Research the 10 X 2 1/2 like Shelby used. There's even some more modern cars still using them and if they're good enough for a Shelby, they'll work for you. AND it's all Ford or parts store stuff. He used ones off a 60's station wagon, but Galaxies also used them on the front, Aerostars used them as well as some newer Lincolns on the rear. The only hard part to find is the correct backing plates, but they are out there. Everything else is still available. And 20 years from now, it'll probably still be available vs some aftermarket stuff.

 

Unless I missed it, you don’t say the intended use of your car.

Racing, even amateur, I say yes, get the Shelby sized upgrade.

But if you are looking at primarily street use, or spirited street use with maybe an occasional auto cross, then just have your existing drums turned and install the Porterfield R-4s shoes on the rear.

take the $500 saved and buy 100 + gallons of gasoline, put in for a week sick time at work, and hit the road (2 lane blacktop) and forget about all the troubles of modern life for a few days.

Z

 

Okay, that's what I needed to hear.

 

The 11x2.25" rear brakes can be found on big Ford and Lincolns from the late 80s. The backing plates and parking brake cables bolt right up. You can do it cheap if you find the parts at a junkyard.

 

They bolt up to a small bearing 8” housing?

 

Don’t bother with the rear drum upgrade on a “street” car. The Porterfield pads up front are all you’ll need.
Even the smallest possible rear sway bar will surprise you at the limit….. and not in a good way.
I’d never recommend running a rear bar on the street. Most folks running them never pushed the car hard enough, that’s why they think it’s a great addition.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995

 

,,,and Porterfield shoes on the rear.....

 

I have the 11"x2 1/4" on my '66...only because I did track it for a year. Overkill for the street...likely. Am I going to change them back...not likely. They haven't caused any issues.

 

The 10X2.5” drums usually were found on station wagons and Rancheros. I bought a 69 Ranchero 8” for $100 several years ago. The only difference I can spot between the stock backing plates and the 2.5” is the location of the wheel cylinder to center the wheel cylinder to shoes. I’ve also have physically installed front drums on the rear axle. Front drums at least the aftermarket ones are finned and are designed for the 2.5” wide shoe. These finned drums fit perfectly on the rear axle. I would think if nothing else the front drums would be a modest upgrade between the greater mass and being finned.

I was actually having a conversation with an engine builder who has a 65 or 66 set up as a road race theme that was actually modifying the wheel cylinder location on the rear backing plates to use the 10X2.5 shoes.

 

Here's a good write up on how to do it from long ago:

https://mustangsandmore.com//ubb/RearBrakesbySamGriffith.html

The easiest way is to find boxy LTD, Crown Vic, Towncar, etc. from 1980-1988 and get the backing plates. They have the small bearing bolt pattern. Aerostar backingbplates will work, but need some modification to the bolt pattern (weld up and redrill).

 

That’s what’s on the rear of my ‘68. I think I paid $40 or something at the junkyard. Everything was new.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995

 

Do you folks remember the Mustang Monthly article that showed readers how to "upgrade" the stock rear drums to the 10 x 2 1/2 brakes? There was no mention at all about the backing plates anywhere in the article. Made me wonder how many other articles in the past also had just a bit of information missing.

 

I remember the article. I thought it mentioned the backing plates.... E5AZ-2211-A and E5AZ-2212-A, long discontinued. I managed to score a set back around 2000 for a rear brake upgrade on a buddy's Shelby clone. TMK, though, SOMEBODY reproduces the backing plate.

 

To jump through all the hoops to change the rear brakes to--Anything-Disc, bigger drums, bigger shoes, etc) is not needed.
Remember the rear brakes do round figure 25% of the braking in any vehicle, So now you have a baseline of only 25% to gain. Then with weight transfer the locking up of the rears gets a bit tricky.
So any different, " Gain" in braking by doing these changes will be less than 5% in braking.

 

Yup, kinda already said as much. I wouldn’t have upgraded my ‘68 but couldn’t pass up the nearly free price for basically brand new parts.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995

 

when i did mine I used the lincoln / granmarquis backing plates from a pick n pull and ordered everything else new from rock auto for a 65 ford ranch wagon everything raybestoes less than $200

 

So... can this be done with four lug drums?

 

I agree w/ Zray- my 64 got 68 front discs in 1991 and I still have the stock rears. Big difference is I drive mine a lot and have never really seen a need for a better braking system. For every time I really needed to stop fast, my system worked as well as I needed it to. And as for driving a lot- 445,000 miles so far since I got it in 1990 so I reckon you might not be driving that much.

 

I agree w/ Zray-……”

“…….And as for driving a lot- 445,000 miles so far since I got it in 1990 so I reckon you might not be driving that much.

you start out your post in a way that’s impossible to disagree with

…. but then you lose me when you imply that averaging under 13,000 driven yearly is driving the car a lot ???

( )

Sounds like a garage queen that only goes out on sunny days for a trip to the ice cream parlor.



heck, even my ‘66 vintage Shelby’s were racking up 15 - 20 thou a year just cruising around Texas, New Mexico, and Oklaoma (7 days a week / 365 days year).

These cars are fun to drive , aren’t they ? Keep it going, sounds like you’re on the right track !!

Z

 

How about Mt Evans in Colo? It was 100* in Denver and 40* on top. It even snowed on us while we were there. Then there's the Beartooth Hwy in Montana, Mt Washington in NH, Trail Ridge Rd in Colo, Death Valley, Tail of the Dragon a lot. It's been in 44 states, Canada & Mexico.

 

You’ve had a lot of fun and seen all the important tourist destinations.

It’s time you took it to another level and suffered for real bragging rights


Paved roads must be getting boring, right ??

The Dakar should get your juices flowing nicely. It used to be ran from Paris to Dakar, but since 2008 it’s has a different route that floats from place to place due to security concerns ( i.e. , civil war(s) in Africa )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakar_Rally

These photos are from when it was still ran in Africa. The Mustang took 1st place, beating a slew of Porsches in doing so.

As noted in the Wiki article pasted above, it’s been held in South America lately, going over much of the same route that I did in the 1970’s.

So, the question is, when can you pack your bags. I’m ready for one more big adventure.

Let’s do it

Z

 

That must have been a blast! But you have to admit, your tires are bigger than mine for the dirt roads! You get the car and I'll start packing!

 

I drove the PanAm highway on stock sized bias ply tires. (A lot of flat tires along the way).

 

I had a teacher who drove the PanAm Hw in the late 60's. Somewhere (I think southern Mexico) he busted up the rear end housing of his Falcon. Had to wait a few weeks before the car could get repaired. Wish I had heard more about his trip . . . .

 

I bought a 69 Ranchero 8” for $100 a few years back. I noticed the big drum plus I wanted the center section. I thought the drums looked like the front drums I had bought early on for my car. Which are finned and are used on both the small block 2.25” front shoes or big block 2.50” shoes. They were the same. I tried one of these front drums on my stock rear drums on my 66 with 1.75” shoes. They fit without rubbing the hub on the front is the same diameter as the rear axle. Now as far as backing plates. The only difference I could see between my rear axle and the 69 Ranchero with the 2.50” shoes is simply the offset of the wheel cylinder to center it on the wider shoes. So if you’re a little crafty with a welder and grinder, you could modify the 1.75” backing plate to accept the 2.50” shoe.

I would think simply using a drum listed for the front with it’s greater mass and fins would be an upgrade

 

The pin at the top also needs to be longer

 

In the mid 90s when I was restoring my ride, I purchased a complete 10X2.5" rear brake 'n drum kit from a FORD dealer in SC. It included back plates, drums, hardware and shoes. it was the "hot lick" back in the day to add this kit. Still running it today but with Porterfield shoes. I can probably dig out the invoice if needed.
Editing to add this list, might be helpful.....
Drums: C3OZ-1126-A
Left back plate: L C3OZ-2211-A
Right back plate: R C3OZ-2212-A
Left wheel cyl: L C3OZ-2262-B
Right wheel cyl: R C3OZ-2261-B

 

If you're running OEM Ford gears, certain ratio's have marks to show what teeth that must to be aligned to the other (hunting vs non-hunting.) Typically aftermarket gears do not seem to require this "tooth timing."

 

It doesn't matter if it's OEM or aftermarket. "Non-hunting" or "Semi-hunting" gear sets need to be timed. If they're aftermarket gears that aren't "indexed" you should mark them on initial installation so if they ever need service they are return to proper timing. I ran across this fine explanation on the Internet....

To follow-up on axle gear timing, here are some basics. There are odd terms used from the last century to describe gear meshing. In rear axle gears, the terms are hunting, semi-hunting, and non-hunting. What this means is whether a specific pinion tooth must "hunt" through most of the ring gear teeth as the gears revolve to find the original ring gear tooth it started from. Or if it does not have to hunt ("non-hunting") for that gear tooth - meaning it finds that same ring gear tooth every ring gear revolution or two.

Hunting gear sets are not timed or indexed, as the pinion teeth hit most of the ring gear teeth before finding the first ring gear tooth it started at. The opposite is a non-hunting set, which is timed or indexed, as the exact same teeth are contacting on every revolution or two.

An example of a non-hunting (indexed) gear ratio is the Ford 9" 3.00:1 ratio. This ratio has 39 ring gear teeth and 13 pinion gear teeth. These tooth counts have a common whole-number factor of 3. This ratio has the same pinion teeth engage exactly the same ring gear teeth on every ring gear revolution. So, if we numbered the teeth on the pinion and ring gears, and indexed pinion tooth #1 with ring gear tooth #1, in exactly one ring gear revolution and 3 pinion revolutions those teeth would match-up again.

Along the way, pinion tooth #1 would engage ring gear teeth 1, 14 and 27, then back to 1 again. Those are all the ring teeth that pinion tooth will ever hit. Ever. So, when machined and lapped together during production, it is important those same meshed teeth are installed to mesh as originally made. Much like lapping valves in your cylinder heads, you do not get the same fit if you then move the valves to other cylinders.

Conversely, gear sets where the tooth counts have no common factor will have the #1 pinion tooth hit many different teeth and multiple ring gear revolutions before finding ring tooth #1 again. This type needs no timing indexing. An example ratio would be 4.10:1, having 41 and 10 teeth on each gear. 41 and 10 have no common factor numbers, and almost all the pinion teeth will engage almost all the ring teeth before the #1 teeth see each other again.

Between these two extremes, we have semi-hunting. These sets are still indexed, but the common factor is higher and the teeth mesh more combinations. An example is 3.50:1, with 35/10 tooth counts. The lowest common factor of 35 and 10 is 5. The #1 teeth will find each other after only two ring gear revolutions, and meshing with only the same 7 ring gear teeth.

 

the 3.00 ford gear set needs to be timed. look for a yellow paint dab on the end of the pinion gear where it meets the ring gear. the paint mark on the ring gear will be on the inner diameter of the ring gear between 2 teeth.