PCCB are great IF:

Set/aligned/installed perfectly including proper ventilation (major problem for upgrade on Turbo)

Pads good from Porsche

Warm up time

--

In other words, they are great under precise conditions. However, there are many excellent steel aftermarket options that offer a good weight savings and are more bullet-proof.

If I were upgrading, I'd do one of those personally.

 

Since the Porsche Cup is a Porsche only series, I would be surprised if they could not make that change if they wanted to. I'm not an expert but doesn't the ALMS and Le Mans allow composite brakes in vertually every class (I'm prettys sure when I looked to purchase the Le Mans winning Viper a few years back it had composite brakes on it?) Why would PCCB not be allowed?

Personally, I think PCCB has promise but is not there yet. Most of the reviews I have read, by testers that use hard data to support subjective statements, do not support that PCCB is better than the steel setup. In addition, the users who have put a lot of miles on the setup, have had more than their share of issues with it. When it's ready, I'll get it. Until then, I'll stick with the proven stuff. (I actually ordered it for my TT but it would have delayed production by 3 months so I took it off the order, now I'm glad I did).

My big issue was the "envious" statement. Anyone who orders a $100K car can afford it if they want it. My issue is what is the performance improvement for the money? I don't think the reduction in unsprung weight outweighs the reported problems with the system.

As Karl said, to each his own

Roy

 

The Carrera GT's ceramic brakes and pads are not the same as the TT/GT2. And the ceramic brakes on the similar Enzo seem to work great.

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by RWO:
<strong>Since the Porsche Cup is a Porsche only series, I would be surprised if they could not make that change if they wanted to. I'm not an expert but doesn't the ALMS and Le Mans allow composite brakes in vertually every class (I'm prettys sure when I looked to purchase the Le Mans winning Viper a few years back it had composite brakes on it?) Why would PCCB not be allowed?
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Yes they could run them on a Cup car, but even if they were better it doesn't matter because everyone has the same set up, so why spend the $$$. It is a driver's series not one to show how much faster Porsche is than another marque.

The rules are different based on the classes. The Viper did have them but they are a GTS class car. The ACO does not allow them in the GT cars, period. It is most likely a cost issue, a set of carbon rotors costs several thousand dollars. I am not positive but I think they are not allowed in the GTS cars anymore due to cost issues.

 

I do agree, value could be an issue with PCCB. Value is the reason why I will own a GT 3, and not a X 50, or GT 2. We all want the best there is..., and I believe PCCB is it. If it does not turn out to live up to expectations, we have 4 years to make our case before Porsche. I do detect however, some who discount PCCB on cost or value, may have no problem ordering interior cosmetics which belong...elsewhere.

 

GT3Jack - In terms of making your case before Porsche if PCCB don't perform, I can tell you that Porsche's response to several complaining customers has been to retrofit the Steel brakes.

 

Grant, What number is "several complaining customers" of the total sold? If the board is saying most PCCB orders are not performing as advertised. Then I will change my order! But it must be based on fact. Nonetheless, I do thank the board for their input.

 

I'm aware of 3 that I talked to on the Rennteam board. Granted 3 is not very many, but then again, there are very few cars equipped with PCCB's out there and only a fraction of those on Rennteam. I haven't heard any positive comments from people who track their cars with PCCB (aside from the benefit of lower unsprung weight).

 

I have a GT2 and the ceramics perform flawlessly on the track (Laguna Seca), they are noisy on the street though!

When I order my GT3 it will have ceramic brakes as well

 

It good to hear somebody is happy with PCCB, especially at a track like Laguna Seca which is hard on brakes. Apparently ceramics have a lower coefficient of friction and heat transfer than steel. So reported PCCB problems should be of no surprise. See this Rennteam <a href="http://www.rennteam.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=996turbo&Number=3502&page=4&view=collapsed&sb=5& o=all&fpart=1" target="_blank">post</a> for pics and commentary.

I have had lots of brake trouble at DE events. Even with Cup car brakes, the GT3 may yet have problems on track because it is so much heavier. For now, I am going to stick with steel. As soon as the Cup cars run PCCB sucessfully for a season then I will consider an upgrade.

 

Brakes are a system with lots of parts that all have to work together to get maximum use without any problems. I had GT3 brakes on my 996. I used SRF fluid, Pagid Orange pads, and brake cooling ducts from Cargraphic. I bled the brakes every 4-6 track days and changed the fluid twice a season. I threw away the pads when they got less than half thickness. And I replaced rotors 2 times a year (front) and once a year (rear).

I ran 45-50 days a year of DEs with this combination and I used the brakes hard. I never once had a problem or soft pedal in 3 years. And my 996 was at least 100 lbs heavier than the GT3.

I don't care what "miracle" brakes you put on a car. If you don't keep them cool, use the right pads and fluid, and properly maintain them, you will have brake issues, if not outright failure.

But if you treat them right, even the stock 996 brakes are very, very good. If you don't believe me, ask any E46 M3 owner who has tracked their car.

Karl

 

My friend has an X50 with ceramic and it never squealed or provided any problems. I am ordering my GT3 with them also.

 

I'm happy to hear some positive reports about the PCCB's at the track. And yes Karl, the Brembos that Porsche supplies are FAR superior to the brakes on BMW's. I can't believe that even the cool new CSL doesn't use Brembos. BMW brakes fade early and often at the track. Even Mitsubishi, Subaru, Chrysler, and Chevy are using Brembos now on some models.

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by GrantG:
<strong>I'm aware of 3 that I talked to on the Rennteam board. Granted 3 is not very many, but then again, there are very few cars equipped with PCCB's out there and only a fraction of those on Rennteam. I haven't heard any positive comments from people who track their cars with PCCB (aside from the benefit of lower unsprung weight).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I am one of the three Grant cites.

I too have been trying to get a feel for the satisfied/dissatisfied ratio.

I spoke with the person who must have been the very first customer with the PCCB system and got them well before the rest of us. His rotors were replaced by the dealer on their own initiative at 20,000 km. He also suffered heavy pad wear but not as heavy as my own.

I make it a practice to check the brakes on the GT2’s that I see at Nürburgring (not as demanding as most short tracks but still hard on brakes in places). It isn’t uniform. Sometimes they are ok and sometimes they are not. It can even be the case that one rotor will look fine yet the other will not. And I’ve see cars where one or both rear rotors were bad but the fronts were ok (which is really strange as the rears get a lot less heat). Figure that bad rotors are being replaced at service under warranty and you have to wonder how many bad rotors are replaced before I ever see them.

Also, the pattern on failed rotors looks quite different. Most seem to start chipping away around the drill holes. Mine seemed to loose fibres on all surfaces (front and rear though less so on the rear). The outside surfaces did not look that good but it was the inside surfaces that looked absolutely terrible. They became uniformly rough (worse than the feel of concrete). My personal opinion is that this is due to the fact that they keep the dust shield in place on the Turbo (the GT2 has no dust shield). Still, the difference in the conditions of the inside and outside of the rotors does demonstrate how poorly the ceramic rotors transfer heat.

It seems that the situation varies greatly. One factor might be differences in manufacture. But it is also obvious that different people use their brakes in very different ways even on the track. Someone can be fast and not destroy their brakes. Another might be slow and destroy his. It doesn’t seem that there is rime or reason to it. I suspect it is simply down to whether the rotors locally exceed a certain peak temperature or not. Certain drivers might get high short-term peak temperatures while others do not get the same peaks. This is pure speculation on my part.

Another issue might be the high frequency pounding these rotors can get with the modern ABS systems. My brakes have seen a lot of ABS use.

Pad wear seems to be very high on tracked GT2’s. I even saw one GT2 where the brake dust had packed so tightly into the rotors that it appeared that the rotors had not been drilled and were actually made of cast iron (they were smooth and shiny).

The biggest complaint for GT2 owners seems to be brake noise. GT2’s came with the P90 pad. The normal solution for this is to go to the P40. This solves the problem.

Turbos come with P40 pads. I hated these. They tended to be really soft. There wasn’t the bite that I am use to on the cast iron system with stock pads (and I understand that more aggressive pads yield much improved bite over the stock pads). They also yielded longer peddle travel which I really didn’t like. I wore away the front pads almost immediately (but not at the back where the wear rate seems much more reasonable). The P40’s were replaced with P90’s on my car. They were an improvement but not a fantastic improvement. They seemed no better at handling the heat. Bite and peddle travel were improved slightly and that felt better. Wear was better also but still not acceptable. In fact, wear for me on the street with both the P40 and P90 was really quite phenomenal.

My car has gone though five sets of callipers. Many of them leaked fluid from the bleed nipples. This was said to be unheard of yet it still happened multiple times on my car. Both front and rear callipers were affected.

The difference in unsprung weight seems noticeable to me. My car has been used on a lot of difficult roads. The lower unsprung weight might be a factor in the reason why I do not have bent wheel rims from such roads (which is common on European Turbos).

But the biggest advantage by far for the ceramic system is the total inability to fade the brakes. The temperatures will just go up and up. They might destroy themselves but they will never fade. Obviously this is an advantage on the track.

The latest solution for the pads is the P50. This has just been released and is said to solve the pad overheating problem. I have not yet had the opportunity to try these pads. See my report on <a href="http://www.rennteam.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=996&Number=8167" target="_blank">Rennteam</a> for more info on the pad issue.

I’ve also heard that there might be a solution soon for the rotor overheating problem. The timetable I’ve heard means it won’t be available for the first deliveries of the GT3. Sorry but I cannot say more on this.

One difference between the GT2 and the GT3 might be cooling. Carbon/Carbon needs massive amounts of direct cooling air. This is also the ultimate solution for the overheating ceramic brakes. The GT2 and Turbo get the same treatment as did the cast iron cars (with slightly larger scoops for the GT2). Hopefully the GT3 gets a lot more air than this.

My personal opinion remains unchanged. Eventually this will be a great system. It is probably better suited for a road car than a track car. Road cars are less likely to see the heat which is causing all of the current problems and more likely to suffer pot holes and bad roads. But more so, the consumables on a cast iron system are very cheap. They certainly aren’t for the PCCB system. So unless you really need the very last tenth then stay with cast iron on a car that is seriously tracked (more than just a few fun DE events).

Anyone seriously tracking a car with ceramics must upgrade the fluid to a high temperature brake fluid. My preference is Castrol SRF. It is probably not a bad idea for serious road use either. SRF is expensive but the advantage is the high wet boiling point which means that you do not need to replace the fluid every couple months.

Stephen

 

Thanks for chiming in, Stephen! Lots of important info there. Please keep us up to date on the improvements to the system.

Much appreciated,
Grant