triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

[Fot] Trouble with Porterfield Brake Pads

Subject: [Fot] Trouble with Porterfield Brake Pads
From: charly at mitchelplumbing.com (Charly)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 20:59:25 -0600
I have used all sorts of brake pads for my 16p caliper on my 69 TR6, 
Porterfield, Hawks, LBC, and others from ceramic to semi metallic.  I always 
plan to drill them out, sometimes 
I get what I think are pads for 16PB, which I think have smaller holes.  I've 
had problems with the height being to tall and not sliding in the caliper, some 
being different 
thickness and having trouble inserting them.  I always plan to modify them to 
make them fit, sometimes I've had to reshim the caliper mount to move it over a 
few thousands to 
center it.  I just think of it as part of making the brakes work.  I'm now 
doing mine twice a year, must be going faster or braking harder!
Charly Mitchel
TR6 #44

On Wed 07/03/18  4:21 PM , Brad Eells via Fot fot at autox.team.net sent:
> Hello Amici,
> Porterfield brake pads in the R4-1 compound were recommended to me. I
> dutifully ordered a set for my Spitfire.
> I should mention the car has been upgraded to GT6 brake calipers, the
> venerable Girling 16P. My TR4 and 4A also use the 16P. I have been
> buying brake pads for these cars for over 35 years.
> I have had my calipers rebuilt and purchased new retaining pins as
> well. The Porterfield pads arrived. I found 2 issues. The pad compound
> shape was not the same as every pad I have previously purchased or
> what is shown on Porterfield's website. I also found the retaining
> pin holes in the puck to be too small. The puck itself is the same
> general dimension as my original Girling Competition pad and does fit
> in the caliper but I cannot put the pins through the holes. 
> I simply assumed they had sent pads for the later GT6, the Girling
> 16PB or M16PB that use 3/16" retaining pins.
> 8 Emails with manager, Wendy and 1 phone call with engineer Tim and we
> still have a disagreement. I was told they had sold that exact pad
> "for 25 years" for my application and no one had ever had a problem or
> complained. When I asked why I couldn't simply have what was shown
> on their website as the pad for the 16P, I was told that was just a
> general illustration and not correct for any specific application. 
> They have offered to drill out the retaining pin holes to fit my pins.
> I am honestly disappointed that I simply can't have what fits out
> of the box and to have to argue the point back and forth through
> multiple Emails and a terse phone call.
> So, my questions to those of you running a 16P (late TR3 through early
> TR6 and GT6 1968-72 along with many other British applications) are:
> 1. Are you using Porterfield pads in your calipers? 
> 2. Have you found them to fit the standard 1/4" retaining pin?
> 3. If you have found them to not fit the pins, are you drilling them
> out yourself?
> 4. Does the difference in pad shape concern you at all (photo
> attached)?
> 5. If not Porterfield, then what are you using? Without divulging any
> speed secrets, of course...
> I'm close enough to their facility that I can appear there with my
> pins, pads and calipers to prove what they disbelieve...it just
> shouldn't have to come to that with a reputable company from my
> view... 
> Your thoughts and experience are appreciated.
> ??
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> BRAD EELLSCHINO CA#35 DP 1962 TRIUMPH TR4#76 FP 1969 TRIUMPH SPITFIRE
> MK31965 TRIUMPH TR4A IRS...FOR THE ROAD! 
> 
> 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>