Yellow Calipers, Larger Discs, No Brake Dust, Shorter Braking Distance, Unsprung Weight, Durability and MORE... PCCB just wins over the steels hands down!!! i have had PCCB Gen. II since my 996 Turbo S and then had it on my 997 C2S, and now on my 997GT3... simply cannot live without'em!!!

Alan

 

I graduated from an M3 too, and you are right, the M3s are loaded with brake dust especially in the front. I thought maybe that went the M3's excellent brakes, but my tt seems every bit as good without nearly the brake dust.

 

Everything you say is correct except the "shorter braking distance." I have found no data to support this, that is, through six dealerships, the Birmingham racing school, GT porsche, Excellence, Total 911, 911 & porsche mags and to include written correspondence from engineers at Porsche NA. All references conclude stopping distances are the same for ceramics and steel unless you beat on the brakes excessively on the race track. I guess the "more" would include the absence of brake dust and the excessive high cost initially plus ridiculously expensive repairs downstream if a disc is cracked.

 

For any street use on the 997, the limiting factor on braking distances will be tire traction rather than available braking capacity. Hard braking from high speeds (i.e. on racetracks, etc.) would demonstrate the advantage if any of the PCCBs.

That said, I have PCCBs and they are completely noiseless and dustless. They brake just fine in the morning, but are downright scary for about 2 seconds after getting wet in a carwash. All in all, I am happy I got them.

 

[quote=treynor]For any street use on the 997, the limiting factor on braking distances will be tire traction rather than available braking capacity. Hard braking from high speeds (i.e. on racetracks, etc.) would demonstrate the advantage if any of the PCCBs.

I have heard this same explanation, that is, "the limiting factor on braking will be tire traction rather than available braking capacity." This may seem a naive question: is this statement simply saying when two braking systems are close, then it is tire traction?? I have wondered about this. My M3 stopped on a dime even with worn out tires, but my covette, mustang and CTS, each with the best soft pads I could find for them still stopped not quick enough for me. My M3 with near bald tires stopped so much better than either my vette or mustang both of which had brand new Mich P2s. When you see all these numbers 60m/h to zero m/h braking distances like for M3 is 110 ft, Porsche 112-115ft and then other cars with same HP-tires like CTS etc., all have braking distances above 120 ft. This shorter distance for M3s has got to be more than tire traction entering the equation.

 

John
You need to read this article if you don't think there are stopping distance advantages for the PCCB brakes
99 Ft is F$CKing amazing
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0023&Profile=0

"But the Turbo didn’t only dominate off the line. It took the top spot in braking, too, using just 99 feet of tarmac to come to a stop from 60 mph. That beats all comers before it, including the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution that previously held the record at 100 feet flat.

Much of the credit for that record-breaking stopping power falls to the $8,840 optional ceramic brakes found on our test car, which never overheated, smoked or pulsed even after repeated hard braking from 100 mph. Then there’s Porsche’s vaunted stability management system, which begins pumping hydraulic brake fluid to the calipers whenever it senses an abrupt lift. By the time you hit the brakes, the pads are already resting on the rotors, slashing stopping times even further. "

 

Whoa, two items wrong with your argument. 1st, a simiar car with steel disc brakes was not compared with the porsche having ceramics. So don't take the data out of context. And 2nd, coming from Autoweek means creditable findings lack a bit as most auto enthusiasts will attest to.

 

John
Whoa back at you. I don't want to argue about the point. I was just providing some real world testing done by an auto mag. No matter what you think, they do have standards for measurement of braking distance. When they say "best ever" stopping distance, it would lead you to conclude that the standard disks would be somewhere behind the ceramics. Many have argued that it's a good option on the car, just because you don't have them on yours, so what? It's OK.

 

Think of it this way - the braking system is only as strong as its weakest link. From 60 MPH with an otherwise-normal braking system, both a steel-rotor and PCCB-rotor 997 can lock all 4 tires solid, and more to the point can keep all 4 tires at the limit of adhesion all the way down to 0 mph. Thus, even a hypothetical infinitely-powerful braking system (or "IPBS") would be no better - you are limited by tire traction and the car's setup. In general, in street situations, even a moderately good brake setup will give you all the braking power you will ever need.

Now, try stopping from 120 MPH-30MPH 5 times in a row. At some point in that exercise most stock braking systems will overheat and fade. At this point the limit on braking force has shifted from tire traction to brake system heat capacity and dissapation rate. This was for example the situation in my '97 Toyota Supra, which had awesome brakes for the street, but gave up the ghost after my first 130-40 mph downhill stop into Laguna's turn 2 (*EEK*). On the 997, the PCCB system in theory will stop significantly shorter by that 5th stop, than will its steel counterpart, because it is better able to tolerate heat buildup.

Now - the comparison between different cars & tires is another matter entirely. How well a car brakes depends on tires, suspension behavior, weight & weight distribution, weight transfer, road surface, etc. etc.

 

Keller - I have to side with John. You can't conclude from the 60-0 stopping distance that ceramics are superior -- you can conclude that the 997 is well equipped to stop quickly (which is of course true)

Now, the comments made in the article about fade-free action and lack of pulsing/warping/... *do* suggest that the editors like the brakes.

 

PCCB's are awesome and i love the feel of them so far under hard runs, but they are NOISSYYYYYY!!!

 

Treynor
Right you are but I was also looking at the big picture as well.
60-0 is a standard used by the auto mags for mear mortals. But the futher comments about the other qualities of the braking system support the 60-0 lenghts as being the best because the PCCB are something special.

 

Yep, the article also mentions repeated stops from 100, which is where PCCBs would shine (as they would on the track).

 

Just for the record: can't agree with the PCCBs being sub-par in the morning. Mine work just fine in 20 F. But then again, I'm not driving 100 mph when the engine is still cold.

I have always been impressed with almost all turbo brakes, but these ceramics are just incredible (very subjective, I know)

 

No problems or "uncertainty" with my brakes first thing in the morning either. Best brakes I've evah had. Maybe not worth the money for most people, but to try and knock them is just a joke, and to say I'm miserable that I bought 'em just makes me laugh . . .

Whateva