What's the better brake material?

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

underdog1924

New Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
347
Reaction score
0
Location
Haverhill, MA
Now that I see that Autozone carries Performance Friction pads for the 96 upgrade, my question is, what material gives better braking performance? The carbon metallic or ceramic pads? Thanks in advance for your replies. thumbs_u
 

sdpatt

Sr. SHO Engr.
Joined
Dec 6, 2000
Messages
9,670
Reaction score
383
Location
Dallas, TX
Only someone who has used both materials can really answer that question. I have been very pleased with the performance of the carbon metallic pads on my "little" stock 1991 rotors.
 

RStalveyARFF

too many shos
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
3,025
Reaction score
39
Location
Georgetown, MA
that's cuz you're a "little" man Scott! Just kidding. For the fun of it, since my calipers came with 95 sho brackets and pads, I upgraded first to the 94/95 brakes. That was a big difference in itself!!! Maybe that's what your next mod can be Mr. Patterson. Well worth it.
 

zak

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 15, 2002
Messages
1,771
Reaction score
497
Location
east of Hartford
Carbon metallic is preffered over carbon-kevlar, which in turn is prefered over ceramic, at least if you are going to be doing drivers schools on a race track.

The "ceramic" pads were developed because too many people complained about how dusty carbon metallic pads are, and how squeaky carbon-kevlar pads are.

Look for pads that are "FF" rated on their edges, thats what you need if you want to be able to haul it down from 70+ mph with confidence and repeatability.

My $0.02, with a couple of dgrees in materials eng.

John H.
 

Jibberish18

New Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago Il.
Hmm honestly I probably can't be much help since I have drums in the back. But I have Carbon metallic pads from Autozone and they feel good. I gotta say though they do dust a lot and if you don't put anti seize compount stuff on the back of the pad they do squeek after time. I don't know. I'd go with Bendex or Raybestos and leave it at that.
 

stevetatro

New Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2001
Messages
459
Reaction score
1
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
AutoZone does not carry the PFCM in the correct size for the '96 brakes. They list the pad as the 601 size, which is the same as the SLO (smaller). The correct pad will have a number 598, and the PFCM is NOT made in that size.

Also, the PFCM's dust like crazy. Avoid them if you like to have nice shiny wheels all the time!
 

DeaconBlue

SHO Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
794
Reaction score
15
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Most people who have gone with either the CarboTech or Potterfield "street" pads in the correct D598 size for the '96 front brake upgrade have liked them. Very good perfromance and low or light colored dusting.
 

htheduck

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2001
Messages
83
Reaction score
1
Location
NY
The Porterfield R4 pads are squeaky as heck. But they really stop the car-annoying for the street. I had the slots (96 slotted rotor upgrade from FPS) disappear after two days of a driving school in NHIS-and warped them.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
107,094
Messages
1,181,344
Members
16,158
Latest member
ribeye2065

Members online

Back
Top