Ajjra

Aside from the initial bite of ~$9k can anyone tell me the cost of ownership of the PCCB system for a dedicated track car? Is there a large delta between rotor and pad prices for ceramic and the standard parts?

Thanks in advance...

CRex

Not worth it. I tried doing it in two different cars. First car I swapped out to steels after an outing into the gravel pits. The second one (my current car) I have to baby the brakes so as to not prematurely damage the rotors.

The pads cost about the same, but with PCCBs you'll be swapping out pads at about 50%, so that adds to your total cost of ownership--basically $800 for all four corners, at twice the replacement rate of steels.

If my car is mostly street use I'd go PCCBs without a doubt. Anything more than 3-4 DEs per year the balance quickly tilts in favor of steels. Of course, if money's no object, go ceramics.

bauerjab

are the PCCBs that much better?

Ajjra

Thanks, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for. One question: why would one be swappiong out pads at 50% wear with the PCCB?

Doug007

For your consideration (PCCB and steel rotor prices): http://tinyurl.com/6qlv3ky

P.J.S.

a wiser man than I (NJGT) advised me long ago
>20 hours of track time in a year - steel
<20 hour of track time per year and car already has PCCB - then keep them

I think this is a fair guideline.

However, one must take into consideration how careful they have to be when changing wheels, any potential "offs" that involve gravel, etc...

Given the hassle and the fagile nature of PCCB, I would never select them for a new car purchase.

The only street advantage is that they do not create a lot of dust.

ProCoach

Been my experience with quite a few track folks. Plus, the data does not indicate improved deceleration rates...

KaiB

Data don't....

dammit!

drl

Remind me again - why are we with PCCBs replacing pads at 50%? What happens to the pads at about the 50% mark that makes them dangerous to the rotors? Beyond 50%, do the pads wear at a more rapid and/or unpredictable rate? If we are monitoring pad wear very carefully during track days and between track days, why not run them down more than 50%?

Not questioning the established wisdom, just trying to understand.

CRex

The mounting posts (some call them rivets) start showing up in the friction surface of the pads. Some claim that these posts are a harder material than the pads themselves and thus abrasive to the surface of the rotors.

The thing with Porsche's PCCBs is that they're of a laminated design (same as Fiats, Lambos, AMGs and pretty much all composite rotors from SGL/Brembo). The laminated surface is relatively scratch resistant. But once damaged, they tend to flake off like fine snake scales. Which is why we'd go extra lengths to "baby" that surface. On a steel rotor, who cares...

CRex

Haha... it's lighter for sure. Also has a weight saving effect on your wallet

I think in a competitive setting the reduced rotating/unsprung weight translates into fractional gains. Someone here once commented that at the same track Supercup GT3s with ceramics are often a few tenths of a sec faster than regular GT3 Cups. I'll leave that to people with actual experience to chime in

2BWise

Agreed, decel is still a function of the tire. Ceramics just tend to hold up longer to on track abuse before giving up. They also tend to be a little bit more consistent, although I've only worked with the Brembo products.