Brake upgrade for non-S
 

I would like to upgrade my non-s brakes to S brakes I know the dealer sells a kit for this but..can someone tell me what this involves-does it require larger rotors, different pads, and any special brackets to put on the new calipers? thanks.

I have done the swap to Box S brakes on my 00 box. I did it to upgrade braking to match the 3.4l 996 engine I am putting in.

The fronts are a straight swap. The S calipers bolt right on, and the rotors as well. The S rotors, in addition to being cross drilled are also larger in diameter, and wider than the stock S.

The rears are more of a pain. Probably to get a significant improvement in braking, you could just do the fronts and leave the rears stock, but I didn't want to leave the rears stock for the sake of completeness (or some may say obsession!!). The rear rotors are also wider and larger in diameter, and they don't fit with the caliperson the stock non "S" wheel carrier. When you bolt on the rotor, the caliper does not clear it. There is also a problem with the stock backing plate, which is too small to fit the rotor as well. So, from here you can go two ways, Way 1 would be to change out the wheel bearing carriers to those of an S, (the expensive way). You may need to change out some of the control arms as well, I am not sure. I know that the S has strengthened rear control arms, as well as larger bearing carriers.

Way 2 is to do what I did, which is to buy the very clever kit made by FVD which provides a larger backing plate, and spacers that go between the caliper and the bearing carrier. These spacer plates go between the caliper and the boss on the bearing carrier, and provide enough standoff so that the calipers can make it around the rotors.

You also need to buy the parking brakes shoes, springs, and tension adjuster of the S, which all fit very nicely with the revised backing plate.

Hope this helps

Hi,

This is a common misconception. People often upgrade the Brakes because of Engine upgrades or mods. This makes absolutely no sense. The stock brakes are more than adequate and if they stopped the car from 60MPH before the mods, they'll do the same thing after the mods (unless the mods added 500 Lbs.). You may get to 60MPH faster after the mods, but that doesn't put any more strain on the brakes than before, it's still the same car so far as the Brakes are concerned.

As I said, the Stock Brakes are more than adequate, stopping the car from 60-0 in 115 ft. which is considered very good. The 'S' Brakes will do the same in 110ft., not a great improvement, but they are heavier adding to the unsprung weight of the car (usually undesireable). And as for the arguement that these 5 ft. may make the difference, that's a senseless arguement because you may just as easily need to stop in 109 ft. to avoid the trouble in which case neither Brake setup is gonna save your Bacon. The trick is to avoid trouble by safe, experienced, driving practices.

The Brake upgrade is a total waste of money (upwards of $2500-$3000) unless:

• A. You are regularly Tracking the car in which case they will increase the fade resistance (not an issue at all with a Street Car).
  
  B. You just like the asthetic and the Bling of it all (and for that money, you better REALLY like it), because you won't be getting any appreciable increase in performance, especially if compared on a cost/benefit analysis.

Another thing to consider, Power and Performance mods may actually hurt your resell value, or at least make the car harder to sell. I've bought more than 40 cars in my life, 30 of them sports cars. I view a heavily modded car as a heavily used and perhaps abused car and I know others who think the same way. I'm less impressed with a heavily modded car (you need to worry were the mods done right?) and have passed on every one I ever looked at, even if I intended to mod a car in a similar way.

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

well......
 

I figured that since the factory decided larger brakes were necessary for the Box S, I'd put em in for a 3.4 engine swap.... :rolleyes:

also look at the brakes on the Cayman S with 295 hp just slightly below what the 3.4 engine puts out, also has larger brakes than the stock boxster.

so it does appear that porsche engineers deem it necessary to upgrade the brakes with increasing hp and I stand by my upgrade for the same reason.

So jim, are you just smarter than the porsche engineers, or did I miss something?

Hi,

I think you missed something.

The Boxster S and Cayman S are both 'S' or Sport variables. I don't concede that the factory decided they were necessary, but these are more Enthusiast minded and it's assumed will be tracked or usually driven spiritedly. Second, both these models weigh more than the Boxster, horsepower has nothing to do with it at all, it's the weight. Finally, it distinguishes the model from it's Base sibling and provides some justification for the greater Price Point.

Am I smarter than the Porsche Engineers? I don't know - I haven't met them all... ;)

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

thanks..both viewpoints though different are interesting and helpful.

so Jim, according to that line of thinking, the reason they put even LARGER brakes on the 911 S and the 911 turbo, is because they are heavier, and it has nothing to do with horsepower? I can't imagine that the Boxster S weighs too much over the standard model. Certainly not enough to justify larger brakes.

But, Hey maybe you are right, and Porsche only puts on bigger brakes to charge more $$$ and for the "bling" factor.

But somehow, I doubt it. :D

Hi,

Yes, Horsepower has absolutely nothing to do with how a car stops. You can have 1000 Horsepower on a Boxster and assuming the weight hasn't changed, it will still stop in the same distance with the same brakes as a stock 200HP one. If you're braking from 60 MPH you're braking from 60 MPH, it's the same whether you reached that 60 MPH in 3 seconds or 10 seconds, you are still braking from 60MPH...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Jim, Jim, Jim.....
 

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.

Hi,

Again, HP has nothing to do (relatively speaking) with the top speed of a car, it has to do with how fast you attain that top speed. Most cars are aerodynamically limited, not power limited, to how fast they can go. You're never gonna hit 150 MPH in a Boxster unless the Top is Up anyway.

Your arguement about the Boxster at 150 MPH vs the TT at 185 MPH is illogical, you're comparing apples to oranges.

For a street driven Boxster, how often (if ever) do you go 150MPH or even 100MPH? And, assuming there are times which you do, how often are you gonna need to panic Brake at that speed? And who says that the Brake upgrade will be sufficient?

The differences in Stopping Distance are really negligible, less than 10% between the two Brake setups. Given the cost and such, I just don't believe it's worth it. I think most doing the upgrade are going for the Bling of it all and justifying it with arguements like yours.

The value to the Brake upgrade is on the Track where the smaller Brakes will fade more readily. On the Street, where you don't have a constant application of the Brakes without a cooling period in-between, they don't offer that much advantage...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

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?

Hi,

I know what you're saying, but Frontal Area is just one component of Drag. The 911 (especially the coupe) is cleaner in overall drag than the Boxster. Yes, I agree, HP allows the 911 to exceed the Boxster purely because of the power which is available to overcome the drag which is the square of the car's speed. But, it's also more efficient. Put the same 3.4L into the Boxster and you won't match the 911's Top Speed, you'd need even more HP to do that, 100 HP more by my calculations...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

BTW my major at Penn State was Aerospace engineering, want to talk about Reynolds number, stagnation pressure, force equations for deformable bodies???

0.29 - Porsche Boxster, 2005
0.29 - Chevrolet Corvette, 2005
0.29 - Mazda RX-7 FC3S Aero Package, 1986-91
0.29 - Lancia Dedra, 1990-1998
0.29 - Honda Accord Hybrid, 2005
0.29 - Lotus Elite, 1958
0.29 - Mercedes-Benz W203 C-Class Coupe, 2001 - 2007
0.28 - Toyota Camry and sister model Lexus ES, 2005
0.28 - Porsche 997, 2004


.29 for a boxster, .28 for a 997?????

Hi,

Well, if we're comparing resume's, I have a BS in Aeronautical Engineering and a BS in Materials Science from the University of Minnesota and an MS in Aeronautical Engineering from M.I.T (courtesy of the US Navy), Certified Test Pilot - (USNTPS) US Navy Flight Test Center - Naval Air Station, Patuxent River.

Now that that's out of the way, you make my point for me - the Boxster is clean, the 996 is cleaner...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Congrats!

I was going to make the Air Force a career (ROTC) but in 1969 my draft number was 324 and a lot of my classmates were just back from Vietnam (GI Bill) and told me I was crazy.

I did go on to get a private license and an instrument rating and bought a Piper, but I envy your flight experience, since I've always wanted to push the throttles on a fighter!!! I have shot approaches several times at Patuxent.... My brother is stationed at Mountain Home (a lifer).

But I still doubt that the Boxster would need to have 100 more hp than a 996 to have the same drag limited top speed.

Hey Doc,

I'm no scientist but this is what i was told. The Boxster brakes on the base are amazing. No need to buy S brakes.

If you ask me, they only put those brakes on the S to make it different from the base model. Meaning that they needed to justify an S model, so they gave you red S brakes, a new bumper, 6speed and so on. So pretty much it's a waste of money to put the S brakes on a base.

If you plan to drive the car at 150mph and come to a complete stop everytime that you drive, then yes get the S brakes.

I'm under the impression that the big brakes just make the car stop faster / better / closer ?

n for that matter, the base brakes are pretty big. I painted mine yellow, and they are pretty big.

cars are drag-limited at a given power output. terminal velocity is reached when the power required to overcome drag for a given vehicle equals the maximum power output of the motor. for a vehicle of a given frontal area and cd, increasing the power output will increase the top speed capability.





agreed. pecivil's point, however, is still valid for track scenarios. a higher HP car will see higher average speeds around a track (given equal chassis). accordingly, the kinetic energy the brakes will have to shed increases. this will increase heat. as a brake system essentially changes kinetic energy to thermal energy, the job of a brake rotor is to get rid of that heat, hence the larger system. on the road, this makes almost no difference. on the track, it makes a LOT of difference.

Hi,

I hear ya, my Draft Number came up #12! So I ran to the NROTC Office, raised my right hand, and signed up (I had been in JrROTC in HS) as a Naval Flight Officer. This allowed me to complete school before reporting, but my intention had always been NAVY AIR.

Then, I passed the Flight Exams (got my Private License at 17) and was off to NAS Pensacola for Basic Flight Training (T-34C Turbomentor). Then to NAS Beeville,TX for Advanced Jet Training (AF-9F). Luckily, I graduated high enough to get a coveted 'fleet seat' and was off to NAS Miramar.

RAG (Replacement Air Group) VF-121 for training and certification in the F-4 PhantomII, this included Air-to-Air (NAS Miramar), Gunnery (NAWS China Lake), then back to Miramar for Seaquals.

Finally, I was assigned to VF-142, the "Ghostriders", on the USS Midway and did 8 WestPacs, mostly MigCap, ResCap, but also some IronHand. Two tours on Yankee Station (Gulf of Tonkin) and one on Dixie Station (Mekong River Delta - South China Sea). Got my 3,000 Flight Hours and shot at a few times.

Then Graduate School and off to Pax River for Test Pilot School and 3 years in the Navy Flight Test Center flying nearly everything in the inventory - F-8, A-4, F-4, F-14, F/A-18, F-16 (yes, this was originally spec'd for the Navy and still carries it's Tailhook today). It was fun - I got to fly REALLY fast airplanes and spend copius amounts of the Taxpayer's Money - for Pay!...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Hi,

No disagreement here...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

jim - i think you're off by a decimal point. i get 10HP more to go the same top speed.

base vs. S caliper
 

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?

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 !

Lets get to the bottom line here, instead of a comparison degrees? :rolleyes: 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.

Full moon tonight :p 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.

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

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.

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 :)

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

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

:cheers:

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

[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? :rolleyes:

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. ;)

[QUOTE=JackG]
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

[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. :rolleyes:


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... ;)

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.

[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. :rolleyes:

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:

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.

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. :D