I don't want to start a 'my brake pads are better than your brake pads'
war here, but I'd like to submit my $0.02 on Porterfield brakes:
I tried a set of them on my '85 MR2 ITA car. They had about 2 hours of
use on them and plenty of pad thickness just before they disintegrated
and caught fire. I figured I should look at the rears, and found that
they still had most of their original thickness, but were already
separating from the backing plates pretty badly.
Your mileage may vary, as will your car, driving style, weather
conditions, and local track configurations.
KeithKa
Elva FJr
>----------
>From: MHKitchen@aol.com[SMTP:MHKitchen@aol.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 13, 1997 4:37 PM
>To: vintage-race@Autox.Team.Net
>Subject: RE: Carbon/Kevlar Brake Pads
>
>Hi All;
>
>Seeing the posts on the Carbotech brake pads triggered a comment I thought
>I'd throw out for any of you using the Porterfield Carbon Kevlar (R4) pads.
> From my experience, I strongly recommend replacing these pads when they
>reach approximately 1/2 thickness. I say this as I've had 2 instances now of
>the pad material completely separating from the backing plate from extreme
>heat build-up on well worn pads. The pads become discolored, with a pinkish
>hue. I've talked to Porterfield and they confirmed that they've seen this
>before. My theory is there's a lot more heat dissipation capability in a
>thicker pad, and on my car the fronts get quite a workout. Other than this,
>I'm very happy and pleased with their overall performance. I get
>considerably longer life, less brake fade, and less overheating to the point
>of boiling the fluid with the carbon kevlar pads, than with the DS-11's I
>used to use. FYI....
>
>Myles H. Kitchen
>Lotus Cortina Mk1 #128
>
|