does anyone no if the rear discs and callipers will go on the rear of a rs turbo? im breaking my rs2000 and might put them on my turbo if they fit,cheers.

 

Anything can fit with the correct bracket. Lots of people use a Cosworth style rear disc setup, myself included.

 

If you want my advice and it is good brakes you are after DO NOT FIT REAR DISCS.



I can assure you without any shadow of doubt that mine would outbrake another well-known RST that we currently have here, mine has rear drums, the other has discs.

 

So what is the verdict then?

 

well i'll just stick with the drums then,cheaper,and i can flog the rear rs2k dics and callipers! cheers lads.

 

Depends if youy are after looks or outright braking power I guess.

I am still up for a rear disc conv at some point, purely from a looks point of view.

But then, mine does not run monster power........

 

ehm, rear disk is better than drums

 

Surely with a car as light and nose heavy as an rst, the vast majority of the braking is done by the fronts, so fitting hugely powerful front brakes is much more important?

 

yap, but once more.. disk is better than drums

 

You know it all then, right?

So, who has 350bhp?

Who has most experience of stopping from practically 170mph??

Of course rear discs are preferable in an ideal world, but the RST by design is FAR FAR from ideal.

The brakes are piped in such a way so as not to be ideal for efficient rear brakes and the back of the car is very light for a start.

Trust me, my brakes are AWESOME and the above mentioned car's brakes are truly second-rate by comparison. I have told the owner this too......

 

Can you explain how drums are better than discs and calipers on the rear as I'm miffed

 

i would like to know also as im about to do a rear disc conversion myself

 

haha, du er en sĺnn kar du


Of course rear discs are preferable in an ideal world, but the RST by design is FAR FAR from ideal.

Have not said on rst any place have I? And as u say your self its better

 

but this is the rs turbo section

 

In theory, discs should be better. But the brakes on mine are superb with drums.

I can only suggest that it is due to the fact that discs are too much for the rear of an already light car.

The only real way to improve this is to decrease the rear bias, in which case you might aswell have kept the drums.

I haven't driven many RST's with rear discs, but those that I have driven have had shite brakes.

 

Wanna try a good one then

Nowt wrong with drums, nowt wrong with discs.

Pad material on the back if using discs needs to be the softest you can get (many people make the mistake and use something uprated like Mintex 11' series or Ferrodo DS etc - these are WAY to hard for the back)

Work out the cross sectional surface areas of the materials / combination used (drums to discs) and there is not much in it.

Discs are far easier too look after tho

 

imo discs do look better than rusty old drums on any car, but like christian said rear discs are too much for a already light car at the rear. but having said that a brake bias vavle would sort the braking out a lot. makes you think if rear discs are too much for a light car like the escort , why did the 205 1.9 gti & r5 gt turbo have them as std, thought these cars were way lighter than the rs turbo at the back.

 

well im not goin to be running monster power,so i'll stcik with drums on the rear with a decent set up on the front ,thanks for all the tips tho.

 

and as NUTS RuS did say, u have to set them up right. So if your rear breaks is Christian its for u! But rear drums is ok. And the only thing I could think off why ford did put on drums is because its cheaper

 

Rear discs would be OK if you have a proper pedal-box with bias adjustment, I would imagine.

The 23/25mm Master Cylinder has a hard enough job providing adequate pressure for larger fronts, let alone calipers on the rear too.

 

The rear brakes on a FWD car only do 10% of the braking. So even if you double the stopping power of the rear brakes it only gives a minimal increase in the overall braking power of the car. Plus, better rear brakes cause all sort of brake balance problems so you will probably end up reducing (bias valves etc) the rear braking effect negating the effects of the upgrade anyway. Add the fact your handbrake will be next to useless with discs too. And!! Because the rears do so little the discs will rust up and the callipers will eventually seize from lack of use. So, what is the point?

The mechanics at my dad's Ford dealer can't stand rear discs as the spend most of their time unseizing them and replacing rusty parts because they do so little (braking) work. When cars with rear drums come in for a service all they needs is a 2 minute check and the shoes last for years and years.

 

 

drums leaky cylinders

 

no offence but drums look a bit nasty now cossie rear disks an calipers all the way

 

They are not there to look pretty, they do a job. Your car will look nasty when you get a rear brakes lock up and end up in a ditch!!!!

No offence

 

Hahaha

 

Has anyone actually got an answer as to WHY though.

You look at any comparable car. A Mk2 Astra GTE 16v for instance, we all know how rapid they are, and they have big old brakes up front and discs on the rear, and a 19mm master cylinder IIRC.

Fords seem to have massive master cylinders and consistently shit brakes

WHY???????????

 

Shite design in the cross over bars

 

SO what about sierra's.........which dont have crossover bars.

The low spec cars have a 23mm..........

 

Sierras dont have problems

 

sure of that? do believe its a little more

 

Its still an excessive master cylinder size for a poverty model car with drum brakes on the rear................

 

It should be more Alex, but I think it was a hyperthetical figure for the post - not an actual technical one.

 

okelidokeli

 

nice to see ive created such a debate!,lol

 

its called a mass-debate

 

From Burton Power's website

Dont forget the brakes do not just slow the car down, they also slow the axles/drive shaft/gearbox down. Hence why the rears do more on RWD cars, even so it only a 1/4 of the braking effort.

 

From a specific very high profile brake manufacturers site..

Depends if you want to believe a "shop" or a component manufacturer that works closely with actual vehicle manufacturers

Either way it matters not

From my own experience (in competition) when I lost the rear brakes completely, the only way I noticed was because the pedal sank a bit further down than normal. The car still stopped the same up front, but it just wasn't as balanced under braking and nose dived more. It also made left footing it around corners a lot more difficult.

So its correct they dont do much, but what they do do is done for a purpose

 

NUTS RuS have you run out of answers for me

Am i getting too technical for your ass

 

Did someone say something in here just then ?

Maybe I left the door open and someone wandered in as usual