Brake upgrade for non-S

[demonz]

From the pic in my Bentley manual, the brake calipers of the base vs. the S look identical except the red paint.


The bigger rotor is apparent enough.


Anyone know for sure?

[SD987]

986/987 S brakes also use a power boosted brake system not used on the base models that requires less actuating force, thereby making the response more direct.

The Boxster S employs a mechanical vacuum pump instead of a conventional sucking jet pump to provide the vacuum for the brake booster. The pump is driven in tandem configuration together with the oil extraction pump of the right cylinder head (bank 2, cylinder 4) by the exhaust camshaft of the right cylinder bank (bank 2, cylinder 4–6). This design enables a high and constant level of vacuum supply and subsequent effective brake boost even when the most unfavourable underlying conditions apply, e.g. low external air pressure at high altitudes, and in highly dynamic driving involving a high proportion of full-load operation, e.g. on race tracks.

I got my degree via mail-order from RETS Electronic Institute. Dual-major in TV/VCR Repair and HVAC. Now top that !

[Adam]

Lets get to the bottom line here, instead of a comparison degrees? If you track the car the boxster S big reds are better than the base brakes. If you are just driving it on the street the base brake are more than adequate. Nuff said.

[demonz]

Full moon tonight I'll try this again. Can anyone tell me if there is an actual difference between the CALIPERS of the base vs. S besides the paint. They look identical.

[porsche986spyder]

Originally Posted by pecivil

of course hp has nothing to do with how a car stops....

but it has a LOT to do with how fast the car is going when it tries to stop, 'eh?

so as a cars TOP speed increases, the braking capacity needs to increase to be able to stop in a reasonable distance, correct?

so if my boxster, or twin turbo 911, or whatever stops from 60mph, yes the same brakes will work just dandy

However if my boxster is stopping from 150mph, BUT my 911 twin turbo is stopping from 185mph, then we need better brakes on the turbo, if it is to slow down in the same distance as the boxster. The key is stopping in the same (or lesser) distance.

Stopping DISTANCE is the key here, Jim. I could easily stop my twin turbo with my stock boxster brakes, cept it may take a bit longer to do it.

so, what we end up with is:

a higher hp car needs bigger brakes

exactly what I said in the beginning, and exactly what car makers tend to do with their sports cars.

Yes, he is right. Jim I have to disagree with you on this one.

[arenared]

Originally Posted by demonz

From the pic in my Bentley manual, the brake calipers of the base vs. the S look identical except the red paint.

The bigger rotor is apparent enough.

Anyone know for sure?

They are NOT the same.

Boy, this thread sure degenerated pretty quickly. The need for bigger/larger brakes depends on the usage. A 3.4L has 50% more power than a 2.5L and will generate speed a lot faster. If you are over-heating the stock brakes, then you are perfectly justified in putting in bigger brakes. I presume the poster that put in a 3.4L did so because he drives "enthusiastically". The difference in weight between base and S is minor. Going to 350mm GT3 brakes is another story however which is why Porsche offers PCCB in that size.

Contrary to what most people think, IMHO, upgrading the fronts without the rears is a mistake. The problem is that by enlarging the fronts, you increase front brake bias. The cars already have heavy front brake bias. There are significant gains to be had with shifting brake bias to the rear.

[racer_d]

Originally Posted by demonz

Full moon tonight I'll try this again. Can anyone tell me if there is an actual difference between the CALIPERS of the base vs. S besides the paint. They look identical.

1) 1 difference is the caliper will be wider to fit around a wider rotor
2) the brake pads, iirc, are larger on the S brakes.

So, with S brakes you get a) larger caliper b) larger rotor c) larger pads. Those three differences will allow slightly better braking performance when "cold" and likely much better performance when "hot" due to better heat management capabilities.

The penalty for the larger brakes, potentially, is greater unsprung mass (larger often = heavier, unless you go to PCCBs)

Lots of folks who track upgrade brakes because of the perceived benefits. Mostly what they acheive is greater "heat management" abilities. If your "stock" brakes can cause them to lock up, then you effectively have "enough brake". If you can't lock the brakes (imagine your abs was disabled) then you could benefit from larger brakes.

Porsche brakes are designed to handle REPEATED, high speed stops with no loss of performance. The S brakes are perhaps as much "marketing" as functional. You can say you have "911" brakes and yes, at the track, they are an improvement over stock brakes.

You could also put your money into using high quality DOT4 brake fluid, changing more frequently than the Porsche recommended 2yr interval, and use more abrasive/better pads in your stock calipers. If you can find a way to increase airflow over your brakes, even better

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by arenared

They are NOT the same.

Boy, this thread sure degenerated pretty quickly. The need for bigger/larger brakes depends on the usage. A 3.4L has 50% more power than a 2.5L and will generate speed a lot faster. If you are over-heating the stock brakes, then you are perfectly justified in putting in bigger brakes. I presume the poster that put in a 3.4L did so because he drives "enthusiastically". The difference in weight between base and S is minor. Going to 350mm GT3 brakes is another story however which is why Porsche offers PCCB in that size.

Contrary to what most people think, IMHO, upgrading the fronts without the rears is a mistake. The problem is that by enlarging the fronts, you increase front brake bias. The cars already have heavy front brake bias. There are significant gains to be had with shifting brake bias to the rear.

Hi,

This is a fallacy. Power has nothing to do with it at all. Power will get you to 60 or 90 MPH faster, but the brakes are still hauling the car down from 60 or 90 MPH just like before, no change whatever. If they were adequate before, they still are. They are more fade resistant, but this is a non-sequitor on a Street Car which has adequate cooling time between normal brake applications.

If you Track the car there is an improvement worth the expense, if not, there simply isn't. You can brag that you have the 911 upgrade, and if you are ever in an accident situation where you could only stop within 7 ft. of the other guys bumper, than the 'S' brakes will be an asset, otherwise, not at all...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[David N.]

More power needs bigger brakes. Why? Because idiots like me get into kinetic energy trouble a lot faster when given more power.

Example, I'm speeding up to pass a guy on the freeway. If I'm in a C6, I'm going to end up increasing my speed a bit more than if I'm in a Ford Ranger. Yeah, I could drive less aggressively, but power and Los Angeles traffic can do that to you pretty quick. Good, fade-free braking has saved my ass on more than one account, I say upgrade!

-David

[arenared]

Originally Posted by David N.

More power needs bigger brakes. Why? Because idiots like me get into kinetic energy trouble a lot faster when given more power.

Jim'99, if you're happy with your brakes, then I'm happy for you. But, I think that if you posted over on the TT or GT2/GT3 forums that they should "upgrade" to base Boxster brakes to save unsprung weight 'cause that's all they'll ever need, I don't think your posts will be too well received.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by arenared

Jim'99, if you're happy with your brakes, then I'm happy for you. But, I think that if you posted over on the TT or GT2/GT3 forums that they should "upgrade" to base Boxster brakes to save unsprung weight 'cause that's all they'll ever need, I don't think your posts will be too well received.

Hi,

You're falling into the trap set for you by the Porsche Marketing Dept. It isn't a question of whether more is better where Brakes are concerned. Adequate is good enough, the 'S' brakes are not better at all. There is absolutely no practical benefit from them for a narmally driven Street Car.

You get no benefit from the added Fade-resistance, because you aren't applying the brakes often enough in a given period of time for them to boil the fluid or fade - only repeated applications such as on a Track will induce Fade. From your description, I doubt that you've ever really experienced Fade.

You get no benefit from the 7ft. shorter stopping distance (60-0) unless you're in a panic braking situation (which for a good driver, should be anticipated and avoided). Also, stopping the car in a shorter distance actually increases the chance that you will be rear-ended from the car behind you which cannot stop in as short a distance as you

I never mentioned unsprung weight, though this is a factor (albeit a slight one IMHO). And your argument of going to a GT3 or 996 board and arguing Boxster Brakes is simply not germane, no one suggested this.

No most 'S' brakes owners will never realize any benefit of these brakes over the stock ones - about 99% of them. It's just bragging rights and Porsche's way of justifying the price difference between the 'S' and the Base as well as an opportunity to get a profitable after-sale purchase.

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[JackG]

[QUOTE=MNBoxster]Hi,

You're falling into the trap set for you by the Porsche Marketing Dept. It isn't a question of whether more is better where Brakes are concerned. Adequate is good enough, the 'S' brakes are not better at all. There is absolutely no practical benefit from them for a narmally driven Street Car.

--- Incorrect. The S brakes have shorter stopping distances. That, by anyone's definition, is better.

You get no benefit from the added Fade-resistance, because you aren't applying the brakes often enough in a given period of time for them to boil the fluid or fade - only repeated applications such as on a Track will induce Fade. From your description, I doubt that you've ever really experienced Fade.

--- arenared never attempted to describe brake fade. Why are you attacking him, basically saying he doesn't know what he's talking about?

You get no benefit from the 7ft. shorter stopping distance (60-0) unless you're in a panic braking situation (which for a good driver, should be anticipated and avoided). Also, stopping the car in a shorter distance actually increases the chance that you will be rear-ended from the car behind you which cannot stop in as short a distance as you

--- Ah, so S brakes are better. If you were in a base, and you needed that extra 7 feet, you'd most certainly consider S brakes a benefit. The "good driver" statement is a fallacy, as we all know that some situations happen with any warning and with no way to foresee them. And since the base Box stops better than most cars, maybe we should change all Box brakes to drums, 'cause we don't want to stop better than other cars, huh?

I never mentioned unsprung weight, though this is a factor (albeit a slight one IMHO). And your argument of going to a GT3 or 996 board and arguing Boxster Brakes is simply not germane, no one suggested this.

--- But... why not? The base Box brakes would be "adequate" for a GT3 in street driving at 60mph. And that's your whole argument..,. that the brakes should just be "adequate".

No most 'S' brakes owners will never realize any benefit of these brakes over the stock ones - about 99% of them. It's just bragging rights and Porsche's way of justifying the price difference between the 'S' and the Base as well as an opportunity to get a profitable after-sale purchase.

--- So only 1% of Boxsters ever see a track or spirited driving requiring repeated braking? Where did you pull that number from?

Just don't tailgate a Box with the S brakes while in your base, Jim. We don't want to have to ticket you for "following to closely" when you plow into their rear.

[MNBoxster]

[QUOTE=JackG]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

You're falling into the trap set for you by the Porsche Marketing Dept. It isn't a question of whether more is better where Brakes are concerned. Adequate is good enough, the 'S' brakes are not better at all. There is absolutely no practical benefit from them for a narmally driven Street Car.

--- Incorrect. The S brakes have shorter stopping distances. That, by anyone's definition, is better.

You get no benefit from the added Fade-resistance, because you aren't applying the brakes often enough in a given period of time for them to boil the fluid or fade - only repeated applications such as on a Track will induce Fade. From your description, I doubt that you've ever really experienced Fade.

--- arenared never attempted to describe brake fade. Why are you attacking him, basically saying he doesn't know what he's talking about?

You get no benefit from the 7ft. shorter stopping distance (60-0) unless you're in a panic braking situation (which for a good driver, should be anticipated and avoided). Also, stopping the car in a shorter distance actually increases the chance that you will be rear-ended from the car behind you which cannot stop in as short a distance as you

--- Ah, so S brakes are better. If you were in a base, and you needed that extra 7 feet, you'd most certainly consider S brakes a benefit. The "good driver" statement is a fallacy, as we all know that some situations happen with any warning and with no way to foresee them. And since the base Box stops better than most cars, maybe we should change all Box brakes to drums, 'cause we don't want to stop better than other cars, huh?

I never mentioned unsprung weight, though this is a factor (albeit a slight one IMHO). And your argument of going to a GT3 or 996 board and arguing Boxster Brakes is simply not germane, no one suggested this.

--- But... why not? The base Box brakes would be "adequate" for a GT3 in street driving at 60mph. And that's your whole argument..,. that the brakes should just be "adequate".

No most 'S' brakes owners will never realize any benefit of these brakes over the stock ones - about 99% of them. It's just bragging rights and Porsche's way of justifying the price difference between the 'S' and the Base as well as an opportunity to get a profitable after-sale purchase.

--- So only 1% of Boxsters ever see a track or spirited driving requiring repeated braking? Where did you pull that number from?

Just don't tailgate a Box with the S brakes while in your base, Jim. We don't want to have to ticket you for "following to closely" when you plow into their rear.

Jack,

You're missing my point, which is, the added benefit of the 'S' Brakes is all but unrealizable on a Street Car. If you wanna get the best brakes possible, then the PCCBs are the way to go, a worse cost/benefit ratio for a Street Car than even the 'S' brakes. They're only better in real terms if you use that added capability, which most Street Cars won't.

So far as the 7ft. shorter distance, again, somewhat moot insofar as most people adjust their driving habits to the capability of the brakes. People with the shorter stopping 'S' brakes will tend to apply the brakes later, they will not leave an additional 7' between them and the car in front of them at a stoplight for instance. Could 7' make a difference in possible collision avoidance, in some circumstances - yes. But there's no reason to believe that you won't need 11' or even 8' to avoid it, which the 'S' brakes won't give you either. To be sure, such a collision will be at a lower speed, possibly reducing damage or injury, but the actual difference in MPH at contact wouldn't have any real significance.

And, several contributors have insinuated (if not outright stated), that adding extra power via Engine Upgrades or Mods makes the stock brakes inadequeate, and this simply isn't the case. The weight of the car hasn't increased appreciably, at least not to the point of making the stock brakes any less safe.

I am not averse to upgrading to the 'S' brakes, but for the $2000-$3000 or more involved, people should know that the improvement won't be significant, the benefit will be mostly bragging rights and aesthetics, which is OK, but one shouldn't try to justify the expense because of better performance...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[JackG]

[QUOTE=MNBoxster]Jack,

You're missing my point, which is, the added benefit of the 'S' Brakes is all but unrealizable on a Street Car.

--- I disagree. The S brake's benefit are immediately realized with shorter stopping distances.

If you wanna get the best brakes possible, then the PCCBs are the way to go, a worse cost/benefit ratio for a Street Car than even the 'S' brakes. They're only better in real terms if you use that added capability, which most Street Cars won't.

-- Agreed.

So far as the 7ft. shorter distance, again, somewhat moot insofar as most people adjust their driving habits to the capability of the brakes. People with the shorter stopping 'S' brakes will tend to apply the brakes later, they will not leave an additional 7' between them and the car in front of them at a stoplight for instance. Could 7' make a difference in possible collision avoidance, in some circumstances - yes.

--- What? Are you saying that people use their brakes at maximum potential whenever they stop behind a car at an intersection? Bullslip. 99% of the people will only use their brakes at maximum potential when they need them most... in a panic situation, or on the track. In both cases, the S brakes are superior. Otherwise, according to you, we'd all be getting rear-ended while using our S brakes at maximum potential at every stoplight as we adjust to use up that 7 feet.


But there's no reason to believe that you won't need 11' or even 8' to avoid it, which the 'S' brakes won't give you either. To be sure, such a collision will be at a lower speed, possibly reducing damage or injury, but the actual difference in MPH at contact wouldn't have any real significance.

--- if, maybe, when, blah, blah...

And, several contributors have insinuated (if not outright stated), that adding extra power via Engine Upgrades or Mods makes the stock brakes inadequeate, and this simply isn't the case. The weight of the car hasn't increased appreciably, at least not to the point of making the stock brakes any less safe.

--- Again, I disagree. If you have the capability of building speed faster and to higher potentials, you should also have better brakes. How can you disagree, other than to be, well... disagreeable?

I am not averse to upgrading to the 'S' brakes, but for the $2000-$3000 or more involved, people should know that the improvement won't be significant, the benefit will be mostly bragging rights and aesthetics, which is OK, but one shouldn't try to justify the expense because of better performance...

--- However, you've already admitted they DO perform better. If someone wants to spend the money to upgrade for the 7 feet less in distance and the better fade resistance, why do you feel compelled to endlessly argue against it? It's not your money...

[racer_d]

I like this confusing discussion, but I agree with JIM.... It doesn't matter how much HP your car has. HP doesn't impact brakes. As it was once explained to me, as long as you have enough braking power to "lock them up" then you have "enough brake".

The advantage to larger brakes is their ability to stand up to REPEATED heavy braking. Heat management. Stopping once or twice on the street, or slowing from 70-30 a couple times on the highway will not show much difference.

BTW, the reported 7 foot difference is braking distances is likely MORE attributable to weather, tire and road conditions than the brakes themselves.

[JackG]

[QUOTE=racer_d]I like this confusing discussion, but I agree with JIM.... It doesn't matter how much HP your car has. HP doesn't impact brakes. As it was once explained to me, as long as you have enough braking power to "lock them up" then you have "enough brake".

--- You are over-simplifying things, and someone you knew was mis-informed. A set of brakes can be designed that can "lock" in a quick braking excercise, but will overheat and fade rather quickly on the track. They are not "enough". All brakes are not the same.

The advantage to larger brakes is their ability to stand up to REPEATED heavy braking. Heat management. Stopping once or twice on the street, or slowing from 70-30 a couple times on the highway will not show much difference.

--- Agreed, that is one big advantage.

BTW, the reported 7 foot difference is braking distances is likely MORE attributable to weather, tire and road conditions than the brakes themselves.

--- Were you there? Are you sure? Maybe it was skewed, but in the other direction. The actual diff is 16 feet, in the S brake's favor.

I've never known a racer that said " I have enough brakes." Are you sure you are a racer, racer_d? Everyone knows that if you have better brakes, you can go faster. If you go faster, you need better brakes. The recipe for better brakes is widely known. More rotor, more pad, etc. You guys duke it out...

:ah:

[Slashmatt]

I don't know what the original poster really wants here.

Could you please explain the problem you percieve with your stock system?

1. Do your brakes fade too much on the track? (This will most likely NEVER be the case on most roads)

2. Do you have so little braking that you cannot outbrake your tires? (This means that in a solid braking situation you cannot invoke your ABS)

3. Do you think that your brakes don't have enough response? (This means you have trouble modulating your brakes)

For 1: Try better rotors; if you can find rotors that cool more efficently than the stock rotors, go for it. Also, get Motul 600, ATE or similar high performance fluid with a high boiling point.

For 2: First, try different pads. For road/light track cars I like Hawk HPS and Pagid Blues

For 3: Teflon coated stainless steel lines. (Night and Day difference in brake feel)

Okay, how do I know all of this? I've tracked a couple of cars (Miata/Z3 2.5i/NSX/Vette Z06) and driven thousands of back country miles in supercars.

The best brake feel I've ever experienced was with my NSX. The stock brakes were horrible (2 Piston single sided cast jobs with small rotors). Without changing calipers or rotor size, I achieved braking greatness by taking the steps above.

I don't know if you just want to spend money or if you want better brakes, but that's the way I'd go first.

If I knew where to get some good multi-piece rotors that fit the stock calipers for my new used '04 Boxster S, that'd be the first thing I'd do.

[Tool Pants]

Originally Posted by Paul

Hey, I agree with Jim on this one, except the part about horsepower and top speed a 2001 Boxster and 2001 996 have the same front end (therefore the same drag) , guess which one goes faster?

Boy, this is an oldie that came back to life.

I think the one that Porsche wants to go faster is the one that Porsche charges more money for.