Close



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27
  1. #1

    Default Calling all fairmont/zephyr 5-lug converters

    Anyone running 84-90 ranger rotors up front? I'm in the middle of a budget build, and want reassurance that there aren't any other nickle and dime fall out to just doing these rotors and bearings? Or any other specific details of what exactly to buy?

  2. #2

    Default

    My conversion is SN95, so I'm not familiar with that method. From what I can see from what's available here on FEP, it does sound to me like all you need is the rotors. The calipers and all that are the same. It does limit your wheels choices a bit though is the only thing. You can't run a center cap on most '94 and up wheels.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  3. #3

    Default

    My goal is to do 17" steelies from either a P71 Vic, or late model Magnum/Charger.

    But yea, from the threads I could dig up on here, looked like rotors is all I need (I assume* buying ranger bearings is safer).

    *edited: Assumption was wrong. Re-read through the ultimate 5 lug post again, and sounds like they suggest doing the fox bearings so maybe ranger spindle size (on the ibeams) is different diameter than the spindle on the foxes but the calipers have the same inner diameter.

    When I get ready to do the back, I'll be re-reading through that to get straight the whole Master Cylinder and/or proportioning valve information and the parking cable and the brake lines. One step at a time though.
    Last edited by Str8sixfan; 09-23-2018 at 09:04 PM.

  4. #4
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Correct me if I’m wrong but the rotors from the Mercury Monarch are 5 lug and a direct fit. Pretty sure I’m not wrong.

    83 Ranger rotors .... bearings use a different dust cap than fox. Bearing sets are the same. Seal is the same.

  5. #5

    Default

    Hmmm that could be. Monarch's the same as a Granada right? Trick is I think the Granada is an 11" rotor. Since I'm on a budget with this build I think I want to keep the 10" rotor up front. I'd normally spend money on brakes, but my rear end I found (Mark VII) happened to be a rear disc axle. So I feel like I am upgrading the brakes over stock still (I know, I know, the rear brakes only do about 30% of the work).

  6. #6
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Well - pretty sure the Monarch was 10. Can’t remember for certain

  7. #7

    Default

    If you could find '87 and up spindles and then swap to Mark VII front rotors and calipers, then you might have less trouble with brake feel (like I did with those rear brakes) and choosing a good fit in a master cylinder. You'd have a system all designed to work together. Something to consider. I've heard Mark VII/SVO brakes don't make a good match with other Fox/SN95 brakes. Sorry to complicate things, but at least it's still used stuff available out there.

    Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  8. #8
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    721

    Default

    It depends on what year Mark VII. I believe the '91-'92 Mark VII got the Turbo Coupe/'93 Cobra rear calipers.

    Do you know what year the Mark VII rearend is from?
    '89 XR-7 5 Speed
    '95 SC 5 Speed
    '91 Crown Vic P72 351W
    '97 Thunderbird
    '85 Ford LTD Squire

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinVarnes View Post
    It depends on what year Mark VII. I believe the '91-'92 Mark VII got the Turbo Coupe/'93 Cobra rear calipers.

    Do you know what year the Mark VII rearend is from?
    You're right. I forgot about that. The later year ones use the same style parking brake cables as SN95. That's how I was able to put together a set of cables to work on my SN95 rear brakes. They are all '91-92 Mark VII.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  10. #10

    Default

    Mine's from a '92.

  11. #11
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    721

    Default

    Okay that will give you vented 10.5" rear discs with a pretty reasonable caliper. I'd be mighty tempted to upgrade the fronts to 11". Didn't you mention you had Mark VII front brake parts?
    '89 XR-7 5 Speed
    '95 SC 5 Speed
    '91 Crown Vic P72 351W
    '97 Thunderbird
    '85 Ford LTD Squire

  12. #12

    Default

    No, at the moment I don't have any front components. This is why I was wanting to go with Ranger rotors. Less windfall of things to purchase.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Str8sixfan View Post
    Mine's from a '92.
    Cool, I think you're less likely to run into compatibility/feel issues then.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  14. #14

    Default

    Now that I'm thinking about this, I wonder how long the axles are. If the newer style Mark axles are the same as the earlier style, that will limit your wheel offset options on an F/Z. I had an early Mark axle on mine, and I couldn't fit a 30mm offset SN95-New Edge era wheel on mine without rubbing. I ended up going to the SVO wheels for that reason. 45mm offset S197 era Mustang wheels would also work.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  15. #15
    FEP Senior Member Greywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Richmond, ME
    Posts
    967

    Default

    If you have no front components, I'd look for a 1994-1995 Mustang to pull as much as possible from--which will also get you wheels, steering and suspension parts (if you want them), a box full of wire and small handy bits, and so forth--then you can sell what you don't want to use, to offset your $4000 budget. 1996-2004 spindles are different due to the Modular engine fitment, and won't work unless you swap the k-members.

  16. #16
    FEP Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    133

    Default

    I think it's a bit ironic that you are on a budget build but prioritize stopping power when you have only a stock straight six. I too have an I6 but went with upgrading the motor first. Am putting in a fresh 8.8 but keeping the stock wagon brakes to save money.

  17. #17
    FEP Senior Member Greywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Richmond, ME
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Monty, I'm also prioritizing stopping and suspension before engine. I may never need to do 0-60 in 5 seconds or pull a boat, but I might have to stop or swerve if a kid runs into the road in front of me, regardless of what engine I've got.
    I've gotten more speeding tickets in my "slow" everyday cars than I ever got in my 300ZX Turbo or Mustang--not because I drove slower, but because I could tap the brakes and be under the speed limit fast enough to lose the cop's attention.
    Back in the mid-90s I had a Dodge Voyager minivan with a 5-speed and the 2.5 turbo. Aside from almost 300 horsepower, it was a bone stock suspension and brakes minivan. We had a Chrysler Laser racecar and we broke it, so we took the drivetrain and put it in the van.
    Stupid fast. Stupid bad handling. Stupid bad brakes. Stupid fun at 22.
    I'm not 22 anymore, and while I wouldn't go so far as to say "I'm not stupid anymore", I will say that my stupidity likes good steering and brakes.
    (Also, to be stuck in your head: I like big brakes and I cannot lie).

  18. #18
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monty78 View Post
    I think it's a bit ironic that you are on a budget build but prioritize stopping power when you have only a stock straight six. I too have an I6 but went with upgrading the motor first. Am putting in a fresh 8.8 but keeping the stock wagon brakes to save money.
    The car in question is a V8. I don't think there is anything wrong with prioritizing brakes/steering/suspension first. As Greywolf notes, when I was younger I'd probably be good with 400hp and four wheel drums. Nowadays I'd take less power and great brakes and handling.
    '89 XR-7 5 Speed
    '95 SC 5 Speed
    '91 Crown Vic P72 351W
    '97 Thunderbird
    '85 Ford LTD Squire

  19. #19

    Default

    Yea, the car is a V8 car. The priority wasn't necessarily stopping power. Now that being said, even now as a slow car but the braking power sucks in stock form. But I digress.

    The priority was 8.8 and 5-lug, and upgrade of gears (from 2.47 to 3.27). It just so happened my solution also included disk brakes which is an added bonus. Also the trac-lok was an awesome bonus too! I would have taken 5-lug with open and drums, but I feel like I hit the jackpot. Also one of my objectives was to try and not go all-in on one aspect of the car vs another, but try and "touch them all" with my budget - https://youtu.be/KFGxSopmhnU as much as I could.

    But I too find, even at 33, I care more about stopping power...it's not so much that I care about it more than more HP, I just care about having infrastructure for when I do add power too!

    Last weekend I bought some junkyard 17x7s (10 hole steelies) from a 2007 dodge charger/magnum. Supposedly their offset is greater than Crown Vic ones...now not necessarily have I put enough research into whether or not my combo works together, but I'll find out sometime.
    Last edited by Str8sixfan; 10-03-2018 at 08:47 PM.

  20. #20
    FEP Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    133

    Default

    It's all good.

    I'm 60. ya whippersnapper...

    I'm doing 3.27 gears in my new rear too.
    Going with upper and lower torque box reinforcements, control arms and subframe connectors at the moment.
    And I don't weld, so I'm saving money on brakes to pay for shop time.

  21. #21

    Default

    That's right, I forgot it was a 302. Makes that 0-60 even more pathetic.

    Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  22. #22
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    721

    Default

    You should do 60-0 stopping distance too just for funsies.
    '89 XR-7 5 Speed
    '95 SC 5 Speed
    '91 Crown Vic P72 351W
    '97 Thunderbird
    '85 Ford LTD Squire

  23. #23

    Default

    The ap has that capability, but I think I'd be more scared of what happens doing that than 0-60.

    And as far as Monty's comment, welding's fun

  24. #24
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    721

    Default

    I just think it would be interesting to see what if anything the rear discs add. FWIW you will have other expenses with adding the rear discs. You may be looking at a new master cylinder, new adjustable proportional valve, new hoses, e-brake cables, etc, etc. For your budget you may want to consider reusing your current axles and drums if money is tight, but that may also require different wheels then you had planned since you would be back at the Mustang rear track width. If going that route you could look at 98-02 Crown Vic 16" steelies.
    '89 XR-7 5 Speed
    '95 SC 5 Speed
    '91 Crown Vic P72 351W
    '97 Thunderbird
    '85 Ford LTD Squire

  25. #25

    Default

    As mentioned above, I already have wheels. I realize the potential cost adds with rear discs. I plan on sinking my head into that further when I get closer, but I think there's actually an avenue to leave the MC/Booster set-up alone and only do the upgraded auxilary proportioning valve. I don't KNOW that yet, but think it might be possible. I have no desire to deconstruct a disc brake rear for drums. Seems like equal amounts of labor to save little money by the time I source new (shorter) axle shafts and drum brake assembly.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •