Crown

Board: Porsche - 911 - 997 - Turbo Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and steel brakes

    Quote:
    Guy said:
    Wow lots of uninformed posts here sourced from so-called Porsche dealer-staff experts who have no experience.

    I have worn through two pairs of front PCCBs and one pair of rears on my 996GT2 ...



    Since this is the 997TT board, I'm thinking that experience with 997 PCCB seems more applicable to me.

    No?

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and steel brakes

    Well, I don't have any hard data, but I just spent a day and a half with PCCBs and a half day with steel brakes in Germany on the fall Treffen.

    The PCCBs have better initial bite, and better hard braking (as evinced when a little old lady in an Opel pulled into the left lane with no turn signal on the A7).

    I noticed very little dust on the PCCBs, nor did I hear noise (I was enjoying the PSE most of the time, however).

    We also took hot laps at Weissach. In the 997 TT driven by "Bent," I asked him what he thought, and he said PCCBs for sure. They get 4X the life of them at Weissach over steels. The 997TT is amazingly fast and smooth, we hit 245 KPH down the back straight, with no drama.

    I'll post a longer story when I get caught up.

    Jim

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and steel brakes

    Quote:
    W8MM said:
    Quote:
    Guy said:
    Wow lots of uninformed posts here sourced from so-called Porsche dealer-staff experts who have no experience.

    I have worn through two pairs of front PCCBs and one pair of rears on my 996GT2 ...



    Since this is the 997TT board, I'm thinking that experience with 997 PCCB seems more applicable to me.

    No?




    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    SciFrog said:
    No, read above posts. The ceramic rotor should be good for the life of the car.


    Only if your car has a very serene and short life
    The PCCB's do last longer than steel, but the 997 Cup Cars still use at LEAST two sets of rotors in a season and the miles do not approach 175k in a season of warm Sunday afternoons, I can assure you...

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    SciFrog said:
    No, read above posts. The ceramic rotor should be good for the life of the car.




    True & maybe even further than that. As per Porsche- 300,000 street miles with virtually no wear and 175,000 PDA miles with very, very little wear (less than .01mm wear). So how many miles before replacement would be needed? 400,000 miles? More?

    At the same time however there's no way of getting around steel rotor changes with every pad change( as Porsche recommends) or so.

    I think this forum is excellent but I'm a little disappointed with the inaccurate information and perpetuation of message board myth regarding this topic. This place should help others make informed decisions. It's a shame.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Stradale, You are right on with your analysis. I reviewed the cost of PCCB pad change in comparison to rotor change cost on steel with my service advisor before going with PCCB. You tried your best to explain but since they already bought steel, of course they wont agree , hahaha

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    The solution is Brembo GT or the incredible Le Mans(you can order this one by Porsche Motorsport.This kit is mounted on the 996 RSR).

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    andrea said:
    The solution is Brembo GT or the incredible Le Mans(you can order this one by Porsche Motorsport.This kit is mounted on the 996 RSR).



    Indeed, but super noisy! Race brakes.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    STRADALE said:
    Quote:
    SciFrog said:
    No, read above posts. The ceramic rotor should be good for the life of the car.



    I think this forum is excellent but I'm a little disappointed with the inaccurate information and perpetuation of message board myth regarding this topic. This place should help others make informed decisions. It's a shame.



    Stradale
    I have experienced the same type of disappointment and desillusion lately. And I think, so has RC and others.
    You have to remember that this is the web and a lot of users are young wannabe porsche owners or young teenagers whose father own a sports car.
    My point being, take everything you read on the forum with a grain of salt and a lot of wisdom.
    End of day, all that matters is your own experience.
    As far as I'm concerned, money was not a deciding factor when I bought my car, and frankly, if PCCB and steel brakes were the same price, I can bet you anything you want that anyone would go for PCCB.
    Suddenly, you wouldn't hear about those silly rumors such as, not efficient when cold, not efficient when wet, etc.
    So quit your PC and go drive.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Fanch,

    can you tell us the opposite of: slower reaction time when cold and in wet conditions?

    But you are right, here and in any other forum are lot of wannabe porsche owner, a lot of the even lie to own such cars.

    The problem is that some arguments are subjectiv and the lack of objectiv professional arguments. When ordering a car about 140.000 Euro the 8.000 Euro shouldn't be really hard problem. But why spend 8.000 Euro when you don't get equivalent value for it. Not everything adapted from race technology fits for normal use. The best example is the setup, the hard race setup would result in better driving results on normals streets. The same thing is with the ceramic breaks. Even Walther tells us the same. And this isn't marketing bla bla this is a man who stands behind every his said word. Some order the PCCBs just to say I have the best one without thinking if it is the best one for him.

    Maybe the idea of RC to have a closed user forum only for real Porsche owner would help us to get better quality in statements. I think we should open such closed user group.

    AM

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    mumbasic said:
    Fanch,

    can you tell us the opposite of: slower reaction time when cold and in wet conditions?

    But you are right, here and in any other forum are lot of wannabe porsche owner, a lot of the even lie to own such cars.

    The problem is that some arguments are subjectiv and the lack of objectiv professional arguments. When ordering a car about 140.000 Euro the 8.000 Euro shouldn't be really hard problem. But why spend 8.000 Euro when you don't get equivalent value for it. Not everything adapted from race technology fits for normal use. The best example is the setup, the hard race setup would result in better driving results on normals streets. The same thing is with the ceramic breaks. Even Walther tells us the same. And this isn't marketing bla bla this is a man who stands behind every his said word. Some order the PCCBs just to say I have the best one without thinking if it is the best one for him.

    Maybe the idea of RC to have a closed user forum only for real Porsche owner would help us to get better quality in statements. I think we should open such closed user group.

    AM



    AM,
    Yes, after 14,000 km of ownership of PCCB, I can confirm that, from my own experience, no difference when wet or cold.
    The only difference is, as the brakes heat up, they become less noisy.
    I agree with you regarding option prices, I could have settled for a 997 non-S and it wouldn't have made a difference for touring but I wanted what's best on offer so I ticked powerkit and PCCB. It's overpriced yes, but it makes the difference on the track. GT3 is too hardcore for me and has no PSM.
    I knew exactly what I was going to do with my car, and I ordered it with the options that optimised that vision.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    That's exactly what I mean. You say form your experience but no hard core evidence with precise measurement which professionals do have. So our statement is a subjective opinion based on our experience manipulated by our wishes.

    At the end if someone felt on love with the PCCB then he should order it. I have read many articles about how good the X51 is, I have it, too. But I don't think that X51 is worth the money. I wouldn't suggest it to a friend who cares about money. I would explain the benefits but underline that it is not worth the money. If someone wants the best, then go for it.

    AM

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    Fanch said:
    Quote:
    STRADALE said:
    Quote:
    SciFrog said:
    No, read above posts. The ceramic rotor should be good for the life of the car.



    I think this forum is excellent but I'm a little disappointed with the inaccurate information and perpetuation of message board myth regarding this topic. This place should help others make informed decisions. It's a shame.



    Stradale
    I have experienced the same type of disappointment and desillusion lately. And I think, so has RC and others.
    You have to remember that this is the web and a lot of users are young wannabe porsche owners or young teenagers whose father own a sports car.
    My point being, take everything you read on the forum with a grain of salt and a lot of wisdom.
    End of day, all that matters is your own experience.
    As far as I'm concerned, money was not a deciding factor when I bought my car, and frankly, if PCCB and steel brakes were the same price, I can bet you anything you want that anyone would go for PCCB.
    Suddenly, you wouldn't hear about those silly rumors such as, not efficient when cold, not efficient when wet, etc.
    So quit your PC and go drive.



    I think mumbasic's idea of opening an invitation-only forum isn't a bad idea. I wouldn't be able to get into it for another year or two, but heck, the quality of this forum has been dropping steadily with the amount of new members coming here (although some have actually increased the quality, for example Kreso and some others as well) and you guys need to do something about it.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    mumbasic said:
    That's exactly what I mean. You say form your experience but no hard core evidence with precise measurement which professionals do have. So our statement is a subjective opinion based on our experience manipulated by our wishes.




    Could you provide me the scientific evidence with precise measurements and resuls that PCCB do not work properly when cold or wet please?

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Fanch,

    don't turn my words, I didn't say they don't work properly.

    Please read one of the last issues Auto Motor Sport there they are talking about wet conditions and the reaction time. Regarding cold situation you can also talk to any professional driver, it is well known that ceramic brakes needs temperature to work. Driving for a long time on highway without breaking will cool down the breakes so the reaction time for the next very first break will be larger then for the second or third one. This is situatio isn't so relevant for steel brakes.

    AM

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Crash,

    yes it could be a problem for the ones who wish to buy and need some advice. So only for owner and real possible buyers. Hard to find a way.

    AM

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    mumbasic said:
    Fanch,

    don't turn my words, I didn't say they don't work properly.

    Please read one of the last issues Auto Motor Sport there they are talking about wet conditions and the reaction time. Regarding cold situation you can also talk to any professional driver, it is well known that ceramic brakes needs temperature to work. Driving for a long time on highway without breaking will cool down the breakes so the reaction time for the next very first break will be larger then for the second or third one. This is situatio isn't so relevant for steel brakes.

    AM



    AM,
    I live in the UK and do not have access to AMS mag but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since any professional driver says so, except the ones I've talk to but they must be pretty bad I guess.
    I am also happy to report that I must be one of the few lucky owners whose PCCBs work perfectly, irrespective of the conditions, dry, wet, cold, etc.
    If something was wrong I would honestly report it, I'm not writing on this forum to Porsche's benefit.
    Only major fault is that I must confess they are very noisy compared to my 996 steel brakes.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Isn't there an UK version of AMS?

    In the past when ordering my last car (which has nearly everything and I wanted PCCB) I discussed a lot about PCCB. I live 20 km from the Porsche factory and so it common to have some friends which works for Porsche. The other thing is that I have some friends which are driving semi-professional. Due to this constellation now I know some guys which earn their money with motor sport. By doing a small research with all this guys I came to the conclusion that the PCCBs and not worth the money. The professionaly guys where even harder with their opinion that PCCBs are not for normal use better then steel. My dealer would sell me for sure the yellow calipers Didn't you read the article from Walther where he denies that the PCCBs on the new 997 tt have an advantage!

    But maybe me and the guys I talked are wrong, who knows? We will never know. So for freedom I invite you to a beer

    AM

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    mumbasic said:
    Crash,

    yes it could be a problem for the ones who wish to buy and need some advice. So only for owner and real possible buyers. Hard to find a way.

    AM


    I think one of the attractive aspects of this forum is difference of opinion. As long as it is on topic the reader should be able to ferret out fact from fiction. If passionate people get on and make statements that most don't agree with, then debate can resolve this problem for the benefit of all. In my opinion opening a forum for invitees or some other exclusive model limits the usefulness of rennteam. I for one consider the advise and knowledge I aquired here invaluable to my enjoyment of the car I ended up buying. The spirited debate across various topics only serves to help me learn. Now if only 997tt owners were permitted here..would we then be happy? I don't think so... The solution to the misinformation problem can be is self policing by the membership...by offering up another point of view that challenges the misinformation. In the case of constant off topic remarks or simple marque bashing, perhaps if a member ends up being ignored by a signicant number of members then they become banned from the site for a cooling off period...that keeps the lunatic fringe at bay. The others like me...well we just need education. I hope to be here trading observations,contributing where I can and learning from the people here for years to come. That includes Crash...soon to be a Turbo owner.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Yes the level of misinformation here is sometimes fantastic, especially coming from some of the old timers. The limiting factor in any modern braking system is not going to be the pads or the rotors - regardless of the material (steel or ceramic) they are going to be able to generate the same amount of usable braking torque. The reason I say "usable" is because the limiting factor is always going to be the tire and road surface. You cannot outbrake your tires. Period.

    Road tests are not ever going to be able to demonstrate a difference in stopping distance between the two systems under normal conditions. Change tires and yes there might be a difference between tires. Change the vehicle weight, yes a difference. Change the road surface, yes a difference. Change the number of stops and perhaps after 20-30 repeated hot braking attempts there could be some fade issues between the 2. Even then, the heat capacity of the metal calipers of borh system is going to be a limiting factor.

    I would venture to say that anyone who intends to use these cars for vigorous driving/tracking should have enough acumen with regards to braking technique and smooth driving to avoid exceeding the heat capacity of the system. Which is why Rohrl can tell us honestly that the steel system performs just fine.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    eclou said:
    Yes the level of misinformation here is sometimes fantastic, especially coming from some of the old timers. The limiting factor in any modern braking system is not going to be the pads or the rotors - regardless of the material (steel or ceramic) they are going to be able to generate the same amount of usable braking torque. The reason I say "usable" is because the limiting factor is always going to be the tire and road surface. You cannot outbrake your tires. Period.




    Ever driven a BMW on the track Eclou?
    Kidding aside. My own experience tells otherwise.
    F1 circuit Mangy-Cours in France: 996 C4 cab (granted, not at all a track car but whatever), after a good dozen laps, my brakes (steel) were seriously starting to suffer whereas I still had grip from my P Zero Rosso (which I had lower by 0.7 bar on all four tyres).

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    LoranTw said:
    Quote:
    mumbasic said:
    Crash,

    yes it could be a problem for the ones who wish to buy and need some advice. So only for owner and real possible buyers. Hard to find a way.

    AM


    I think one of the attractive aspects of this forum is difference of opinion. As long as it is on topic the reader should be able to ferret out fact from fiction. If passionate people get on and make statements that most don't agree with, then debate can resolve this problem for the benefit of all. In my opinion opening a forum for invitees or some other exclusive model limits the usefulness of rennteam. I for one consider the advise and knowledge I aquired here invaluable to my enjoyment of the car I ended up buying. The spirited debate across various topics only serves to help me learn. Now if only 997tt owners were permitted here..would we then be happy? I don't think so... The solution to the misinformation problem can be is self policing by the membership...by offering up another point of view that challenges the misinformation. In the case of constant off topic remarks or simple marque bashing, perhaps if a member ends up being ignored by a signicant number of members then they become banned from the site for a cooling off period...that keeps the lunatic fringe at bay. The others like me...well we just need education. I hope to be here trading observations,contributing where I can and learning from the people here for years to come. That includes Crash...soon to be a Turbo owner.



    I don't think a user forum is the solution.
    It's a matter of spending time on the forum, after a while, you start to spot the dodgy members.
    I, for example don't even bother reading certain user's posts whereas others, you know you debate thoughts and experiences in a polite manner, just the way I am discussing with Eclou and Mumbasic re PCCB. These two members have they own points of view but they clearly have the experience to back it.
    Thankfully for Rennteam, there are a lot of such users (W8MM, Fritz, Max T, RC, etc.) just to name a few.
    For the simple reason that, before being Rennteam users, they are drivers.
    I'm not saying non drivers are not welcome, on the contrary, but the ones that drive from they PC certainly are.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    LoranTw said:
    Quote:
    mumbasic said:
    Crash,

    yes it could be a problem for the ones who wish to buy and need some advice. So only for owner and real possible buyers. Hard to find a way.

    AM


    I think one of the attractive aspects of this forum is difference of opinion. As long as it is on topic the reader should be able to ferret out fact from fiction. If passionate people get on and make statements that most don't agree with, then debate can resolve this problem for the benefit of all. In my opinion opening a forum for invitees or some other exclusive model limits the usefulness of rennteam. I for one consider the advise and knowledge I aquired here invaluable to my enjoyment of the car I ended up buying. The spirited debate across various topics only serves to help me learn. Now if only 997tt owners were permitted here..would we then be happy? I don't think so... The solution to the misinformation problem can be is self policing by the membership...by offering up another point of view that challenges the misinformation. In the case of constant off topic remarks or simple marque bashing, perhaps if a member ends up being ignored by a signicant number of members then they become banned from the site for a cooling off period...that keeps the lunatic fringe at bay. The others like me...well we just need education. I hope to be here trading observations,contributing where I can and learning from the people here for years to come. That includes Crash...soon to be a Turbo owner.




    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    Fanch said:Ever driven a BMW on the track Eclou?



    Now, now, Fanch, you're being a little bit naughty with your jokes

    The one thing that prompted me out of driving a BWM at the track was my sense that BMW product engineers didn't build in as much brake heat capacity as I felt to be enough. No matter which model of BMW I tried (including M3, M5, etc.), the brakes would go off after a few laps of spirited track driving. The Porsche drivers then on the track with me never seemed to have any discernible issues with their brakes.

    While it is axiomatic that tire friction limits ultimate deceleration levels, the BTU capacity of the brake system is a possible weak link regarding track driving, too.

    One can exceed the thermal capacity of ones tires by driving with too much slip angle and constant sliding through entire turns. Every tire compound has an optimum temperature range for which grip is at a maximum. Too cold and too hot are both bad for grip. Over-driving ones tires makes them less grippy in braking as well as cornering. Lots of racers have "cooked" their tires from over-exuberance and then pay a penalty later in a race.

    Now we come to brakes. A big deal with me is have enough manageable instantaneous brake torque at each wheel to firmly establish tire friction as the limiting factor. BMW brake designs don't seem to have enough long-term heat capacity to provide this essential retarding torque, lap after lap. They just can't seem to eject enough heat energy, thus gradually get way too hot to function correctly.

    Once the heat capacity issue is addressed (as Porsche has), then it's down to feel and "friendly" behavior. I prefer a brake pedal feel that doesn't have much movement associated with increasing pedal pressure. This feature makes it easier for my large, clumsy feet to traverse between the brake and the throttle without unwanted drama.

    I also am enamoured of consistent pedal pressure for a given rate of braking deceleration. There's nothing worse (in my mind) than a car control that acts differently every lap. If the pedal feel required for success in each corner is consistent, then my driving confidence can translate into more nearly perfect execution.

    For all of the above reasons (and more), I prefer PCCB brakes to traditional cast-iron Porsche brakes. One may regard my opinions as subjective, without properly instrumented data. However, I like to think that I have a sound engineering basis for forming my opinions.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    W8MM said:
    Quote:
    Fanch said:Ever driven a BMW on the track Eclou?



    Now, now, Fanch, you're being a little bit naughty with your jokes

    The one thing that prompted me out of driving a BWM at the track was my sense that BMW product engineers didn't build in as much brake heat capacity as I felt to be enough. No matter which model of BMW I tried (including M3, M5, etc.), the brakes would go off after a few laps of spirited track driving. The Porsche drivers then on the track with me never seemed to have any discernible issues with their brakes.

    While it is axiomatic that tire friction limits ultimate deceleration levels, the BTU capacity of the brake system is a possible weak link regarding track driving, too.

    One can exceed the thermal capacity of ones tires by driving with too much slip angle and constant sliding through entire turns. Every tire compound has an optimum temperature range for which grip is at a maximum. Too cold and too hot are both bad for grip. Over-driving ones tires makes them less grippy in braking as well as cornering. Lots of racers have "cooked" their tires from over-exuberance and then pay a penalty later in a race.

    Now we come to brakes. A big deal with me is have enough manageable instantaneous brake torque at each wheel to firmly establish tire friction as the limiting factor. BMW brake designs don't seem to have enough long-term heat capacity to provide this essential retarding torque, lap after lap. They just can't seem to eject enough heat energy, thus gradually get way too hot to function correctly.

    Once the heat capacity issue is addressed (as Porsche has), then it's down to feel and "friendly" behavior. I prefer a brake pedal feel that doesn't have much movement associated with increasing pedal pressure. This feature makes it easier for my large, clumsy feet to traverse between the brake and the throttle without unwanted drama.

    I also am enamoured of consistent pedal pressure for a given rate of braking deceleration. There's nothing worse (in my mind) than a car control that acts differently every lap. If the pedal feel required for success in each corner is consistent, then my driving confidence can translate into more nearly perfect execution.

    For all of the above reasons (and more), I prefer PCCB brakes to traditional cast-iron Porsche brakes. One may regard my opinions as subjective, without properly instrumented data. However, I like to think that I have a sound engineering basis for forming my opinions.



    Coming from an engineer and an accomplished track driver, this sounds to me (albeit a layman) as a great explanation .

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    I have a couple of thousand of track miles on both my M3 and 944 turbo. To be honest, neither are very close to stock at all - full aftermarket suspension lowered, corner weighted, and with aggressive alignment; upgraded to 993tt front brakes with multiple different pad compounds (the stock ATE M3 brakes have very limited heat capacity). Both vehicles are lightened and use R-compound Hoosier tires. The things I have done to increase the headroom for heat capacity:

    1)higher temp capacity brake fluid (GS610, Castrol SRF)
    2)higher temp capacity brake pads (Pagid Orange, Hawk Blue)
    3)brake cooling mods - removal of dust shields, addition of cooling ducts
    4)stainless steel brake lines (less wall flex)

    I would contend that all of the above could be done for a fraction of the cost of PCCB. I have to admit that I have never tried PCCB in a Porsche, only ceramics in a F430 and thus cannot attest to the braking feel of the PCCB's. But as I mentioned before, the PCCB's cost is equivalent to a 22' enclosed Haulmark trailer, 10 sets of Hoosier R6 tires, 40 PCA HPDE courses. I just cannot personally cannot justify the cost/benefit ratio.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Quote:
    eclou said:
    I have a couple of thousand of track miles on both my M3 and 944 turbo. To be honest, neither are very close to stock at all - full aftermarket suspension lowered, corner weighted, and with aggressive alignment; upgraded to 993tt front brakes with multiple different pad compounds (the stock ATE M3 brakes have very limited heat capacity). Both vehicles are lightened and use R-compound Hoosier tires. The things I have done to increase the headroom for heat capacity:

    1)higher temp capacity brake fluid (GS610, Castrol SRF)
    2)higher temp capacity brake pads (Pagid Orange, Hawk Blue)
    3)brake cooling mods - removal of dust shields, addition of cooling ducts
    4)stainless steel brake lines (less wall flex)

    I would contend that all of the above could be done for a fraction of the cost of PCCB. I have to admit that I have never tried PCCB in a Porsche, only ceramics in a F430 and thus cannot attest to the braking feel of the PCCB's. But as I mentioned before, the PCCB's cost is equivalent to a 22' enclosed Haulmark trailer, 10 sets of Hoosier R6 tires, 40 PCA HPDE courses. I just cannot personally ... justify the cost/benefit ratio.



    Eclou,

    It sounds as if you have a great deal of fun at the track. Way to go

    However, others may not have the time or inclination to do all of the mods and special equipment installation as have you. Probably most of us don't track our cars as often as do you, and most of us probably don't trailer our cars to the track.

    Some of us would like occasional great track performance (it just makes us feel better) in cars that we drive every day - not dedicated track cars. If a few of us had to pay for the wrench time and quartermaster duties that you have performed, but at our own billing rates, PCCB would end up being much cheaper.

    My interest in this discussion is not related to issues of personal valuation of PCCB. I only wanted to point out that PCCB works better for me than Porsche cast-iron rotor brakes, and give my reasons for saying so.

    I hope to greet you at a track someday

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Hi Fanch,

    I have PCCBs on my 996tt and 997tt and I do notice an initial drop in grip when cold AND wet. It does not take much to bring them in, though. This is usually the initial braking when starting off on a wet day. No noticable lower grip for street drivin when just cold (and not also wet). With the wet and cold experience, it just seems to be on initially pressing the breaks because the PCCBs grab much more quickly on initial pressing than the steels. I have had steels (of course) on all my previous turbos.

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    The biggest difference I find between PCCB and steel is the difference of weight one can feel in the steering wheel.
    It is so obvious to me.

    I would consider them ( not looking at the price) only for that benefit.

    I did find the PCCB to have a better ' bite' .
    Now, I have been completely satisfied with my steel brakes and even on the track I did not encounter any problems due to over heat.

    Commenting on the board quality, I do also think it has dropped since about 3 or 4 month ( since the opening of the off topic section ??? ) Lots of ' oldtimer' do not post anymore, or only very seldom...

    Re: Any hard objective facts comparing PCP and ste

    Gnil,

    you are right about the quality. Also RCs posts are missing. He has the reputation to cut a ridiculuos discussion.

    AM

     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New 991.2 GT3 (2017) 12/5/18 8:49 AM
    Porker
    408789 5201
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA 12/13/18 8:47 PM
    Enmanuel
    324051 2007
    Porsche Sticky The moment I've been waiting for... 12/8/18 8:33 AM
    Joost
     
     
     
     
     
    213107 1083
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: 911 GT2 RS (2017) 12/14/18 5:41 AM
    the-missile
    198331 2680
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: 991.2 GT3 RS (2018) 12/14/18 9:21 PM
    GnilM
    127528 2441
    AMG Sticky Mercedes E63 S AMG (2018) - Short Review (updated on a regular basis) 12/6/18 3:34 PM
    RCA
    34107 321
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: The new Porsche 992 – a design icon and high-tech sports car 12/14/18 9:35 PM
    CGX car nut
    18808 301
    Porsche Sticky Paint protection film 9/25/18 6:14 PM
    throt
    14396 121
    Porsche Sticky Child seats in a 991 11/29/18 3:43 PM
    RCA
    13844 35
    Porsche 991 GT3 RS 1/9/18 1:43 PM
    Kimi
    527107 5816
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 991 Turbo and Turbo S 4/3/18 9:15 AM
    KresoF1
    484205 4254
    Porsche 992 (Next 911 generation 2019/2020) Thread Closed 11/29/18 11:38 AM
    RCA
    296564 3195
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 R (2016) 9/13/18 10:12 AM
    RCA
    280968 2589
    Porsche Cayman GT4 11/29/18 3:41 PM
    xpto
    266792 2622
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 Turbo and Turbo S 1/23/18 12:27 AM
    RCA
    192150 1074
    Ferrari 488 GTB/GTS 11/26/18 11:32 AM
    Rossi
    191822 1768
    McLaren McLaren on a winning streak 12/14/18 6:00 PM
    Enmanuel
    183440 3288
    Others Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016 model) - Review (updated Feb 13th 2017) 12/13/18 4:36 PM
    RCA
    151453 2475
    Porsche Boxster Spyder (981) 8/31/18 10:25 AM
    WAY
    143217 757
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New Panamera (2016) 1/6/18 10:41 PM
    Wonderbar
    128959 1284
    Ferrari Ferrari F12 Berlinetta / 599 GTO Successor 5/22/18 9:16 PM
    RCA
    111975 789
    Others VW caught cheating emissions tests 5/3/18 7:52 PM
    CGX car nut
    106791 871
    Porsche Porsche Mission E - the future of Porsche? 12/10/18 3:41 PM
    WhoopsyM
    90063 1252
    Porsche Donor vehicle for Singer Vehicle Design 12/7/18 10:15 PM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    67264 673
    Porsche UPDATES: 2018 Porsche Cayenne 2/6/18 2:13 PM
    RCA
    57483 423
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 Carrera GTS models 11/3/18 11:09 AM
    bluelines
    47107 477
    Others Tesla Roadster 12/14/18 9:46 PM
    CGX car nut
    46687 1486
    Others Tesla Model X Thread Closed 2/23/18 3:41 PM
    RCA
    42984 1122
    AMG AMG GT R 11/30/18 4:10 PM
    RCA
    42256 605
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 Turbo S Exclusive Series (2017) 12/4/18 3:17 PM
    BiTurbo
    39759 650
    281 items found, displaying 1 to 30.