Bearcat94

http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/p...alifornia.html

Bearcat94

Makes *you* more vulnerable. You have no concern for your fellow, law-abiding, innocent citizens?

I bet *they* don't like that!!

260 HP

iTrader: (3)

I guess you don't know all E46 M3 have the same brakes since 2001 till the last production year of 2006.

And it's not 2008 yet.

Eh, but whatever.

harddrivin1le

It's 2008 now in terms of model year.

2006 was 2 model years ago.

The '01 - '06 M3 weighed ~ 3,390 pounds and used 12.8" front rotors and 12.9" rear rotors. And unlike the TL-S, the M3's rear rotors were VENTED.

So in 2001 (7 model years ago) the M3 had SIGNIFICANTLY more brake per pound of curb weight than the TL-S has in 2008.

The soon to be released 2008 M3 will weigh about the same as the TL-S, but will feature 14.2" front rotors and 13.8" rear rotors - ALL of which will be vented (the TL-S's rear rotors are solid).

harddrivin1le

More brake links explaining the importance of large rotor for severe duty (e.g. track) use:

1)http://www.grmotorsports.com/backiss...rackworthy.php

"The primary heat sink in a modern braking system is the rotor, and increasing its size can help combat the high temperatures encountered during on-track activities. Remember that the heat seen in a braking system is directly proportional to the speeds encountered when the brakes are applied.

While most braking systems found on modern passenger cars are fine for daily use, the higher speeds a car experiences on a race track can overheat things in just a few laps. Any braking system generates heat while it works, but fluid and pads can lose effectiveness if allowed to operate beyond their comfort zone. Better brake pads and cooling ducts can help improve a stock braking system, but they do not help increase the size of the heat sink. The best way to do that is to install larger rotors."


2)http://www.hayesdiscbrake.com/hayesu_product1.shtml

"Rotor Diameter or effective radius of the rotor: Larger diameter rotors have longer torque arms and can generate more brake power with the same amount of clamp force than a smaller diameter rotor."

Note: Larger diameter rotors have more SURFACE AREA and are generally heavier, hence:

"Thermal Mass – A brake system must be sized appropriately to not only be able to provide enough power for a vehicle, but have enough material mass to properly handle the temperatures during braking applications. Removing material from a system to reduce size and weight also removes material that would otherwise have helped a system absorb and diffuse heat generated by braking.

Surface Area – The more surface area available on a brake system, the better heat dissipation will be via convection. Cooling fins are often used in systems that are attempting to reduce operating temperatures because they greatly increase the surface area."


3)http://awe-tuning.com/pages/shared/p...brakepowerslot

"...oversized brake rotor. This increases brake torque force without affecting pedal effort or travel.

The larger rotor is also a more effective heat sink, absorbing the heat generated under heavy braking. This greatly reduces brake fade and provides consistently shorter stopping distances, especially from higher speeds."

Excelerate

iTrader: (1)

You must be blind or ignorant. I already told you they fit. I have a catalog here from Stoptech that says very clearly the pads fit the 04-07 TL M/T and 07+ TL-S. If Tire Rack's catalog said it fit you would say it fits yet Stoptech's says it does and you don't believe it. And the listing from that eBay auction that said the pads were the same for the 04+ TL M/T and 07+ TL-S is wrong too?

harddrivin1le

I'm clearly not blind, since I'm able to read and post on this forum.

I'm clearly not "ignorant," either.

Scan and post the page from Stoptech's catalog.

Several people (me included) have asked various dealerships about this issue and not one has been able to confirm that the pads are interchangeable.

They PROBABLY are.

But I won't be spending my money and time to find out.

Tire Rack is a very reputable retailer who will gladly accept returns. I will therefore likely wait until I see what they list for TL-S pads.

harddrivin1le

http://www.stoptech.com/products/img/ss-catalog.pdf

Page 20 states that the pads are, in fact, interchangable.

Why couldn't you simply post that kink rather than calling people names?

Guess I'll have to call the Tire Rack and order some....

Excelerate

iTrader: (1)

I wasn't looking online. I was looking at my physical STOPTECH Sportstop catalog that is sitting right here in front of me. That is why I simply did not post a link.

Also, I did not call people names. I spoke to you, one person, and I said that you were either blind or ignorant, which is an adjective. I know you're not blind but the latter is questionable after all your antics. The only person who has resorted to name calling is YOU. These were your words below direct at me.

MrHeeltoe

iTrader: (1)

Actually this is not so clear to me. Maybe you should take a break from posting to gather your thoughts into things that most people will read WITHOUT getting agitated. It is because of your uncontrollable and seeming endless ranting that I nominate this thread for locking.

kyle-wdp

just curious...after all of the debating....why would you order a set of pads when the stock rotors are clearly not up to your standards. Why not order the RL rotors while you are at it?

btw I owned a 2000 Camaro SS....my first mod rotors and pads, after the dealership swapped my first set for warping. Those brakes were not up to 1990 model standards much less 1999 or 2000 standards...they were shit.

harddrivin1le

I'm sorry that so many people have such difficulty accepting the truth.

The TL-S's brake rotors are too small - judging by the standards of EVERY car that it directly competes with and even by many cars that are lighter AND less expensive.

12.2" F/11.1" R rotors were "decent" by 2004 standards for the original TL 6 speed, which was lighter than a new TL-S and made less power.

The competition's rotors have grown significantly during that relatively short timeframe and the TL has gotten heavier and more powerful. Acura's band-aid "fix" was to install overly aggressive pads that are noisy, "grabby" and will undoubteldy result in shorter rotor life.

Larger rotors would have resulted in better wear, reduced noise, smoother operation and better overall braking (which amounts to a lot more than one cold stop from 60 MPH).

harddrivin1le

Gee, mine never warped.

And they had lots of stopping power.

Of course, I bought the REAL high performance model (the 1LE) which was lighter than the SS.

The car has 11.8" front discs with dual piston calipers and 11.8" rear discs. All four rotors were vented. Saying they "weren't up to 1990 standards" is plain stupid.

I have owned THREE Honda products in the past 4 years ('04 Accord EX V6 sedan, '06 Accord V6 6 speed coupe and '07 TL-S automatic). The '04's brakes were truly laughable, the '06's were better, but had terrible modulation and the TL-S's have problems of their own.

NONE of those cars could hold a candle to the '99 1LE in terms of stopping power - particularly at elevated (90 and above) speeds and especially after I installed the EBC Green Pads. (The OEM pads in that car weren't performance pads, but "general service' pads).

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

1) This looks familiar... Ask harddriven what he thinks of Tein equipment on his Accord...

2) Not even going to engage the brake discussion any further, bear is doing an adequete job... but since many of harddriven's key defensive points revolve around "muliple 80-0 stops" on the "same surface" and the "same driver"... noone has introduced two other highly critical variables:

- Tire traction...
- ABS calibration...
on the differing vehicles compared side by side.

Both of which have an equivalent, if not more of an impact in determing at speed to zero times...

It certainly not ALL about rotor size.

harddrivin1le

Tell us all about the "nearly stock" 3rd Gen Acura TL that was actually LIGHTER (by 148 pounds) than a stock Civic Si.

I see you haven't been following along (yet AGAIN!)

I have mentioned ABS calibration and tire traction (and other variables) as they relate to braking on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS in this very thread! Not once did I remotely suggest that it's "all about rotor size."

Example:

https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=125

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

Do ya think ALL the cars on that course we're significantly "lightened" for that track event? You're a fool to think they weren't. Even though the TL was 900 lbs lighter, the stock brakes held up great didn't they. See the pic linked that shows em glowing orange... 900 lbs lighter or not, those stock brakes held up just fine didn't they, and I've never made my brakes glow before... Adding 900 lbs may degrade that braking performance a bit, but adding 900 lbs degrades a lot more than just braking... and would be the least of your worries if you're truly competing. So why you keep beating the "track use" issue is just confusing to me? Who tracks a 3600lb luxury car for real?

Ha... and ya, you're right. I haven't been following along to well. It's nearly impossible to pin you down ona single arguement. You're truly all over the map. Once someone proves a point a to you, you simply side step it, or refuce to achknowledge it, then bring up another lateral side topic and begin kicking that dead horse.

It is great that you made refence to this point about traction, tires and abs... Your key point revolves around larger diameter rotors, and how delinquent Acura is for NOT using the larger RL brakes on the TL...

Yet, even with the adequete "smaller" rotors, Acura was able to emperically out-perform most other cars in it's class, as Bear has shown. Clearly that shows that the brakes are a bit more than adequete.

To argue the brakes can't handle multiple stops is futile... Noone, including yourself, have posted any factual data that ANY have of these cars have had any form of side by side back to back 80-0 runs to measure the impact of heat buildup. You're aruing in a circle that these brake are nothing short of adequete in any track scenario with absolutley no data to back it up, other than .3in of rotor diameter...

Have fun.

harddrivin1le

The new M3 weighs 3,600 pounds. And MANY people will "track them for real"

900 pounds makes a HUGE difference in braking performance. Add 900 pounds to your TL and see how well it stops on a road racing circuit.

The "nearly stock" (which turned out to be stripped, race prepped) TL you mentioned weighed less than 2,800 pounds and ran 12.2" front rotors and 11.2" rear rotors. That's fully adequate for a car that weighs LESS THAN A CIVIC!

The TL-S's rotors are SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than all of its direct competitors, not to mention many cars that are far less expensive. (READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS FOR EXAMPLES)

Larger rotors begin to pay big dividends as speeds rise, as braking temperatures increase and as the rotor size itself becomes the weak link in the chain. (READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS FOR MULTIPLE LINKS THAT EXPLAIN WHY THAT IT SO.)

260 HP

iTrader: (3)

How did a thread that asked about Type-S Brake life and replacement options become an 8-page never-ending debate about brake rotor size and other crap? Who steered this thread off topic?

harddrivin1le

Read your own posts and you'll see that you played a role...

I'm sure that you'd like to get the topic back on track, now that you realize that the Brembos in the TL-S are, in large part, a marketing gimmick and that larger rotors (e.g. 12.6" F/12.2" R) with a decent set of (less expensive), two piston calipers (like they use on Z51 Corvettes) would have yielded a better stopping car.

60 to 0 MPH might well be the same.

80 to 0 MPH might only change a little.

Braking performance from real speeds and/or after a lap or two around Lime Rock would change A LOT.

harddrivin1le

I am taking my '07 TL-S in a week from Monday. I canceled the previous appointment out of concern that the dealer will ruin something while they're "fixing" the brakes.

I have little confidence in that "fix," but have to play the game because I'm sick of hearing this damn "groaning." I don't like the way the pads "grab" at the last second, either.

The standard Acura first time go-round involves a light rotor resurface and "cleaning" the existing pads.

I want them to put the A52 pads ('04 - '06 MT TL) on the car, but doubt they'll do that.

These pads (A60) are simply too aggressive for this car. I wouldn't even want pads like this on a dedicated performance car.

260 HP

iTrader: (3)

Ahem, I know I played a role. But I'm not the one who STEERED it off topic.

Anyhow, you might want to be less confrontative if you want people to listen to you.

Bearcat94

Track? Why do you change your flawed argument to include the track?

You’re pulling a bait and switch for two reasons:

1. You cannot defend your irresponsible and “FREQUENT” 120 MPH driving on PUBLIC ROADS – roads that are NOT PREPARED NOR INTENDED for those speeds.


2. You cannot refute the fact that the car you purchased has a braking system SUITABLE for the population it is sold to, (though God knows you’ve tried).


When you got the Mechanical Engineering degree, it DID NOT come with a cloak of infallibility.

Rhode Island has a population density of ~1003.2 persons per sq. mile, “making Rhode Island the nation's 2nd most densely populated state, after New Jersey.”

http://www.city-data.com/states/Rhod...opulation.html

I will not condone nor recognize any argument that supports your need to endanger the lives of INNOCENT law-abiding citizens.

Bearcat94

Smart move, you’re having a hard enough time “dealing with” one thread.

Bearcat94

You didn’t buy a track car. I’ve reviewed the literature. Nowhere is the TL-S advertised or claimed to be “track ready”.

Summarily, the “track argument” is fallacious on it’s face.

It’s already been clearly shown that a properly prepared TL-S has OUTPERFORMED ALL CARS IN IT”S CLASS on the track with STOCK BRAKES.

This alone is PROOF that the brakes are adequate for the track.

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=309350

Bearcat94

But NONE of them STOP BETTER. Every car similar in performance that you’ve referenced has been shown to have poorer stopping distance 60 – 0 than the TL-S. EVERY SINGLE ONE.



The only thing of merit you’ve said in regard to the issue at hand is:

harddrivin1le

The car is marketed as a "performance car."

As such, its BRAKES should perform at least as well as the competitions ON THE TRACK, at elevated highway speeds and/or during repeated hard stops.

The competition (ALL of it) fits its cars with LARGER ROTORS because their engineers are fully aware of everything I've stated. And given the cost cutting world we live in, the bean counters would axe them if they weren't NEEDED.

Even many less expensive and/or lighter cars have LARGER ROTORS than the Acura TL Type S.

I don't give rat's a** WHAT you "condone."

Bearcat94

Porsche 911 – Pure Sex with those Big Rotors




M3




G35 Bigger Rotor fills the rim nicely




Gotta have that Big Rotor Sentra SE-R Won’t stop, but it sure looks good.




RL A-Spec Concept – HOT! Looks as good as the $160k Porsche! Wish my TL-S had this.




WOW! The TL-S disc looks lost inside even the 17” wheel. A Bigger Rotor would DEFINETLY look better. Good Call!!

MrHeeltoe

iTrader: (1)

The rotors were never all that great to begin with, and the TL-S changes are really just enough to expose the faults of the stock rotor that already existed. There was always sufficient evidence to support a rotor upgrade. Pad change, maybe.

Simply upgrading to Racingbrake rotors (we have a top-shelf two-piece rotor for this application, which is simply INCOMPARABLE to any competetor's rotor) will greatly enhance the braking performance and wear rate of the system, in addition to practically eliminating the risk of warping.








All you need is better rotors....not bigger ones. If you can invoke the ABS, then the caliper pressure and brake diameter are sufficient already. You just need better materials.

Bearcat94

Even a novice knows that to effectively track a car, modifications are in order. The most basic track car will include some number of the following modifications, yet retain their “street trim” and comfort:

- Light weight wheels;
- Higher Performance Tires;
- Reduced Weight (spare, tool kit, front/rear dampers, etc, etc);
- Improved Shocks/Springs (IIRC you prefer Tien; for the TL-S, I’d go with Koni Yellow/Eibach personally);
- CAI;
- Improved F & R Sway Bars;
- Strut Braces;
- After Market Rotors and/or Pads;
- Throttle Body Spacer;
- SS Brake Lines;
- Improved Exhaust;
- High Temp brake fluid;
- Etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Preparing the TL-S for the track is not the issue and requires no further comment.

harddrivin1le

From the link you just posted:

These modifications plus the removal of luxury and convenience features reduced the TL's weight to 2797 pounds (without driver)..."

Does a stock 2007/2008 TL Type S weigh 2,797 pounds?

A stock Civic Si sedan weighes 2,800 pounds!

You have shown that the TL-S outperforms the cars to which you chose to comapre it to. Thing is, one cold stop from 60 MPH says very little about THE BRAKES, since virtually any car can lock all four brakes from that speed. 60 to 0 is MOSTLY about tire traction, road conditions, the driver and ABS algorithms.

Furthermore, your comparison means NOTHING, since those results weren't achieved by the same driver on the same road under the same set of conditions.

harddrivin1le

From the link you just posted:

"These modifications plus the removal of luxury and convenience features reduced the TL's weight to 2797 pounds (without driver)..."

Does a stock 2007/2008 TL Type S weigh 2,797 pounds?

A stock Civic Si sedan weighes 2,800 pounds! And the TL-S brakes are fine - for a Civic!

My TL-S auto weighs 3,674 pounds!

You have shown that the TL-S outperforms the cars to which you chose to comapre it to. Thing is, one cold stop from 60 MPH says very little about THE BRAKES, since virtually any car can lock all four brakes from that speed. 60 to 0 is MOSTLY about tire traction, road conditions, the driver and ABS algorithms.

Furthermore, your comparison means NOTHING, since those results weren't achieved by the same driver on the same road under the same set of conditions.

Bearcat94

You also don’t give a rat’s ass about the INNOCENT citizens sharing the road as blast along the “open road” at 120+ mph.

Bearcat94

Yeah. And the Hyundai Tiburon and the Nissan Sentra SE-R




You plan on tracking those stock too?

Bearcat94

You’ve denied every piece of data you’ve been shown. This is equivalent to the Engineer who designed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge defending the design, even after the bridge collapsed.

harddrivin1le

Not technically relevant.

How much did that TL in your link weigh again?

Oh, that's right...It was LIGHTER THAN A STOCK CIVIC SI SEDAN!

And for hard use, the TL-S's brakes are just about right for a car of that weight.

The only "piece of data" you've produced is a hand picked comparison of 60 MPH to 0 (cold) stops.

That says far more about TIRES, WEIGHT TRANSFER, ABS ALGORITHMS, ROAD CONDITIONS AND THE DRIVER than is says about the actual brakes.

Why is that?

Because virtually ANY modern car can LOCK ALL FOR WHEELS at 60 MPH!

Furthermore, the limited data is meaningless, since it wasn't conducted by the same driver on the same road under the same set of conditions.

harddrivin1le

My TL-S can't invoke the ABS at elevated speeds and the rotors you showed me wouldn't dissipate heat any more efficiently than the stock ones. They won't increase the brake torque arm length, either.

Summarily, they're nice, but they won't do what a set of OEM 12.6" would (e.g. RL rotors). And I question your claim that they would "greatly enchance" braking performance, based on the facts I pointed out above. I don' t doubt they'd be less prone to warping, though.

At least we agree that these brakes could use some improvement. Others on here can't see that. They think the brakes are "fantastic."

harddrivin1le

Slotted rotors really make no sense for the street. In fact, they can DEGRADE braking performance due to the many reasons pointed out in this informative article:

http://www.mazda6tech.com/index.php?...d=19&Itemid=50

"What about cross drilled or slotted rotors? Well the common belief in the main stream is that somehow slotted or cross-drilled rotors allow for better performance by handling heat. This is 100 percent false. The individuals involved in such fallacies mention that air through the holes or slots work to cool the rotor (convective heat transfer into the air from the rotor).

The issue is that from physics we know that metal transfers heat better then air by a significant amount. As such the larger mass of the rotor becomes more important then the larger surface area of the rotor in any situation other then the optimal. Cross drilling and slotting rotors are not optimal manners of creating metal to air transfer through larger surface areas. There is not much airflow through the holes or slots. Furthermore for cross drilling the holes will fill with brake dust in effect lowering the cooling ability of the rotors vanes they pass through.

From the information above we can glean that the rotor begins to work as a heat sink. Now by cross drilling or slotting we are decreasing the overall amount of metal to transfer this heat to. Clearly we are decreasing performance of the rotor to dissipate heat amongst itself. Furthermore, the holes of a cross-drilled or slotted rotor decrease the area of the pad that contacts the rotor. This concentrates the heat more on certain areas of the pad, which has similar effects to that of using a smaller pad. As such the pad heats up more quickly.

We are also damaging the brakes structural rigidity. The iron in a brake rotor is made of a crystalline structure. By drilling holes in said surface we cut the end grains creating a situation that breeds cracks. Furthermore, even if we were to cut the rotors correctly to avoid cutting the end grains structural rigidity is still decreased. The temperature around the holes will be slightly less then that of the entire rotor leading to temperature stress. Moreover, the decreased mass will result in lowered rigidity."

I hate cars

[QUOTE=harddrivin1le]My TL-S can't invoke the ABS at elevated speedsQUOTE]

I'm wondering if there's an actual problem with your brakes besides the annoyances. With my 255 G-forces, traction is signifigantly improved and I've invoked ABS at 120mph with my small AT brakes.


On a slightly different topic, I've noticed that especially with the better tires, the ABS seems to really hurt braking performance. I have proven that I can stop faster by not getting to the ABS point.

I hate cars

I don't like cross drilled rotors because I've seen them crack too many times.

Slotted on the other hand I like. The slots are there (just like the cross drilled ones) to let the gasses produced from hot pads out from between the rotors and pads, reducing fade. Don't know how well it works because I've never actually done any back to back testing but I do know I've never seen a set of cracked slotted rotors and the reduction in mass and surface area is minimal.

harddrivin1le

[QUOTE=I hate cars]I've driven two TL-S cars and the brakes felt the same in both.

I am not really going to discuss specific highway speeds. I've gotten into these brakes "at speed" and have cycled them more than once in relatively brief periods.

I drove an '07 TL automatic (base model) for a dealer loaner for one day. Those brakes felt NO WEAKER than than TL-S (which is a slightly heavier car) and I actually preferred the feel of the standard brakes!

There's not much difference...The rear rotors are the same in both and the TL-S's fronts are 0.40" larger in diameter. I have no reason to believe that the Brembos provide any more clamping force than the standard front calipers. So that leaves the pads and the slightly larger front rotor.

But like I said, the TL-S is a heavier car.

I am not saying that these brakes are "terrible." I am saying that they GROAN because Acura specified an overly aggressive pad. I am also saying that these brakes will ultimately give up the ghost before the competition does, since they ALL use larger rotors (which have longer torque arms and greater heat dissipation due to their greater mass).

The rear rotors in these cars aren't even vented...