 2nd thought that is until the car was nearly 500 miles from home and had no brakes.

    Happy Father's Day to me ..... load up my tools and a pile of parts and off I go for a nearly 1000 mile round trip to re-fix something we just gotten "done" with


    As we tore into the car this time everything came apart. We needed to dig into the issue because something was allowing the outer rod to go sideways and something was causing that condition to get created.

    After a few minutes of looking over the carnage with the parts out of the car and looking at the new ones and the shop manual I pinpointed the main source of the trouble -- the car was missing the bushing that goes between the pedal and the brake rod. WTF - a FORD DEALER sent a car out of their shop without one! A well deserved butt-chewing is on its way believe me.

    The lack of bushing was allowing the rod to move all over the place. It was getting a bit sideways in there. The glue on the booster that holds the interior rod to the diaphram and the exterior rod to the diaphram and even the glue that holds the seal into the unit had let go making. Now THAT is a failure. And the new master cylinder we had just put in was also trashed.

    This time around the parts came from OReily's.
    54-73207 - Booster
    10-1525 - master cylinder (finally a direct bolt-in 1" bore!)
    1964 1/2 - 2004 Mustang Brake pedal bushing kit - Dorman 74016

    The bushing kit does not contain the rod to brake pedal bushing needed, but the smallest black bushing can be cut down on the slot so it it will go to the smaller diameter then cut to length in the booster rod. The final step to preparing the bushing for install is to use the flat part of the booster rod as a template for the head of the bushing. If you don't cut it down the brake lights will stay on 100% of the time.


    We initially set the booster rod up so the master cylinder would bolt up and just touch the master cylinder plunger.

    How: You can see a part of it through one of the holes if you take the cover off the master cylinder making this pretty easy to do. We started with very slight evidence that the plunger moved then backed the adjuster rod off 1/4 turn.

    When we got everything installed and bled we noticed the pedal was a bit low and a bit too firm. Brakes were coming in mostly after the booster was done helping. We re-bled the brakes which helped but it was still off.

    We adjusted it a few times through trial and error. The 1" bore master cylinder combined with a fox booster is a great improvement on a stock 4 lug braking system with new hoses and high end pads. We got the brakes to where they feel like a modern car's brakes.

    With a 1" bore you do have to basically stand on them in a panic stop situation if you want to lock up the 235/60/15 tires, but no lockup without it being on purpose is preferred by us. You can get it right to the edge of locking and keep it there pretty easily. We took it out and did some testing and are seeing shorter stops from 60 MPH than you'd expect from a simple upgraded pad on an 86 brake system.

    Something that might rival the average new mini-van. Probably not

  23. #98

    Default

    Sometimes there's a deeper reason for failures. We had a dealer replace the booster 2 years ago due to failure. When the master cylinder came up having problems we did not give it a 2nd thought because the dealer didn't change the old one. Well -- not a 2nd thought that is until the car was nearly 500 miles from home and had no brakes.

    Happy Father's Day to me ..... load up my tools and a pile of parts and off I go for a nearly 1000 mile round trip to re-fix something we just gotten "done" with


    As we tore into the car this time everything came apart. We needed to dig into the issue because something was allowing the outer rod to go sideways and something was causing that condition to get created.

    After a few minutes of looking over the carnage with the parts out of the car and looking at the new ones and the shop manual I pinpointed the main source of the trouble -- the car was missing the bushing that goes between the pedal and the brake rod. WTF - a FORD DEALER sent a car out of their shop without one! A well deserved butt-chewing is on its way believe me.

    The lack of bushing was allowing the rod to move all over the place. It was getting a bit sideways in there. The glue on the booster that holds the interior rod to the diaphram and the exterior rod to the diaphram and even the glue that holds the seal into the unit had let go making. Now THAT is a failure. And the new master cylinder we had just put in was also trashed.

    This time around the parts came from OReily's.
    54-73207 - Booster
    10-1525 - master cylinder (finally a direct bolt-in 1" bore!)
    1964 1/2 - 2004 Mustang Brake pedal bushing kit - Dorman 74016

    The bushing kit does not contain the rod to brake pedal bushing needed, but the smallest black bushing can be cut down on the slot so it it will go to the smaller diameter then cut to length in the booster rod. The final step to preparing the bushing for install is to use the flat part of the booster rod as a template for the head of the bushing. If you don't cut it down the brake lights will stay on 100% of the time.


    We initially set the booster rod up so the master cylinder would bolt up and just touch the master cylinder plunger.

    How: You can see a part of it through one of the holes if you take the cover off the master cylinder making this pretty easy to do. We started with very slight evidence that the plunger moved then backed the adjuster rod off 1/4 turn.

    When we got everything installed and bled we noticed the pedal was a bit low and a bit too firm. Brakes were coming in mostly after the booster was done helping. We re-bled the brakes which helped but it was still off.

    We adjusted it a few times through trial and error. The 1" bore master cylinder combined with a fox booster is a great improvement on a stock 4 lug braking system with new hoses and high end pads. We got the brakes to where they feel like a modern car's brakes.

    We were at initial contact plus about 1 1/2 or 2 full rotations on the rod adjustment to get where we were happy with it.

    With a 1" bore you do have to basically stand on them in a panic stop situation if you want to lock up the 235/60/15 tires, but no lockup without it being on purpose is preferred by us. You can get it right to the edge of locking and keep it there pretty easily. We took it out and did some testing and are seeing shorter stops from 60 MPH than you'd expect from a simple upgraded pad on an 86 brake system.

    Something that might rival the average new mini-van. Probably not
    Last edited by erratic50; 06-23-2020 at 12:50 PM.

  24. #99

    Default

    To add some to the above post.

    When adjusting the gap between the pushrod and the m/c piston, it is important to not set this for zero clearance. The proper way to set this clearance is to apply 15"-20" of vacuum to the booster, then set the clearance. When vacuum is applied to the booster it produces a static force on the diaphragms, which moves the pushrod out a little bit closer to the m/c piston. The add a very small additional clearance to allow for thermal expansion of the brake fluid in the system.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  25. #100

    Default

    Yet another rather undocumented important dynamic to getting things setup correctly, Jack!

    Going off of how the brakes feel and the temps at the brakes things are OK on Devon's car are just fine doing what we did. I would be surprised if the correct setup procedure yields much variation, but we surely had several rounds of trial and error to get where we are now.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •