UKKid35

Does anyone have any figures for braking distances on different surfaces, with and without ABS?

I'd also like to see how it compares with the figures quoted for modern exotica such as the Koenigsegg CC8S which quotes "Braking distance: 32 m (100–0 km/h)"

slate blue

I'd love to see it too, I think for my model they quoted 100 kph to zero in 3.3 seconds. They didn't give any distances. Also that was with the anti lock brakes, I don't think that will change the distance or time too much.

My car stops in 3 seconds dead, that is according to a stopwatch, I know not that accurate, but it is all I have to go on.

Cheers Greg

SharkSkin

R&T stated the 60-0 distance to be 137 feet when the S4 was tested. I expect their tests were on dry pavement.

More R&T #'s:

86 S: 140 Ft.
83 S: 156 Ft.
81: 138 Ft.
80: 138 Ft.
79: 139 Ft.
78: 138 Ft.

slate blue

Well those figures roughly translate to 41 to 42 meters. The thing is that tyres have improved markedly, the other thing is I don't neccesarily agree that Koenigeggs figures are accurate, they also claim a 9 second quarter. Now the Mclaren only did high tens or low 11s. I have no problem with a street car doing a 9, but an F1 car can only do 9. The cars that do 9 are set up for it, traction off the line would be the problem.

The GT2 with its PCCB brakes doesn't even get near that figure of 32 metres.

dr bob

A "9 second quarter" is really jamming for a street car. There are also a lot of workbench "estimates" that become God's Truth without any real testing. In the real world, many will try to interpret a 9.99 sec run to be a "nine second quarter", trimming those pesky decimals rather than rounding. The marketing guys tend to be way optimistic in these areas.

Ford went through some gymnastics a few years ago when they introduced the Cobra Mustang package, with an inflated HP figure. When the performance didn't match up to the hype, buyers called BS and forced Ford to cough up the difference.

UKKid35

Has anyone used a GTech Pro to record their braking distance or time? I've got one, but not used it yet.

SharkSkin

Same here. One of these days...

Garth S

Dave, astonishingly close set of numbers for a significant evolution in brake components: Although car weight increased slightly, tire size, caliper swept area, rotor diameter, etc. all increased signifigantly ... This speaks very well of even the earliest brakes for street use.

SharkSkin

I was thinking the same thing. It backs up the statements that I've heard here that later brakes may not provide more braking power, just less fade. These numbers are so close though, that I tend to think the limitation was tires....

mark kibort

its really all about tires and conditions. all brakes have the ability to stop a car in close to the same time. ABS doesnt go in, until you pass the abilities of the Brakeee. racing abs is differnt, and that can be as effective as a threashold brake.
if you look at the actual pad tests for pad manufacturers, they show braking force for compared to pedal force. this has no bearing on how quick a car will stop, but a better indication of the pedal feel at different temps and pressures on the pads. (very misleading !)

This discussion rates right up there with octane benefits in gas

Mk

Dennis K

I remember when Road & Track tested two '83 928S's and there was a 20 foot difference in the 80-0 stopping distance between the two cars (~260 ft. vs ~280 ft). The only variation was that one car had Goodyear NCT's and the other had Pirelli P7's.

If we could throw on some modern tires like BFG Comp KD's or Michelin PS2's, I'd bet the numbers would drop another 20 feet.

Jim M.

In 1989 the S4 and the GT were listed as 135 ft from 60 to 0, 160 ft from 70 to 0, and 247 ft from 80 to 0. This was by Car and Driver. Also in 89 the GT was the fastest car(0-60), with the best brakes (shortest braking distance) of all new cars legally offered in the USA.

Jim Mayzurk
93 GTS

nuc

Jim M.,

1989 20th Anniversary Pontiac Turbo-Trans Am (6 cylinder)
0-60 4.6 sec



1989 928GT - 5-speed Manual
0-60 5.8 sec.

(porsche definately brakes faster tho.

FlyingDog

I don't see why the 83 is so much higher than the 86. It has the same brakes, suspension, and tires(size), but less weight.

Jim bailey - 928 International

Anders the 86 may have been an 86.5 (not one of the first 1000) which had S-4 brakes suspension.