[MyOldGrayMare]

Six cylinder convertibles are heavier than an eight cylinder coupe. Yet they still get the smaller 9" diameter brakes the six cylinder coupes get. Supposedly, Ford tried to mitigate this deficiency by installing the 2.25": wide rear drum brakes from the Falcon station wagon on the Mustang 6 cyl convertibles. But it never happened to my car. It had the standard1.5" wide rear drum brakes since new. Some quite knowledgeable Mustang masters have said in this forum that they doubt it ever happened, they have never seen the wider convertible back brakes factory installed. So here's the survey question - Are there any 65-66 six cylinder convertible owners who have, original from the factory, the 2.25" wide drums on the back of their car?

 

[Travis98146]

From the 1966 Mustang Factory Service Manual all, I repeat, ALL Mustangs had 2.25 shoes on the front and 1.75 ones on the rear. If Ford altered the brakes, it would have to be later than 1966. Of course, over the 55 year life, owners probably modified their brake systems to try to get "better" braking (instead of properly repairing the system).

 

[MyOldGrayMare]

 

[MyOldGrayMare]

Well no, not ALL Mustangs have that size brakes, eight cylinder models are different. But see the catalog page above. That's been going on for fifty years. Why? As I said, I used to see the wheel cylinders listed too, but that has faded over time. This page listed the hold down springs and stuff for the 2.25 brakes as appropriate for the convertible's rear brakes too. As have a lot of other suppliers, for many years. I've dealt with the issue most of my life. Please explain where all these parts suppliers got their misinformation, and why it has persisted so persistently. I'm not saying the change ever got done. In fact, I don't think it did. I'm trying to confirm that here. But for some reason, lots of parts suppliers have that impression. Where did they get their information, if not from Ford? And the change makes total sense, Ford did put the wider brakes on the back of six cyl Falcon wagons, as they can be heavier than a coupe. Why not do the same to the heavier Mustang 'verts?

 

[Travis98146]

Well no, not ALL Mustangs have that size brakes, eight cylinder models are different. But see the catalog page above. That's been going on for fifty years. Why? As I said, I used to see the wheel cylinders listed too, but that has faded over time. This page listed the hold down springs and stuff for the 2.25 brakes as appropriate for the convertible's rear brakes too. As have a lot of other suppliers, for many years. I've dealt with the issue most of my life. Please explain where all these parts suppliers got their misinformation, and why it has persisted so persistently. I'm not saying the change ever got done. In fact, I don't think it did. I'm trying to confirm that here. But for some reason, lots of parts suppliers have that impression. Where did they get their information, if not from Ford? And the change makes total sense, Ford did put the wider brakes on the back of six cyl Falcon wagons, as they can be heavier than a coupe. Why not do the same to the heavier Mustang 'verts?

I didn't say All Mustangs, I quoted the 66 Mustang Factory Service Manual. If you want to call the Factory liars, that's your prerogative. The parts houses will tell you what will fit even if it's not what came on the car from the Factory. You can just about put anything on anything if you have the money or skill.

 

[Woodchuck]

If you can go down the highway at 50 mph, jump on the brake pedal and lock up the rear brakes (if properly serviced and adjusted) then you don't NEED bigger rear brakes. That said, I can't imagine how hard it would be to find a pair of correct backing plates for said 9 x 2-1/4 inch brakes....

 

[bmcgc]

The parts houses will tell you what will fit even if it's not what came on the car from the Factory.

The parts houses dont know jack.

 

[MyOldGrayMare]

But this catolog discrepancy has gone on for literally generations. Across many brands, pre computer era and after. It goes much deeper and broader than a typo should go. Granted, counter guys may not know much, but they don't write the catalogs. Who does? Where do they get their information? Why has it been wrong so long and so consistently? I think I see the new witnesses I should call to the stand in my little history detective mystery.