Hi,
I wonder if anyone tried or specced these on a 987 S??They do offer advantages,but 5k plus is a lot of dosh
I wonder if anyone tried or specced these on a 987 S??They do offer advantages,but 5k plus is a lot of dosh
PCCB
- Thread starter peterfrost
- Start date
1/. Lighter unsprung mass.
2/. Longer lasting.
3/. No brake dust on wheels
4/. Superb braking performance.
Whether that's good value for money is up to you to decide.
2/. Longer lasting.
3/. No brake dust on wheels
4/. Superb braking performance.
Whether that's good value for money is up to you to decide.
So, that's the technical description of the benefits, but what advantages are they going to offer?
Yes, lower unsprung mass - an improvement in suspension response on the road, but the Porsche engineers designed and configured the suspension with cast iron discs.
Yes, better braking, but this is a function only of the rotational momentum of the wheels and brakes, and is that going to be significant - Porsche brakes are pretty good - there is no change in coefficients of friction at the disc, so ultimate braking is still limited by grip.
Last longer - but how many normal discs and pads can you get through for the cost of replacement CC ones?
And you get to clean your wheels less often, but if you clean you wheels when you clean your car, there is no advantage here - other than they look cleaner between times. You could specify a dark colour for your car and for around £750 have body coloured wheels that might show the dirt and dust less.
Of course you'd win the pub top trumps competition for what your brakes are made of [
].
But how many miles of perfectly fantastic motoring will £5k buy...?
Yes, lower unsprung mass - an improvement in suspension response on the road, but the Porsche engineers designed and configured the suspension with cast iron discs.
Yes, better braking, but this is a function only of the rotational momentum of the wheels and brakes, and is that going to be significant - Porsche brakes are pretty good - there is no change in coefficients of friction at the disc, so ultimate braking is still limited by grip.
Last longer - but how many normal discs and pads can you get through for the cost of replacement CC ones?
And you get to clean your wheels less often, but if you clean you wheels when you clean your car, there is no advantage here - other than they look cleaner between times. You could specify a dark colour for your car and for around £750 have body coloured wheels that might show the dirt and dust less.
Of course you'd win the pub top trumps competition for what your brakes are made of [
]. But how many miles of perfectly fantastic motoring will £5k buy...?
I'm certain the benefits of PCCBs would be felt on a Boxster, especially in road use. My wife has a 987'S', and everytime I drive it I just know it would be so much nicer with PCCBs.
But, I accept the cost concerns. At the moment, the market is still not convinced, so the initial price will see a limited return at re-sale. Also, PCCBs were adapted to fit the Boxster, rather than it being developed from inception to wear PCCBs (like the Carrera GT, 997GT3, 997 TT), so the current application may not yet be the state of the art.
Having said that, if someone had a set of new Boxster PCCBs at a sensible price, I might be tempted[:-].
But, I accept the cost concerns. At the moment, the market is still not convinced, so the initial price will see a limited return at re-sale. Also, PCCBs were adapted to fit the Boxster, rather than it being developed from inception to wear PCCBs (like the Carrera GT, 997GT3, 997 TT), so the current application may not yet be the state of the art.
Having said that, if someone had a set of new Boxster PCCBs at a sensible price, I might be tempted[:-].
Yeah, I agree that there are other "options" which boil down to a personal cosmetic choice, and have no affect on performance - although some will maintain a differential in price in the second-hand market if that is important to you, as well as creating a desireability on resale if not an expectation in specification, e.g. leather seats.
I kinda take issue with the PCCB's serving "an important function" over the standard items though. I think the standard items perform the important function of decelerating the car extremely well. It is the change in the performance envelope that the choice to spec PCCB's leads to which is the significant difference. As said, if you have the money then its your choice: I'm just not so sure that the advantages would be realised so readily compared with a vehicle such as the GT3. But then I neither have an "S", or currently the inclination to be out purchasing one and thinking of adding £5k to the price for that additional braking performance...
I kinda take issue with the PCCB's serving "an important function" over the standard items though. I think the standard items perform the important function of decelerating the car extremely well. It is the change in the performance envelope that the choice to spec PCCB's leads to which is the significant difference. As said, if you have the money then its your choice: I'm just not so sure that the advantages would be realised so readily compared with a vehicle such as the GT3. But then I neither have an "S", or currently the inclination to be out purchasing one and thinking of adding £5k to the price for that additional braking performance...
It would help if you read my text properly.
"These are purely cosmetic items after all whereas PCCB do serve an important function".
The PCCB's do serve an important function, as brakes, whereas leather and carbon are purely cosmetic. Nobody ever died when their leather upholstery failed....well not as far as I am aware!
Gary I did read your text; hence the use of the word "serving" to be consistent with the language in your reply, and reference to the "standard items" in the same sentence the subject of which was brakes since we are debating PCCB. The point is that some very effective brakes are available as standard.
I agree with you on options, the issue is not whether PCCB are justified on your 190mph+ish GT3, but whether a Boxster S would be better for their fitting. A prospective owner would need to consider when and where the advantage of this £5k investment would be realised.
And read my last sentence again. Like you say, "It would help if you read my text properly"...[]
I agree with you on options, the issue is not whether PCCB are justified on your 190mph+ish GT3, but whether a Boxster S would be better for their fitting. A prospective owner would need to consider when and where the advantage of this £5k investment would be realised.
And read my last sentence again. Like you say, "It would help if you read my text properly"...[
]
JCB..
Non-member
ORIGINAL: Gary Bullen
The PCCB's do serve an important function, as brakes, whereas leather and carbon are purely cosmetic. Nobody ever died when their leather upholstery failed....well not as far as I am aware!
£5K may well be money well spent on a road going race car like the GT3.
On a Boxster it's just bling [8D]
bling bling adjective mainly US slang
describes jewellery which attracts attention because it is big and expensive, or describes a person who wears this jewellery [
]I was surprised to read in the March PP article about the cost of track days the advice to replace PCCB brake discs with steel items if you're a regular track day driver. The article is based on GT3 ownership and suggests PCCB are no better in terms longevity (wear), and so expensive that the advantages they may offer are outweighed by replacement cost. It's dissappointing that the technology doesn't seem robust enough yet for the application on a vehicle where their performance can be accessed.
I think there is still a lot of confusion and mis-information about PCCBs, and Porsche themselves haven't done the best PR job, so it's no wonder that people are confused.
The biggest misconception seems to be that PCCBs are all about shorter stopping distances. That's rather like saying that more power is all about a higher top speed.
I should say that I am a complete convert to PCCBs, but I did a fair amount of reseach and investigation in 2006. I started from a position of cynic, but concluded that the benefits, on a new GT3, justified any risk and, so far, I'm delighted. IMO, all the benefit that Gary listed above are detectable in normal road use.
Of course, some people choose to spend similar sums on body kits, special colours, bigger wheels, power upgrades, hifi systems etc - and that's their choice.
For me, PCCBs represent real progress. I also drive earlier Porsches and, each time one goes back a generation, you really do notice how much progress has been made with braking. The 2.7RS remains one of the most fantastic driver's cars, but put it on track and its biggest limitation is its brakes. The 356 has a wonderful turn of speed, but as you zip along, you are always conscious of your stopping distances.
Same when I get in my wife's 987'S'. Wonderful car, I love it, but the brakes feel very ordinary after PCCBs. I'd love to try a new 3.4 with PCCBs, I bet it's fabulous.
With regard to track use; Porsche originally made bold claims about PCCBs and there were some failures with the first generation applications. The disaffected customers blamed Porsche and Porsche blamed the customers for mis-use. There is now a view that, because brakes are a consumable, 'after-market' steel upgrades are better for regular track use and PCCBs are better for the road. Time will tell. If the latest Gen 3 PCCBs live up to expectation in regular track use, then confidence may swing back in their favour.
The biggest misconception seems to be that PCCBs are all about shorter stopping distances. That's rather like saying that more power is all about a higher top speed.
I should say that I am a complete convert to PCCBs, but I did a fair amount of reseach and investigation in 2006. I started from a position of cynic, but concluded that the benefits, on a new GT3, justified any risk and, so far, I'm delighted. IMO, all the benefit that Gary listed above are detectable in normal road use.
Of course, some people choose to spend similar sums on body kits, special colours, bigger wheels, power upgrades, hifi systems etc - and that's their choice.
For me, PCCBs represent real progress. I also drive earlier Porsches and, each time one goes back a generation, you really do notice how much progress has been made with braking. The 2.7RS remains one of the most fantastic driver's cars, but put it on track and its biggest limitation is its brakes. The 356 has a wonderful turn of speed, but as you zip along, you are always conscious of your stopping distances.
Same when I get in my wife's 987'S'. Wonderful car, I love it, but the brakes feel very ordinary after PCCBs. I'd love to try a new 3.4 with PCCBs, I bet it's fabulous.
With regard to track use; Porsche originally made bold claims about PCCBs and there were some failures with the first generation applications. The disaffected customers blamed Porsche and Porsche blamed the customers for mis-use. There is now a view that, because brakes are a consumable, 'after-market' steel upgrades are better for regular track use and PCCBs are better for the road. Time will tell. If the latest Gen 3 PCCBs live up to expectation in regular track use, then confidence may swing back in their favour.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
