senna

Ok, I will bite. Why is the carbon brakes so bad? Sure, it is expensive but then what?

CodeRed

^ At a certain point how much braking do u really need? Are we talking 24 hrs of le mans?

OldGuy

You can also ruin a rotor with a pebble then can crack and then its like a 5-7,000 repair.

carcommander

The best I can come up after reading all the threads is the don't dust your wheels.

mrsullivan

this has been beaten to death... never has been about braking... I have never read a pccb owner that said the standard irons weren't enough... not once.

those getting them say its for unsprung mass reduction, 10lbs per corner has been stated... and brake dust... not because of braking, the standard brakes are more than adequate.

those not getting them say the unsprung mass reduction isn't that much, and not enough to feel, and so not worth 9k just for brake dust

they are expensive to replace, so not good on track if you don't want to have to replace... on the street they will last forever

I got them because I couldn't stand the thought of being in Porsche's highest performance model if the weight reduction WAS significant...and resulted in lighter handling, more response, etc.

beaten to death

Other than buckets, lift, PDLS, pccb was my only option... $149k sticker

DES GTS

Well said!

Sloopy

I have driven several different types of cars, all of the same car with and without carbon brakes. The difference in ride and handling was very noticeable in all of them.

I am not going to track that much so for me the PCCB are a plus but I can see the augment if your a track junky. Are carbon better breaks? yes. Are they worth the extra expense? Depends on the person.

paradocs98

For those who plan on tracking the car regularly, the PCCBs are a hindrance. They may "last forever" on the street, but they certainly do not when subjected to frequent track use. At which point you're faced with $17,000+ in replacement costs for rotors. Contrast that with around $2,400 for a high-quality set of slotted GiroDisc cast iron rotors. And with "low-tech" standard brakes you get to fine-tune braking with pad selection from Pagid, PFC, etc.
This too.
Beaten to death, yes, and a personal decision. My point is more that it's interesting that dealers are choosing to option these cars almost exclusively with PCCBs vs standard brakes, at least based on this small sample I observed.
Which brings us to a conundrum--if the car's true ultimate potential can only be experienced with the lighter unsprung mass of PCCBs, and that ultimate potential can only be safely explored in a track setting, and yet frequent track use destroys expensive PCCBs, where are we now?

NateOZ

Marginal performance isn't cheap, look at the GT3 vs GT3 RS pricing historically and expected pricing this time around. Compare a 458 vs 458 Speciale, or GT3 vs a 918. Marginal gains in the hands of much better drivers than I, for a ton of money.

I have PCCBs, I have no issue replacing them if I end up tracking my car a lot and they don't last. But I have a dedicated track car, so other than a few 40 minute sessions here and there, I'm not sure I'll use the GT3 much on the track. I like the look of the PCCBs, that was reason enough for me.

cabman4007

I really like yellow caliper look and ordered the TTS because of the PCCBs and the +40 HP.

Painting the red calipers yellow is not an option for me. A big bonus is clean wheels after 100s of miles.

The big question would be... If you could have the steel brakes or PCCBs either as standard items, which brakes would you choose? I bet the nay-sayers would choose the PCCBs. The main reason for the negative about the PCCBs are the cost and maintenance if used regularly on the track. Once I got used to these PCCBs I will never have the steel brakes on future sports cars.

senna

Well, it is a cost related issue. If I can I will spec on my car with it, but then I will do radio delete and PTS too. All I am saying it is not a deal breaker for me, that is all.