Ceramic brakes
- Thread starter CCL
- Start date
Black80XSA
New member
The Cayman has the second generation of PCCB (ceramic brakes) - they are a lot more reliable and have longer life than the previous versions, which were prone to chipping if hit by road debris or stones ina gravel trap on a trackday. They offer better braking than steel brakes over extended periods. When new the option box tick would have cost around £5,5k Replacement discs are around £1k per corner. A lot of 996 / 997 track day users swapped the ceramic brakes back to steel, for fear of the cost of replacing them, only putting the ceramics back on for resale. There are reports of very good service life from the newer version, search the Carrera Gt section for a recent running report to get a feel for them. Would i buy a car with them fitted ?? - No. For me there are too many unknowns with them for long term ownership, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the steel brakes. then again, if you buy the car and you do have issues then you can always go back to steel discs. 2 years ago i was interested in the 987S demo in OPC Reading which had them fitted - the sales guy told me they lost more than their option price the day the car was registered, they were a liability come resale.
Would this apply to normal daily road use driving or just track day jollies? These days the standard brakes on modern performance cars never seem to come in for any stick from any journo's who certainly thrash there press loan cars to within an inch of there life and often remark how excellent the brakes actually are [&o]
Black80XSA
New member
On a turbo then i'd have no qualms about buying a car with them fitted, after all its a 200mph car. On a Cayman or a Boxster then i'd still agree with the view from Reading OPC even 3 years on - their demo had been for sale for 3 months when i enquired, and was still there for several months after. Given i wanted a more sporty than standard spec the sales guy could have easily convinced me there were worthwhile option and good buy on their used car. I've driven Boxsters with and without PCCB, on road and track - yes there is a small difference in handling due to the unsprung mass, there is slightly different pedal feel and there is less drop off in performance when used very hard on track. However the average used Cayman/Boxster owner is going to be spending £25-40k for their car, so the replacement costs of the brakes is out of proprortion with their budget IMO. Spend 60-70k on a used Turbo and they are acceptable running costs for the cost of the car. Use them as a bargaining tool to get the price to one at, or below, a similar car with steel brakes and use them til they become and issue - then decide whether to pay out or revert to steel.
I'm a complete convert to Ceramics, having used them long term on a GT3, and recently on brief acquaintances with a DBS and a Scuderia. I also drive a 987'S' on steel brakes and., IMO, steel is old technology - ceramics are the future. There were some issues with Gen 1 PCCBs, apparently resolved with Gen 2. We are now on Gen 3, incorporating improvements in materials, manufacture, cooling, weight saving, f/r distribution and pad specifications. The benefits are noticeable, especially in everyday road use, and they do seem to meet all their claims: - Improved braking performance (shorter stopping distances). - Consistent, fade free performance - Significant unsprung weight saving - Consequential improvements to ride, handling and steering - No brake dust - No disc corrosion - Considerably longer life expectancy Some hardcore track day users are still reluctant (even though they are proven in the Super Cup) because brakes are seen as a consumable, and there are more cost effective after-market steel options. But, for most applications, they are brilliant and I think they would be superb on a Boxster/Cayman, where the weight saving would be even more noticeable. Personally, I'd rather spend the £5k + on PCCBs than a power upgrade.
sawood12
New member
Not sure I agree with the sentiment that they are the future for car brakes. The problem with ceramic materials generically is and always will be that they are brittle and will always be less robust than alternative materials (think tiles on the shuttle!). The aerospace industry has been messing with ceramic materials and ceramic composites for decades as they offer potential major advantages if the many and significant problems with them could be overcome (e.g. they could halve the fuel consumption of aero engines if turbine components could be made from ceramic composites), and the aspects that has stopped them being applied more widely than they currently are is their expense, difficulty to manufacture and brittleness. If NASA can't make ceramic materials robust after four decades and countless of billions of dollars investment then what chance does the motor industry have? Also it is very debatable that ceramic brakes offer any braking performance advantage on a road car for normal street driving. The tyres and ABS system has far more of a influence on stopping distances as even steel brakes on modern cars are powerful enough to lock up on dry roads. I think they'll remain the reserve of racing cars, specialist track cars and expensive sportscars for driving enthusiasts. In fact i'd if anything the type of technology that will replace steel brakes on road cars will be frictionless e.g. electromagnetic brakes. These can be buried within the transmission/differential therefore eliminating unsprung weight contribution of the braking system. Also they will be maintenance free. Boeing and Airbus are already considering/developing such systems for the next generation of airliners due to the horrendous cost of ceramic composite brakes they currently use.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
