> Just to interject a little question here. If both sets of brake cylinders
> are able to lock up the wheels, then surely the only difference in braking
> activity would be the effort required to perform the
> aforementioned locking
It's also important that the wheels lock at the same time, because maximum
braking is not with the wheels locked, but rather rolling just slightly
slower than the car is moving. Thus, front/rear bias is important, and
changing piston areas will change the bias.
Not to mention that it's frequently nice to be able to steer at the same
time, which is impossible if the wheels are locked.
> (if the caliper pistons on the 4-pot had more surface area than the
> As far as I've always heard, brake fade occurs after repeated
> braking, not just rolling down the highway and then suddenly coming to a
> rapid stop. So unless you're planning to do racing with lots of hairpin
> turns and fast and slow driving there's no need for changing the calipers.
Right. I've also not seen any data to suggest that the 4-pot calipers are
any more resistant to fading than the original brakes, especially on the
TR3-early TR4 with the 11" rotors.
Unless of course you also use vented rotors, then you only have to deal with
the brake balance issue to get genuinely better brakes ... for the race
track. Still no better for the street, unless you drive your car extremely
Few years back, I raced a modern "hot rod" (probably a Honda CRX, don't
really recall) down a mountain. Alternated full throttle with heavy braking
all the way down, probably 20 miles in 20 minutes with lots of 30 mph
corners. TR3A with stock brakes, TR6 wheels and wide, sticky tires, so I
was loading the brakes at least a bit beyond what a stock TR3A could do. No
sign of brake fade whatsoever.
Oh yeah, I got to the bottom about 1/2 mile in front of him. Pulled over
and waited for the rest of the caravan to show up <G>