When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I've been using rotors and pads from brakeperformance.com Their premium set are slotted and dimpled, not drilled. That makes for a stronger rotor than cross-drilled, but still provides the benefits of gas ejection.
You can also look at our sponsor rockauto.com for their selection. All of the claimed "high performance" rotors are cross-drilled, which I've not had good luck with. They either cracked or warped within a couple of years' of use.
Whatever you go with, make sure to get directional rotors, as they provide a lot better heat dissipation, and they're what came on Aerostars from 1992-on, as Ford realized the stock brakes were way too small for the vehicle and made a small effort to try to solve the problem.
The brakes on Aerostar are the biggest disappointment I have with them. I've tried the top line rotors and the lower cost ones and they have all developed hard spots making for "interesting" braking. Slotted, drilled, directional nothing seems to last very long - and I don't believe I'm hard on braking. I start slowing down as soon as I see traffic stopped ahead of me instead of stomping on the brakes at the last second.
The brakes on Aerostar are the biggest disappointment I have with them. I've tried the top line rotors and the lower cost ones and they have all developed hard spots making for "interesting" braking. Slotted, drilled, directional nothing seems to last very long - and I don't believe I'm hard on braking. I start slowing down as soon as I see traffic stopped ahead of me instead of stomping on the brakes at the last second.
Totally agree; this is my biggest gripe with the brakes on the Aerostar. I think it was originally designed for the shorty 2WD with the 2.3L 4 cylinder engine. Over its years of production, Ford introduced the longer body, adding weight, the 4L v6, adding weight, the 4WD, adding weight, but they never upgraded the brakes. Introducing this level danger to the vehicle is bordering on criminal negligence.
Compare the rotor sizes of the Aerostar (upper right) to those of Mustangs of various years:
The 4WD extended length Aerostar weighs over 4000 lbs unladen, while the the Mustangs weigh around 3000 pounds.
There is no easy way to upgrade the brakes. The caliper mount is cast as part of the spindle, so if you want to install a bigger rotor, you have to cut and weld pieces of the spindle to move the caliper outward to accommodate the bigger rotor.
When they introduced the 4WD version, Ford had to make a new spindle. Too bad they didn't think to design something that can accommodate bigger rotors. What were they thinking?
Totally agree; this is my biggest gripe with the brakes on the Aerostar. I think it was originally designed for the shorty 2WD with the 2.3L 4 cylinder engine. Over its years of production, Ford introduced the longer body, adding weight, the 4L v6, adding weight, the 4WD, adding weight, but they never upgraded the brakes. Introducing this level danger to the vehicle is bordering on criminal negligence.
Oh FFS. Take this breathless MotherJones-eqsue hand wringing garbage ad shove it. Or at least f-off to Reddit or some other place like that with it.
The Aeorstar has basically the same basis braking system as the Ranger and Explorer and nobody complains about those despite the former chronically being considered acceptable to move far more weight than anyone who hand wrings about brakes would even consider moving with an Aerostar let alone the unladen weight of even the heaviest Aerostar.
They never upgraded the brakes because the brakes are fine for what it is.
And even if they did want to throw more brake at it they wouldn't have upped the rotor size because they needed to be able to run 14" rims because those were the dominant economy size of the day and if you're building a vehicle for the everyman you have to accommodate that.
They put big brakes on performance cars like the Mustang because some people are going to track a car like that and you really can't have any fluctuations in performance in a setting like that (whereas it's perfectly fine for a normal vehicle to experience some fade under extreme use since you're presumably not repeatedly flying into turns and braking at the last possible second on the street).
If you want to make some sort of change so that the brakes feel better through hydroboost or a Bosch Ibooster at it.
Unless you're making it glow the rotor size is not actually your bottleneck.
Oh FFS. Take this breathless MotherJones-eqsue hand wringing garbage ad shove it. Or at least f-off to Reddit or some other place like that with it.
Not sure the reason behind this attitude. Do you disagree that it is unsafe to make no brake upgrades when you add over 500 pounds to the base weight of a vehicle that had weak brakes to begin with?
More than hand-wringing when going down a long steep hill and the rotors warped so badly that the steering wheel almost shudders out of my hands, pedal pulsing enough to jump my foot off, while downshifted out of OD to D. The only load I was carrying at the time were three passengers and four mountain bikes.
Many other owners on this forum have also experienced similar warpage.
Originally Posted by arse_sidewards
The Aeorstar has basically the same basis braking system as the Ranger and Explorer and nobody complains about those despite the former chronically being considered acceptable to move far more weight than anyone who hand wrings about brakes would even consider moving with an Aerostar let alone the unladen weight of even the heaviest Aerostar.
They never upgraded the brakes because the brakes are fine for what it is.
This has been demonstrated by many to be not true. Please read Rojostar's excellent write up here:
And even if they did want to throw more brake at it they wouldn't have upped the rotor size because they needed to be able to run 14" rims because those were the dominant economy size of the day and if you're building a vehicle for the everyman you have to accommodate that.
Wheel upgrades to + sizes are simple; there is plenty of room under the wheel wells to accommodate 15" Explorer wheels. I, and other owners here, have done that. A couple have even installed 17" Mustang wheels.
Originally Posted by arse_sidewards
They put big brakes on performance cars like the Mustang because some people are going to track a car like that and you really can't have any fluctuations in performance in a setting like that (whereas it's perfectly fine for a normal vehicle to experience some fade under extreme use since you're presumably not repeatedly flying into turns and braking at the last possible second on the street).
It's well documented that the v8 Fox Mustangs that came with the "bigger" 10.9" brakes that also suffered from "potato chip" syndrome just from regular driving. They weighed less than the I4 shorty Aerostar, yet even their bigger brakes were not sufficient to provide prolonged stopping without warping.
Originally Posted by arse_sidewards
If you want to make some sort of change so that the brakes feel better through hydroboost or a Bosch Ibooster at it.
The feel was severe shuddering from rotors warping from being overheated. No hydroboost or Ibooster is going to help that.
Originally Posted by arse_sidewards
Unless you're making it glow the rotor size is not actually your bottleneck.[/b]
Not sure if it glowed red, but all conventional rotors I used turned blue from just regular driving, no matter how gently I tried to use them.
Both these rotors have glowed at various points. The passenger one even survived a stuck caliper. No warping yet.
The idea that you people are destroying stock brakes doing anything less than "farmer shenanigans" is crazy to me. I've carried 2k in the van with decent frequency and towed double that slightly less frequently and had no problems. My Ranger (a 94 so same brakes) has seen way worse and performs great.
Originally Posted by RojoStar
I'm guessing a drunk troll.
Perhaps a child, visiting this forum for the first time.
Definitely not an Aero owner with any experience about brakes.
No "farmer shenanigans", whatever that is. Again, my extended length AWD van probably outweighs your shorty by about 500 pounds. Maybe you're just luckier than the rest of us, never having experienced the brake problems that we had. But that's no reason to get verbally abusive. I've never been on reddit, and it sounds like I don't want to.
But look at it objectively: A 4000+ pound vehicle fitted with smaller brakes than a 3000 pound vehicle; does that make sense?
BTW, your Ranger probably weighs 600 pounds less than your Aerostar, so it SHOULD stop much better with the same brakes.
Yesterday's load. ~50mi of local and highway driving though no big grade descents. Rotors are fine. This is the 3rd time I've moved one of these like this.
Originally Posted by xlt4wd90
No "farmer shenanigans", whatever that is. Again, my extended length AWD van probably outweighs your shorty by about 500
pounds.
Which brings it up to the same tare weight as the pictured Ranger.
Originally Posted by xlt4wd90
Maybe you're just luckier than the rest of us, never having experienced the brake problems that we had. But that's no reason to get verbally abusive.
I'll admit I started off a little strong but I still don't think the brakes are an issue seeing as three other Ford vehicles got the same brakes at various points (B2, 'sploder, Ranger) and the 'Sploder is heavier and got sold to the same demographics for the same use (family hauling). Acting like these vehicles have a serious deficiency in the brake department comes across as clipboard and safety vest type hand wringing.
Originally Posted by xlt4wd90
I've never been on reddit, and it sounds like I don't want to.
It's the kind of place where the blind lead the blind. You're not missing much.
Originally Posted by xlt4wd90
But look at it objectively: A 4000+ pound vehicle fitted with smaller brakes than a 3000 pound vehicle; does that make sense?
Have you seen the brakes on sports cars lately? They all have larger rotors and more piston area than current year one ton vans that are rated nearly 10x the weight. There's more to brake design than just bigger.
Originally Posted by xlt4wd90
BTW, your Ranger probably weighs 600 pounds less than your Aerostar, so it SHOULD stop much better with the same brakes.
The Ranger weighs 400lb more per the local cat scale. 3900 for the Ranger. 34xx for the Aerostar. I can dig up weight tickets for both. Same driver, similar compliment of tools onboard.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.
