Brake options

[jackolee]

this will help alot when i upgrade mine thanks guys

[Moose]

Originally Posted by FALer

I paid ~$80 from Helms a year ago, but either we're dealing with Canadian pricing, or the price went up since then.

Price went up ...

I get hammered at the border with taxes and duties etc ....but it is still cheaper than what Honda Canada Charges ... $300 even with my Jobber discount

Moose

[FALer]

Originally Posted by Moose

Price went up ...

I get hammered at the border with taxes and duties etc ....but it is still cheaper than what Honda Canada Charges ... $300 even with my Jobber discount

Moose

You ought to get a drop box in Buffalo....

[Moose]

Originally Posted by FALer

You ought to get a drop box in Buffalo....

YUP ... A friend of mine has one, which I use for the big ticket items ... I have some new toys coming soon

[phoenixdrago12]

what about Endless?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by phoenixdrago12

what about Endless?

What about them ...I do not understand your question

Moose

[FALer]

Originally Posted by Moose

What about them ...I do not understand your question

Moose

I'll bite. Which are good for performance street, which for auto-X/HPDE, and which for racing, if any? What kind of noise & wear characteristics do the street and auto-X pads have, along with temperature sensitivity and initial bite, if you've used their stuff before?

[Moose]

Never used Endless Before

Compounds

CC-A
50-500C
38-45 Mu
Sreet / AutoX

CC-X -
0-700 C temp range
38-50 mu co-effficeint of friction
High performance street / AutoX / HDPE

CC-R
150-800 C temp range
35-40 Mu co-effcient of friction
HDPE / light Track


by Comparasin
Project Mu HC+
0-800C
38-62 Mu


CC-R and CC-X straddle what the Project MU HC+ (Titan Kai) HC+ can do ... the HC+ works failry well for booth HP street and HDPE ... but are more street oriented


Moose

[Sirbelch]

I don't know if this is in there but

Originally Posted by friedk

I thought this was a nice read. If it's a repost someone please delete.

Cliffnotes: Slotted/drilled = for looks except for a few rare cases which shouldn't apply if you're on this forum.

QUOTE(Taken from a sticky at Celicatech)
===========
First, lets get some physics. Tell me how a heatsink with less mass will cool better? You do realize that a brake rotor acts as a large heatsink to transfer heat from the brake pads to the rotor. The heat generated from pads has to go somewhere and so it transfers to the rotor and caliper.

Porsche claims: "Discs are cross-drilled to enhance braking in the wet. The brakes respond faster because the water vapour pressure that builds up during braking can be released more easily."

They have said nothing about enhancing normal braking circumstances and the larger diameter rotors probably make up for the lack of material present in a smaller cross drilled rotor.

From Wilwood's website:
QUOTE
Q: Why are some rotors drilled or slotted?
A: Rotors are drilled to reduce rotating weight, an issue near and dear to racers searching for ways to minimize unsprung weight. Drilling diminishes a rotor's durability and cooling capacity.

Slots or grooves in rotor faces are partly a carryover from the days of asbestos pads. Asbestos and other organic pads were prone to "glazing" and the slots tended to help "scrape or de-glaze" them. Drilling and slotting rotors has become popular in street applications for their pure aesthetic value. Wilwood has a large selection of drilled and slotted rotors for a wide range of applications.

As for the porsche rotors, a few notes from a forum I frequent:
QUOTE

1) The holes are cast in giving a dense boundary layer-type crystalline grain structure around the hole at the microscopic level as opposed to drilling which cuts holes in the existing grain pattern leaving open endgrains, etc, just begging for cracks.

2) The holes are only 1/2 the diameter of the holes in most drilled rotors. This reduces the stress concentration factor due to hole interaction which is a function (not linear) of hole diameters and the distance between them.

3) Since the holes are only 1/2 as big they remove only 1/4 as much surface area and mass from the rotor faces as a larger hole. This does a couple of things:

It increases effective pad area compared with larger holes. The larger the pad area the cooler they will run, all else being equal. If the same amount of heat is generated over a larger surface area it will result in a lower temperature for both surfaces.

It increases the mass the rotor has to absorb heat with. If the same amount of heat is put into a rotor with a larger mass, it will result in a lower temperature.

3) The holes are placed along the vanes, actually cutting into them giving the vane a "half moon" cut along its width. You can see that here:

This does a couple of things:

First, it greatly increases the surface area of the vanes which allows the entire rotors to run cooler which helps prevent cracks by itself.

Second, it effectively stops cracking on that side of the hole which makes it very difficult to get "hole to hole" cracks that go all the way through the face rotor (you'll get tiny surface "spider cracks" on any rotor, blank included if you look hard enough).

That's why Porsche rotors are the only "crossdrilled" rotors I would ever consider putting on my car.

BTW, many of the above features are not present in older Porsche brakes. The above is for "Big Reds" and newer.

This is quite different from the standard drilled rotors you get from brembo/kvr/powerslot/"insert random ricer parts brand name here" brake rotors.

Further proof of the uselessness of cross drilled rotors are found here:

Those Poor Rotors

QUOTE
Crossdrilling your rotors might look neat, but what is it really doing for you? Well, unless your car is using brake pads from the 40’s and 50’s, not a whole lot. Rotors were first ‘drilled’ because early brake pad materials gave off gasses when heated to racing temperatures – a process known as ‘gassing out’. These gasses then formed a thin layer between the brake pad face and the rotor, acting as a lubricant and effectively lowering the coefficient of friction. The holes were implemented to give the gasses ‘somewhere to go’. It was an effective solution, but today’s friction materials do not exhibit the same gassing out phenomenon as the early pads.

For this reason, the holes have carried over more as a design feature than a performance feature. Contrary to popular belief they don’t lower temperatures (in fact, by removing weight from the rotor, the temperatures can actually increase a little), they create stress risers allowing the rotor to crack sooner, and make a mess of brake pads – sort of like a cheese grater rubbing against them at every stop. (Want more evidence? Look at NASCAR or F1. You would think that if drilling holes in the rotor was the hot ticket, these teams would be doing it.)

The one glaring exception here is in the rare situation where the rotors are so oversized (look at any performance motorcycle or lighter formula car) that the rotors are drilled like Swiss cheese. While the issues of stress risers and brake pad wear are still present, drilling is used to reduce the mass of the parts in spite of these concerns. Remember – nothing comes for free. If these teams switched to non-drilled rotors, they would see lower operating temperatures and longer brake pad life – at the expense of higher weight. It’s all about trade-offs.


From Stoptech:

QUOTE
Which is better, slotted or drilled rotors?

StopTech provides rotors slotted, drilled or plain. For most performance applications slotted is the preferred choice. Slotting helps wipe away debris from between the pad and rotor as well as increasing the "bite" characteristics of the pad. A drilled rotor provides the same type of benefit, but is more susceptible to cracking under severe usage. Many customers prefer the look of a drilled rotor and for street and occasional light duty track use they will work fine. For more severe applications, we recommend slotted rotors.

That almost sounds like an excuse to use cross drilled rotors, and for your street car which probably is never driven on the track, the drilled rotors are fine, but as Stoptech states, they will crack and are not good for severe applications.

From Baer:

QUOTE
"What are the benefits to Crossdrilling, Slotting, and Zinc-Washing my rotors?

In years past, crossdrilling and/or Slotting the rotor for racing purposes was beneficial by providing a way to expel the gasses created when the bonding agents employed to manufacture the pads...However, with today’s race pad technology, ‘outgassing’ is no longer much of a concern...Slotted surfaces are what Baer recommends for track only use. Slotted only rotors are offered as an option for any of Baer’s offerings."

Then from Grassroots Motorsports:
QUOTE
"Crossdrilling your rotors might look neat, but what is it really doing for you? Well, unless your car is using brake pads from the '40s and 50s, not a whole lot. Rotors were first drilled because early brake pad materials gave off gasses when heated to racing temperatures, a process known as "gassing out." ...It was an effective solution, but today's friction materials do not exhibit the some gassing out phenomenon as the early pads. Contrary to popular belief, they don't lower temperatures. (In fact, by removing weight from the rotor, they can actually cause temperatures to increase a little.) These holes create stress risers that allow the rotor to crack sooner, and make a mess of brake pads--sort of like a cheese grater rubbing against them at every stop. Want more evidence? Look at NASCAR or F1. You would think that if drilling holes in the rotor was the hot ticket, these teams would be doing it...Slotting rotors, on the other hand, might be a consideration if your sanctioning body allows for it. Cutting thin slots across the face of the rotor can actually help to clean the face of the brake pads over time, helping to reduce the glazing often found during high-speed use which can lower the coefficient of friction. While there may still be a small concern over creating stress risers in the face of the rotor, if the slots are shallow and cut properly, the trade-off appears to be worth the risk. (Have you looked at a NASCAR rotor lately?)

And then, let's check out what was said on the aforementioned Altima thread [[[ Long thread at altimas.net that was deleted by that server. it is hosted here ]]]:

QUOTE
Here is how it works. The friction between the pad and rotor is what causes you to stop. This friction converts your forward energy into heat (remember Einstein: Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is converted). Now that heat is a bad thing. Yes it is bad for the rotors but it is a lot worse for the pads. A warped rotor will still stop the car - it will just feel like shit. Overheated pads however WILL NOT stop the car. It is here where the rotors secondary responsibility comes in. Its job now is to DISSIPATE the heat away from the pads and DISPERSE it through itself. Notice that DISSIPATE and DISPERSE are interchangeable? Once the heat is removed from the pad/surface area it is then removed. Notice where the removal falls on the list of duties? That's right - number 3. Here is the list again. Memorize it because I will be using it a lot in this post:

#1 Maintains a coefficient of friction with the pad to slow the forward inertia of the vehicle

#2 DISSIPATE the heat

#3 REMOVE the heat from the brake system

Let's look more in-depth at each step now shall we? No? Too bad assclown we are doing it anyway.

#1 Maintains a coefficient of friction with the pad to slow the forward inertia of the vehicle:
This one is pretty simple and self-explanatory. The rotor's surface is where the pads contact and generate friction to slow the vehicle down. Since it is this friction that causes the conversion of forward acceleration into deceleration (negative acceleration if you want) you ideally want as much as possible right? The more friction you have the better your stopping will be. This is reason #1 why BIGGER brakes are the best way to improve a vehicle's stopping ability. More surface area on the pad and the rotor = more friction = better stopping. Does that make sense Ace? Good. Let's move on.

#2 DISSIPATE The Heat:
Let's assume for a second that the vehicle in question is running with Hawk Blue pads on it. The brand doesn't really matter but that is what I am using as my example. They have an operating range of 400 degrees to 1100 degrees. Once they exceed that 1100 degree mark they fade from overheating. The pad material gets too soft to work effectively - glazing occurs. This means that a layer of crude glass forms on the surface of the pad. As we all know glass is very smooth and very hard. It doesn't have a very high coefficient of friction. This is bad - especially when I am coming down the back straight at VIR at 125MPH. Lucky for us the rotor has a job to do here as well. The rotor, by way of thermal tranfer DISSIPATES the heat throughout itself. This DISSIPATION lessens the amount of heat at the contact area because it is diluted throughout the whole rotor. The bigger the rotor the better here as well. The more metal it has the more metal the heat can be diluted into. Make sense? This isn't rocket science here d00d.

#3 REMOVE the heat from the brake system:
Now comes your favorite part of the process. This is what you thought DISSIPATION was. It is ok. I will allow you to be wrong. This is the step where the rotor takes the heat it DISSIPATED from the pads and gets rid of it for good. How does it do this? By radiating it to the surface - either the faces or inside the veins. It is here where cool air interacts with the hot metal to cool it off and remove the heat. Once again there is a reoccuring theme of "the bigger the better" here. The bigger the rotor, the more surface area it will have which means more contact with the cooling air surrounding it. Got it? Good.

Now let's look at why cross-drilling is a bad idea.

First - as we have already established, cross-drilling was never done to aid in cooling. Its purpose was to remove the worn away pad material so that the surfaces remained clean. As we all know this doesn't have much of a purpose nowadays.

Next - In terms of cooling: Yes - x-drilling does create more areas for air to go through but remember - this is step 3 on the list of tasks. Let's look at how this affects steps 1 and 2. The drilling of the rotor removes material from the unit. This removal means less surface area for generating surface friction as well as less material to accept the DISSIPATED heat that was generated by the friction. Now because of this I want to optimize step one and 2 since those are the immediate needs. If it takes longer for the rotor to get rid of the heat it is ok. You will have a straight at some point where you can rest the brakes and let your cooling ducts do their job. My PRIMARY concern is making sure that my car slows down at the end of the straight. This means that the rotor needs to have as much surface as possible to generate as much friction as possible and it needs to DISSIPATE the resulting heat AWAY from the pads as quick as possible so they continue to work. In both cases x-drilling does nothing to help the cause.

Now let's talk about strength - and how x-drilled rotors lack it. This one is simple. Explain again just how drilling away material/structure from a CAST product DOES NOT weaken it? Since you are obviously a man of great knowledge and experience surely you have seen what can happen to a x-drilled rotor on track right? Yes it can happen to a non-drilled rotor as well but the odds are in your favor when pimpin' bling-bling drilled y0! Since you are also an expert on thermodynamics why not explain to the group what happens to a cast iron molecule when it is overheated. I will give you a little hint - the covalence bonds weaken. These bonds are what hold the molecules together boys and girls. You do the math - it adds up to fractures.

So why don't race teams use them if they are so much better? Consistency? Hmmmm . . . no. I am gonna go with the real reason her chodeboy. It is because of several factors actually. They are as follows but in no particular order:

- Less usable surface area for generating friction
- Less material to DISSIPATE the heat away from the pads
- Less reliable and they are a safety risk because of fatigue and stress resulting from the reduced material

And what are the benefits? Removal of particulate matter and enhanced heat removal. I gotta tell ya - it is a tough choice but I think I am going to stick with the safe, reliable, effective-for-my-stopping needs solution Tex.
=====================

So basically, buy them if you think they look cool, but not if you think this will be an acceptable performance upgrade.

[Moose]

Hi "Belch"

Thanks !


I added the link to this thread on the First page of the thread where I talk about Slotted / drilled rotors ... But it is good to have hte full version here

Moose

[Zaret]

Today I bolted on a 1999 Acura TL rotor to my 08 Si. The TL rotor is the same diameter as stock but is 28mm thick rather than 25.4mm. My thought is the wider rotor will have a little more thermal capacity and more surface area in the vanes for disc cooling. The idea came from when I had my CRX Si I used a 21mm DX rotor instead of the stock 19mm disc.

Below are my disc measurements [denotes stock Si rotor]

Both are 5x114.3
28.19 [25.61] mm disc thickness
11.13 [8.49] mm cooling vane width, so there is more internal cooling surface area with the TL rotor
47.19 [47.49] mm Overall thickness, hat to opposite rotor face
6.06 [6.24] Hat thickness
27.04 [28.45] mm inside hat face (that mates with hub) to rotor (clamping part) centerline
64.32 [64.21] Hub bore, they are both for a 64.1mm hub
18 lbf [16.5 lbf] rotor weight, using a bathroom scale with me on it.

So the TL rotor clamping centerline sets 1.41mm (.055”) outward, thus requiring the caliper to be spaced outward the same amount. I bolted the caliper on without a spacer and there was contact between the caliper and rotor. I then inserted a .058” shim washer (the closest size I had) and re-bolted the caliper on. The caliper cleared and rotor spun freely. The closest parts of the caliper to the rotor are the 4 clips that hold the brake to the caliper. There is .015” clearance on the inner side and .021” clearance on the outer side. That indicates .058” is a little much and the .055” spacer would be perfect.

My pads fit without modification as they have 6k miles and 1 track day on them. A new set of pads would likely need to be milled .060 each to fit.

I have not driven the set-up yet as I plan to test fit a 99-03 Acura TL Brembo BBK (p/n 1A16015A) tomorrow.

From what I have found so far, The 5x114.3, 11.8" x 28mm rotor with 64.1 hub bore was used on 99-03 Acura TL (all), 04-08 TL (non-S) and 04-08 TSX.

-YMMV

[Moose]

Zaret

Thanks ... for investigating this

I am hoping the Offset on the TL Caliper will be correct to the TL rotor when bolted to the hub, and the TL Caliper mount bolt spacing will be correct not requiring an adaptor plate.

the Rotor is the most important part of the equation here (in term of thermal mass and stability) .. I wonder if an OE (Non Brembo) Caliper from a TSX / TL will also bolt up with a TL/TSX rotor ?

Moose

[Zaret]

Originally Posted by Moose

I wonder if an OE (Non Brembo) Caliper from a TSX / TL will also bolt up with a TL/TSX rotor ?

That is what I am wondering also. So much is interchangeable for the earlier generation civics that is seems reasonable that there are useful, interchange brakes for the new civic.

I tried to pick up a TL caliper but no parts stores had them in stock.

[Zaret]

Has anyone tried to install a larger diameter brake master cylinder on a 06+ civic? I prefer a high, firm pedal, which the Si lacks. I have found data on the following (please correct if it is wrong or add what you know):

15/16” (23.81mm) 05-06 RSX-S. The RSX looks to use a dual diaphragm vacuum booster (7” and 8”) which may help offset the high pedal effort a 15/16 m/c would cause with the RSX 54mm? or 57mm? front caliper piston diameter.
Acura Parts @ AcuraAutomotiveParts.org - Genuine Acura OEM Parts from Acura Carland

7/8” (22.22mm) 02-07 base RSX. Again, it looks to use the dual diaphragm vacuum booster.

13/16” (20.62mm) 04-08 TSX. The TSX has a 10” Vacuum booster.
3/4” (19.05mm) stock 06+ Si and uses a 9” vacuum booster.

??” Acura TL uses a 10” vacuum booster.

The Civic is different in that it has a remote filling reservoir since the m/c is buried under the cowl. The Acura RDX also has a remote filling reservoir but I could not find the piston diameter. It looks like there is space for an RSX/TL/TSX type M/C but filling it would be difficult.

Based on my experience and calcs, a 13/16" would be nice while a 7/8" would probably be too firm for every day use.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Zaret

That is what I am wondering also. So much is interchangeable for the earlier generation civics that is seems reasonable that there are useful, interchange brakes for the new civic.

I tried to pick up a TL caliper but no parts stores had them in stock.

The biggest issue when swapping in earlier gens is that you had to swap knuckles as well since the caliper bolt spacing amd/or caliper offset relative to the rotor was off. Well knuckle swaps are not an option as far as I can see as the FD/FG have a diffferent knuckle then every other Honda/Acura ...mostly in how the lower Ball joint is attached. As a result we need to find a caliper / rotor combo that has the right offset and bolt spacing.


Have you tried Car-Part.com--Used Auto Parts Market to search for a used caliper (I have had no luck in my neck of the woods)

Originally Posted by Zaret

Has anyone tried to install a larger diameter brake master cylinder on a 06+ civic? I prefer a high, firm pedal, which the Si lacks. I have found data on the following (please correct if it is wrong or add what you know):

15/16” (23.81mm) 05-06 RSX-S. The RSX looks to use a dual diaphragm vacuum booster (7” and 8”) which may help offset the high pedal effort a 15/16 m/c would cause with the RSX 54mm? or 57mm? front caliper piston diameter.
Acura Parts @ AcuraAutomotiveParts.org - Genuine Acura OEM Parts from Acura Carland

7/8” (22.22mm) 02-07 base RSX. Again, it looks to use the dual diaphragm vacuum booster.

13/16” (20.62mm) 04-08 TSX. The TSX has a 10” Vacuum booster.
3/4” (19.05mm) stock 06+ Si and uses a 9” vacuum booster.

??” Acura TL uses a 10” vacuum booster.

The Civic is different in that it has a remote filling reservoir since the m/c is buried under the cowl. The Acura RDX also has a remote filling reservoir but I could not find the piston diameter. It looks like there is space for an RSX/TL/TSX type M/C but filling it would be difficult.

Based on my experience and calcs, a 13/16" would be nice while a 7/8" would probably be too firm for every day use.

Nice ... I think because of the remote resevoir we are basically stuck with the OE or perhaps the RDX M/C, unless somebody can come up with an adaptor to convert a top resevoir to a FG/FD resevoir.

The car is notorioulsy over boosted (brake) ... so changing the booster may really help pedal feel. I have been researching various option, and based on previuos swaps I have done(Teg into a EG) you need to find a booster that has the same bolt pattern and piston diameter. The one way you can narrow this down is by the gaskets and seals used. If they use the same M/C to Booster gasket (2 bolt) then the bolt pattern is corrrect. IF they use the same piston seal, then the piston is the same. I am pretty sure that a S2000 booster will work ... as it uses the same gasket.

When I had my Si M/C replaced under warentee I measured it.

M/C PIston Diameter 16mm OD, 13mm ID
Piston length extended - 51MM
81mm O/C bolt spacing


FYI - I have used some of the measurements you have taken in the first page of this thread if you do not mind

Moose

[FALer]

Interesting that the Si only has a 3/4" MC, when my GSR had a 1". However, I seem to recall the caliper pistons were 57mm instead of 54mm.

[Zaret]

I picked up a used Brembo BBK for a 99-03 Acura TL p/n 1A16015A to try an experimental installation on my 2008 Si. It was a good price so I thought it was worth a try.

Executive Summary
The kit will bolt up with a little shimming but the brake lines will not bolt up to the factory chassis end male fitting.

Kit Specs
2 piece drilled rotor (I would not have picked drilled, but I had no choice, obviously)
12.9 inch diameter
5x114.3
64.13 mm Hub bore
Brake disc weight = 11 lbf.
Caliper + Mounting bracket and hardware + Brake line + 1/2 worn pads = 9 lbf.
25.70 mm disc thickness
6.59 mm Hat thickness
16.3 mm cooling vane width
52.31 mm Overall thickness, hat to opposite rotor face
32.87 mm inside hat face (that mates with hub) to rotor (clamping part) centerline [52.31-6.59-25.70/2]

Details
the 2-piece rotors turned out to be wasted. New they are 28mm with a 27mm MIN thickness and these are way under. Since I have back-up ideas I am not too concerned. Replacement friction discs from Brembo run about $350 each plus a new $80 hardware kit. That is not cheap for consumables. Zeckhausen.com has replacement Stoptech discs for much cheaper at about $250 each including all new hardware.

The Brembo TL rotor clamping surface centerline is 4.425 mm (.174”) [32.87-28.45 (stock)] inward compared to stock. This resulted in the inside rotor face contacting the lower control arm ball joint mount (BJM). Also, the caliper was not centered on the rotor, it requires .022" shim washers between the disc and hub to center the disk in caliper. However this would be very close to the lower BJM. I installed .072” thick washers between the rotor and hub to prevent the disc from contacting the BJM. This gave me .061” clearance between the disc and BJM. This placed the disc a little outward of the caliper centerline but I still had .042” clearance between the inside part of the caliper and the disk. There was also just enough of the hub lip exposed to fit the wheel hubcentric ring. I did sand down the inside edge of the ring about .020” since it had a generous ID chamfer that made it not want to fit real well. I have a custom hubcentric wheel spacer I can mill down to replace the washers if needed.

Radially, everything matched up perfectly.

I cut and removed the heat shield, then further cut the heat shield such that there was just enough of it to protect the ball joint and would be held on with 2 of the 3 screws. It would probably be prudent to install heat wrap on the ABS wire and probably even the brake line just to safe. I bent the heat shield such that it just fit between the disc and BJM and screwed it back on. With the disk so close to the ball joint I wanted to try to keep the dust boot from getting fried.

The caliper-mounting bracket could be machined and the disc further spaced outward but I want the wheel hubcentric spacer to engage the hub. With the .072” spacer there is just enough of the hub ring to hold the spacer. The hub ring could be further milled or sanded thinner to remove the ID chamfer allowing the disc to move further away from the ball joint while still allowing the use of the hubcentric wheel ring.

With everything fitting well I bolted the disc and caliper to the spindle. The last unknown was the Brembo Brake line connection to the stock chassis brake line. This connection was low on my list of concerns but turned out to be a deal killer.

The chassis end fitting would only screw about ¾ of a turn into the Brembo line. I compared the Brembo and stock brake line threads and they seem to both be 3/8”-24, I think. However the female brake line end of the Brembo line is only about .25” deep while the stock brake line is about .5” deep. The chassis male end has about .25” of non-threaded flare so the Brembo female fitting was not deep enough to thread the chassis end fitting into.

The stock caliper uses a banjo fitting at the caliper while the Brembo uses a threaded fitting so it is not possible to swap the two. So the experiment was over and I bolted the stock brakes back on and called it a weekend.

A 15mm spacer is needed to clear the caliper if the stock wheels were to be used. I have Kosei K1-TS 17x8 with 45 offset and the caliper clears fine.

[Live by SI]

Originally Posted by FALer

I'll bite. Which are good for performance street, which for auto-X/HPDE, and which for racing, if any? What kind of noise & wear characteristics do the street and auto-X pads have, along with temperature sensitivity and initial bite, if you've used their stuff before?

I recently moved to Endless brake pads, to replace Hp+'s.

I have the CC-R's in the front and can only report street performance as a track day I wanted to attend last week fell through.

I am surprised that their cold performance is as good as it is considering the temp rage that the pads work in. They are safe for the street.

Initial bite is as good as Hp+
Modulation seems to be better
They do squeal but not as bad as the Hawks, again when they are cold on light applications usually when coming to a slow stop.
Dusting is bad, quite a bit worse than the Hawk's.
They are expensive!

I am off to the track (Shannonville long 4km/ 2.5miles) on the 11th of August and will report back my findings at that time.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Live by SI

I recently moved to Endless brake pads, to replace Hp+'s.

I have the CC-R's in the front and can only report street performance as a track day I wanted to attend last week fell through.

I am surprised that their cold performance is as good as it is considering the temp rage that the pads work in. They are safe for the street.

Initial bite is as good as Hp+
Modulation seems to be better
They do squeal but not as bad as the Hawks, again when they are cold on light applications usually when coming to a slow stop.
Dusting is bad, quite a bit worse than the Hawk's.
They are expensive!

I am off to the track (Shannonville long 4km/ 2.5miles) on the 11th of August and will report back my findings at that time.

Thanks for the update - keep us posted on your track experiences with them

FYI - Keep an eye on the pad wear ... these dual duty pads may wear more than you would expect.

Moose