Been shopping for brake rotors for my 2000 C4 Cab and am constantly seeing the acronym "PVT" in the description of the rotors. Searched for the definition of PVT online but didn't find anything.

I assume it's related to the brake rotors being ventilated (as in "partially ventilated . . .") and that it's better for the rotors to be PVT than not but what exactly does PVT stand for?

 

Pillar ventilation inside the rotor https://www.bremboparts.com/america/...vt-ventilation

 

Saw that page but it still doesn't explain what the letters "PVT" stand for, unless it's "Pillar Ventilated . . . something or other."

I get that it's associated w/a change in the construction of the rotors but just curious why they are calling it PVT "ventilated" -- PVT must stand for "something" specific but its not defined/explained anywhere I've looked so far.

Guess I can just call Brembo and ask and will do that if no one here knows the answer.

 

Pillar Venting Technology (PVT)

 

OIC. Seems so obvious now. Thank-you!

 

FYI, if anyone is interested, Brembo now makes a symmetrical PVT front brake rotor that can be used on both sides of the car for the 996 (MY 1999-2004). The product number for this front rotor is: #09.C880.11. They also make a non-PVT and symmetrical rear brake rotor that can also be used on either side of these cars and and the product number for this rotor is: #09.665.11. There is an additional front rotor PVT variation available for MY2004 but I'm not sure how it's different than #09.C880.11.

If you prefer an asymmetrical/directional front rotor, there are still 2 non-PVT asymetrical Brembo rotors that you can buy. For the front left that would be product #09.C094.11 and for the right front that would be product #09.C095.11. I was leaning towards getting the asymmetrical rotors but, after reading about the PVT rotors, I think I'll get them instead based on Brembo's claim of the lower weight, the increased cooling capacity, greater resistance to thermal cracks and greater heat dissipation capacity than non-PVT rotors.

See: https://www.brembostoreusa.com/produ...04&clev=0&hs=1

 

Thanks for the educational info! I always appreciate the "why" behind things.

 

Thanks for digging deeper into this. I'm reserving judgement pending more data but this seems like it has the bean counters and marketing guy's fingerprints all over it. It saves a lot of money in manufacturing costs but the armchair engineer in me doesn't see how they could cool more than the directional versions. For now, I'll stick with the much cheaper Sebro and Zimmerman directional versions but I'm keeping an open mind.

 

If for no other reason, the PVTs should be "better" simply because they are lighter and should reduce unsprung weight and thereby improve front end handling, even if only marginally.

I also like that they are symmetrical and I don't have to worry about them being installed on the "wrong" side. Something that I easily could stupidly do but hopefully NOT anything my Indy would do. LOL!

 

I'm all for lighter so I'm curious what the PVT rotors weigh. The Brembo link lists them at 9.32 lbs which seems like it might be a typo because that's half what a regular rotor weighs (18 lbs). It's hard to imagine it could be half the weight and still run cooler. (i know, i know, again with the armchair engineer).

As you can see from this pic, I have the upmost confidence in my ability to get it right when doing a brake job with directional rotors.