First off here's a link to the original thread where this setup is talked about and reviewed by Reid Fleming. (lots of good info here) https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/brak...-ultimate.html

About a month ago I purchased a 91 GTA as my new third gen toy. The car was well taken care of when it was used as a daily driver but has been sitting more or less for the last several years. It was started up and allowed to run on occasion but not really driven so the maintenance was lacking on it. One of the areas where some work was definitely needed was the brakes. I've been researching possible brake options for a long time (with other 3rd gens I've had) and I had made my mind up a while back if I ever got another 3rd gen, this is the setup I would try first before dropping lots of money for an LS1 or C5 front brake upgrade.

I want to be as objective as possible with this review so there are a few caveats to the improvements I saw so take my statements for what they are. This is just one member's experience.
1. This is my first 4 wheel disc thirdgen. All the others have been drum rear. I'm sure there is some difference in braking performance and pedal feel/travel between the two.
2. I don't know what pads/rotors were on the car before I did this. Could have been top of the line stuff down to Autozone cheapies. I've only had this car about a month. But from inspection, the pads and rotors were all in good shape, physically.
3. Braking performance was less than optimal before the upgrade, even to stock specs. Pedal was very soft and pedal travel was excessive. My guess is the rear brakes were not properly bled.

On to the important stuff. The parts:
Stillen D154HD front pads
Stillen D413HD rear pads
Stillen rear cross-drilled rotors
Goodridge stainless steel brake lines
NAPA Premium front rotors
Grainger 1NCR5 spring for the proportioning valve
While I was at it, I also replaced the inner and outer bearings. All told, I think I was in this upgrade for around $650 front and rear. This included the wheel bearings, a bottle of brake fluid, and some brake cleaner. Not too bad compared to the 900ish for just fronts had I done the LS1 or C5 kit.

As far as install went, it was pretty simple and straightforward. The most difficult part was getting the old crusty brake lines and clips out. After getting everything put together and the system bled I took it out for a quick test drive. When I would make hard right hand turns at approximately 25 mph I could hear a recurring grinding noise at the left rear rotor. I took it apart and inspected it and the caliper bracket seemed to be much closer to the rotor on the back side of the rotor on the driver's side than on the passenger side. As a result, there was some grinding from the bottom caliper bracket bolt on the inside lip of the rotor. I have no idea why this was. The rotor I took off had plenty of clearance (of course it was much thinner from being turned before) and nothing appeared to be bent or assembled wrong. After inspecting and reassembling, the problem seemed to have gone away and I've had no issues since.

Before the brake upgrade, the brakes felt very soft and spongy. There seemed to be almost no feeling from the rear brakes at all and the actual braking from the fronts seemed to come on very late in the pedal travel. It took lots of pedal and effort just to keep the car stopped while in gear. After the upgrade, I will say the biggest and most immediate difference I felt was the pedal travel and feel was much improved. The pedal was much more firm, and travel and effort was reduced greatly. The second biggest difference was that I could actually feel the rear brakes working like they're supposed to. Since I did everything at the same time, I can't say if it was one thing in particular or if it was everything working in concert that had more to do with the difference in feel of the rear, but I can definitely feel the rear brakes grab first, and then the fronts begin to take over the majority of the stopping. Even at light to moderate brake pressure, the difference is obvious. The car also seems to be more level during braking too (less nose dive).

After the initial bedding process I was able to put the new brakes to the test a bit. I must say, Dean was spot on about the predictability of the Stillen pads. They grab immediately, hot or cold, and allow for very deep pedal travel without locking up the wheels. I was forced to do the break-in process in rainy/wet conditions but even then, I was impressed with how the brakes performed without locking up the wheels (I'm sure my brand new tires helped this too). The only time they locked up was coming to a stop on wet pavement going downhill when I stabbed the brakes (just to see how they'd do). The rears locked for a moment but with a slight decrease in pressure they released and stopped the car normally.

Overall, I am VERY pleased with the results. Before, I was not very confident in the brakes and leery of driving the car in traffic or at interstate speeds because in a panic/emergency situation I wouldn't be able to slow down fast enough. But now, I feel like the braking performance is just as good, if not better, than any other newer car on the road today.

 

Not trying to be difficult here, but for the price you spent on those new, stock replacement parts, you could have used that money for a real upgrade - a 12" or 13" kit. It seems like another $225 to $300 would have put you into an upgrade kit.

Honestly, the rear PBR brakes are up to task with the right pads and rotors - a good thing since the 82 to 88 cars had the failure prone 10.5" rear discs (I personally had 4 calipers go bad over the course of 8 years).

 

That's very true, but like I said in my original post, spending that extra coin on a big brake kit would have only gotten me the fronts without even touching the rears. Now, would spending the extra money on a big brake kit and only doing the fronts have made a better performance improvement? Probably. But it wouldn't have addressed the lack of rear brakes these cars (and especially this one) have. I needed to address all 4 corners on this one and I couldn't afford to break the bank doing it.

I tend to agree with this, which is why I decided to do the Stillen pads and cross-drilled rotors. As it sat before, the rears were absolutely not up to the task. I will eventually invest in a big brake kit for the fronts, but for now I just needed to be able to get everything I could out of the stock setup and this was the best way to do it.

 

Out of curiosity did you ever try and see how the rear brakes stopped with the car in idle up on stands? I just recently did the switch over to a 1NCF2 spring, and am just curious on how to judge how well it worked. Before I could barely stop the rears (if at all) with the car warmed up to temp. After I could easily stop the rears with the car up to temp but not with a cold start and the high idle. I haven't gotten a chance to see when they lock up yet since it's been rather snowy and unpleasant lately.

Also, when you say it's a 4-wheel disc car, is it a drum to disc swap? Just wondering if the swap to the 1NCR5 was from a drum spring or the stock disc spring.

 

No I didn't. The best way I can think to tell a difference, other than putting the car on jack stands like you mentioned, is to just drive the car and note the braking difference before and after. This would include pedal feel/travel and also braking distance under hard braking (like a 60-0 test).

It's a GTA, so it is a factory 4-wheel disc car. As far as I know, all GTA's (at least in 91) had 4-wheel discs.

 

There were a lot of '91 cars that did not get the rear discs due to a shortage.

 

I got validation of non-functional rear brakes on my 87 Camaro at the emissions test station. Automatic, idling in gear, when the drive-on rollers dropped the car into the dyno drum, the rear tires would not stop rolling. I assume the emissions tech used both the brake pedal (hydraulic) and parking brake (mechanical). I had to motion from the spectator's booth to just put the trans into park.

I am running LS1 rear brakes now. Ebay for the rear brackets with new rotors, pads and FlyNBye conversion cables. $400-$500 invested.

 

Your feelings on this mirror my feelings on it. The combination gives a great front/back feel when stepping on the brakes. And the performance to dollar ratio is hard to beat. I used to be worried about stopping in time for the person in front. Now quite often when I have to get on the brakes hard, I end up looking in the rear view mirror to make sure the person behind me can stop in time, and adjust my braking to account for that.

The Stillen pads really do give a light/not as light/medium/a bit more than medium/faster/faster still/woooooe stopping depending on how far you press the brake pedal.

It would be interesting to take two GTA's. One with the Dean/Stillen combo and other with full LS1 brakes and see how they compare. I suspect they would be quite close. Though I'd be surprised if the LS1 setup handled front/rear balance as well.

 

Dean here-

What people tend to not understand is a larger brake setup is merely not necessarily for more braking power,but yet it IS for mainly more heat dissipation. Brake pads do this as well. It is how the material controls heat and friction. The Stillen Metal Matrix pad compound is well suited for the stock 10.5" OEM brake size and calipers for normal street driving and sprited performance driving such as AutoX and very light weight road track (2 laps or less on a big circuit.) you can simply put larger PPBR calipers and some average performance pads like Hawks HPS and the car will NOT perform as well as the setup posted here. The pads will not heat as quick, nor will they sustain as much heat as the Stillen pads will (comparing Hawks HPS 11.65" OEM/PBR setup vs. Stillen 10.5" OEM? Delco-Morraine setup). The Stillen pads come on something sooner, no grabby feeling when the initially bit, A deep smooth sweet spot, and absolutely not release bit as well. HPS is terrible compared to Stillen. The Delco Moraine setup handles the Stillen heat range very well.

The reason for the rear drilled rotor is to increase rear pad initial bite to initiate the anti-yaw effect the stock combination valve tried to deliver to maintain control on a quick brake pedal resonse under emergency. The drilled surface allows the pad to off gas and not float on initial abrasive friction both fronts and rear build to adherent friction. The drilled holes help eliminate pad float in abrasive friction to allow a stronger momentary rear brake pressure build in bias.

 

Based on my experience, you really want to go for a 13" 2 piston kit or better - even if it means dumping your 16" factory wheels (that you can't get decent summer tires for) and moving up to 17" rubber (and a 275 tire). I say this due to the fact that you are not going to drop 25ft+ (from 60mph) by just putting better 10.5" front brake parts that you can with a 13" or larger BBK.

Doubtful that a 10.5" optimized brake setup on a heavy 3rd gen is not going to crack the 120ft barrier on a 60mph to 0 stop. A 13" or better kit should be at the 100ft range with a stick 275 tire.

 

The only corrective critisim I can offer is to make dure next time you properly heat cycle your new rotors and bed the pads first before you "get on them" on an initial test drive. You may have hot spoted your rotors if the rotor material is fresh new metal and never heat cycled.

What heat cycling is? ..is the process of bringing the brakes slowly up to "NORMAL" street driving temps and then letting them cool off for a few hours without making any hard stops on them. You can get on the brakes from about 40mph-10 mph at about 50-70% braking force but them drive around the block a few times without stiopping and let them cool as much as you can without using the brakes (driving real slow but staying moving- if you have to stop then stop early and keep moving forward 2 or 3 feet every second and stop again until you can get moving again) The key is not to allow the hot pads to sit on one part of the rotor surface. If you hot spot a new rotor then the rotor surface will no longer accept heat evenly because the hot spot surface area of it's circumference turns to what is called Cementite. THe Iron changes properties and cause bad friction materail build up on that portion of rotor over time- no longer smooth brakes.

Veryimportant to condition rotors. I do that process about 4 times before I drive "NORMAL for the next 50 miles- never using more then about 50% braking force that whole time during those several days of break in in heating and letting set to cool for several hours.

 

Mine was pulling consistant 110 ft stops,

Reaspon why I change this 10.5 inch setup was ONLY because of pad rattle in the Delco Moraaine calipers. It is an inherent defect in pad retention design. The bent over the top pad clip design "relieves itself with higher heat performance driving over time and the pads rattle like a junk yard car after a month or two. I would constantly have to pull the brakes tto re-bend the clips and put silicone on them to reduce rattle noise for a little longer duration.

That is the main reason I went to the custom Wilwoods I built, but ALSO the other reason was to loose unsprung weight. All those aftermarket brake upgrades add weight. Moine was the only setup that went from 10.5 to 13" imder a factory 16" IROC wheel and was 4 lbs less each side. I also went from 110 ft 60-0 to consistent 102 foot all day long with the massive wilwood setup. Not a lot better in stopping power, but better in stopping consistentcy when hot.

For pics check my personal album under my call name.

 

I've always followed the bedding practice of working the brakes very slowly for a couple of days and a hundred miles or so. But I've never really understood why this needs to be done. If we take the old rectangular pink pearl erasers we used in elementary school and took some scissors and made the flat edge into a pointy edge. Simply using the eraser would in time make the eraser edge flat again. Same thing with sandpaper on wood. Eventually the sandpaper would flatten out any rough or raised spots on the wood.......Why isn't it the same for brakes? Wouldn't a heat soaked spot on the rotor or a raised edge on the pad eventually balance out to being flat on both?

 

For most, the ability to have more braking power and more consistent stopping (hot vs cold) outweighs the possible issue of adding a few lbs.

When I swapped out my factory 10.5" fronts to a Baer 2 piston track kit back in 1997, it ended up dropping 14lbs compared to what was on there. Baer said 20, but not all cars are equal. Obviously not all kits are like the one I have...

 

My Baer 13" kit dropped some good weight over the iron 10.5 setup too. Then I switched to aluminum hat Baer rotors and dropped almost 5lbs more a corner.
13"s on the rear also.
She stops like a arresting hook on a carrier deck (my official, I haven't tested it yet description)

 

@ Paul and TTop-

I can assure you that both of your figures are completely dead wrong. Neither of you dropped weight over the OEM 10.5 setup. Even with aluminum hats you weight at the very least the same if not more.

Why?
I have a very well documented build thread on here where I custom machined my Wilwood setup with aluminum brackets, My 6pot radial mount Wilwood Calipers were lighter then the Baer PBR style 2pot calipers. My SRP 12.90" 2 pc drilled rotors are lighter then the Baer 13" rotors, AND...my custom made GW aluminum hubs are lighter then any turned down steel hubs by 5 lbs each-

YET, my setup complete vs the OEM 10.5" setup was only 4 lbs lighter per side. I have yet to see ANY brake package lighter than mine (suitable for hwy use)

No way in heil just going to a 2pc rotor will drop 5 lbs less per side over the 10.5 setup....PERIOD.

 

You are absolutely wrong about the reduction of weight. I weighed each complete system on a scale and it was 7lbs lighter per side, period. The combination of aluminum hubs, lighter calipers, and a slightly heavier rotor gives a net reduction.

Two piece rotors typically are lighter in the same size than 1pc ones in the same size, typically - not necessarily every application.

 

I can guarantee you, i weighed my system and even with the 1 piece rotors it was lighter than stock. Maybe you don't have aluminum hubs like the Bear kit?
I had 13" 1piece cast rotors and went to 2 piece aluminum hat rotors. I was shocked it was almost 5lbs lighter for each rotor.
Unless my doctor scale is off......

 

This is also an area where I saw marked improvement. There was a lot of nose dive under heavy braking before, and I kind of figured it was because the rear brakes weren't really doing their job. But also knowing that the cross-drilled rotor helps initial bite on the rear and prevent that anti-yaw effect helps explain what's really going on back there and why I was experiencing so much nose dive. Of course, it's only made worse with my worn out rear shocks and front struts that are on their way out.

 

While I didn't do the process 4 times and take several days to do it, I did bed the brakes according to the instructions that came with the Stillen rotors. I also made sure not to come to a complete stop the one or two times I did get on them hard (I also was only doing maybe 40-45mph when I did this).

 

Its not about bedding the pads, I was clearly taklking about when you put brand new rotors on a car the rotors need to be heat cycled to treat the metal to accept heat evenly.

Paul and TTop. Do me a favor and weight you entire assemblies attached to the spindles with pads and brake lines attached, Those are all the componants that are changed from 10.5 setups to larger brake systems. The spindle needs to be included because the modifications needed to accept the new calipers. With all that said, The OEM 10.5 Delco Morraine setup WITH spindles, brake lines, and brake pads is 40.5 lbs each side.

My Wilwood 6pot 12.90x1.25 two pc aluminum hat SRP drilled and slotted rotors on a wide 887" hat radius (a VERY light weight rotor assembly), and my VERY light weight aluminum GW road race hubs (as stated already since you missed that) weighed in at 36.4 lbs with spindles, pads, brackets, hubs, and brake lines including hub centric custom aluminum wheel spacers to set the entire system in proper scrub radius.

Lets see something lighter than 40 lbs from either of you? I have proof.

 

I know for a FACT that Baers 14" Extreme package with aluminum hats weighs 54 lbs per side.

Yes 54 lbs.

Mine is 1" smaller in diameter. 18 lbs lighter per side, and fits under a factory 16" IROC wheel.

36 lbs

 

YUou are missing the quote and taking the subject off topic. The OP was talking about an upgraded 10.5 setup. Then others came in saying go bigger.

I know a 2 pc rotor can be lighter then a heavy 1 pc. of the same size. Compare it to a 10.5 OEM rotor. I said it is not 5 lbs lighter then that

 

now to summerize this thread-

The OP built this setup and it works fantastic for daily and light track use. I documented it years ao, Reid has documented it, Now this OP has. It works...AT A VERY DECENT cost for the performance level. Now if you want more consistant lower braking times on a race course? then you'd better go bigger if big tracking the car. OTHERWISE, there is not a brake package on earth that will match this setup dollar for dollar nor weight per weight other than the $$$$ setup I built under the factory wheels.

go bigger means more weight.

more weight on brake setup

More weight on larger wheels to fit over the new brake setup

Last I checked, all that cost big bucks.



Lastly, doing what I did envolves big bucks and talent/knowledge. Mine is the only setup in the world that fit under a factory wheel AND was lighter weight. That cost me A LOT of TIME, that cost me a LOT of MONEY.

This OP's OEM size setup is a huge bang for the buck...period. But is not good for large track use for more than about 2 laps at most. Great for AutoX. Fantastic for street use with no warmup needed and will far exceed the OEM brakes with any other brake pads including Hawks, EBC, and the oh so crappy PF pads. The next best thing to Stillen pads are Porterfeild R4s compund, but they still do not hold a candle to Stillen's secret compound.

From what I know, but no one has ever admitted it, Porterfield tied to copy Stillens compound with the R4s, but its still more grabby then Stillen Metal Matrix compound. Porterfield and Stillen facilities are about 2 miles from each other here in So Cal.

 

I did weigh my stock setup with spindles then the 13" baer kit (b4 i swapped on the 2 piece rotors) and it was lighter, with all the same parts. A complete assembly.
The spindles get 2 pretty large chunks cut off them and the Baer kit adds a little steel adapter bracket that is lighter than what was removed.
I know i put it all on paper back when i did it almost 18yrs? ago but im sure its lost someplace.
Ill try to scrape up some things and get them weighed maybe tonight.
Edit. Just weighed a stock rotor/hub/bearings/seals and got a lil over 22lbs. The 1piece 13" baer rotor/alum hub/bearings/seals an arp long studs weighs 24.25 lbs. (I have written on it in marker "weighs 4.75lbs more than the 2piece rotor"
Will weigh pads, calipers, caliper carrier, adapter bracket and spindle mod difference later.

 

Lets compare facts. The 18yr old Baer 13" PBR caliper setup That caliper fully loaded is 9.7 lbs.
My Wilwood 6piston Radial mount caliper- 4.4 lbs fully loaded. I also have the narrow outer caliper portion reducing weight by .3 lbs.

You have a steel bracket, I have and aluminum one.

You say your stock setup weight less when you weighed it 18 yrs ago- Thus- NO aluminum hubs availible 18 yrs ago. Mine is alumin custom made from GW. Very comproble to the designs now sold (ps- GW made all prototypes for Wilwood 15 years ago which set the standard for Kore3, Baer, Etc when it comes to a 3rd gen hub) So with the heavier calipers (by 5.5 lbs), heavier rotors (at that time you had 1pc- had to be 6-8 lbs heavier each and maybe even more considering my wide center hat pattern and narrow pad width (yours is shorter caliper and taller rotor contact face- thus even your 2 pc rotors weigh more then mine do.) Then lastly your steel brackets are about 2lbs each, mine we 0.35 each out of aluminum.

You are "minimum" (5.5 + 6 + 1.5=) 13 lbs heavier then my setup... minimum! Probably more like 17-18 to be more accurate.

considering mine is 36 lbs- add 13 and you are at very least 49 lbs if not more.

The stock 10.5 setup is 8.5lbs lighter then your original BAER setup- That fact proves your statement wrong- sorry, nice try.That again would be minimum giving you the benefit of the doubt. More like 53 lbs.

I will remind you that Baer's 14" 6pistoin Extreme kit with aluminum hats and aluminum hubs is 54 lbs.


Your doctor scale is lying to you.

 

Also, Baers own website recommends running 18" wheels with their 13" pro 6 piston kit. mine was (again) setup and functioning under a 16" IROC wheel.

So add that cost and weight.

 

As for my dog in this arguement. For the record, I was messaged by a few people asking me to come into here and clarify some things. I stick to facts when I am asked- otherwise I hardly ever come into here anymore becasue most of the time its the same old factless crap on these boards.

I've even heard through the grapevine FRRAX has closed its membership because the "little boy click" over there can not handle the larger influx of outsiders coming into their private little pow wow's and going against their grain. There is a reason I win at everything I drive, I obey facts, unlike most everyone else I see. Laws of physics do not lie.

 

I was quickly guessing on the 18 yrs thing (it actually was about 2001 or so, so i was close) but yes, the aluminum hubs were stock with my 13" baer kit when i got it.
Just giving out weights of what i have so far today, same parts, same scales, sorry if you just can't believe it.
Ill weigh more later when i find the spare stuff. I dont really want to pull a car or 2 apart.
I'm not comparing the baer kit to your "custom" kit, i'm comparing it to stock. On my scales when i did the conversion, the 13" baer kit was lighter than my stock setup.
Was it as light as your custom 6piston setup? I highly doubt it, those calipers are very light but my baer kit was and is lighter than stock, even more so now with the aluminum hat rotors.

 

I have installed a bunch of those 6 piston kits and I can tell you those calipers are freaking monsters, size and weight.

 

Since i couldn't find my 3rdgen pbr caliper real quick, i weighed a larger/heavier C5 caliper w/ pads, caliper and caliper carrier, pins and bolts.
It came in right under 9lbs those pads are heavier than i remember!

 

I think you are missing the point here. When I purchased the Baer kit, they said 20lbs or so reduction. I weighed the Baer kit with the spindle and everything and then the factory spindle with everything and it was 7lbs lighter per side. I don't know exactly how much each was, but there was a reduction. Mine has the aluminum hubs, regardless of what you say was available in July 1997 when I bought the kit. Otherwise it would weigh a lot more.

Honestly, enough of the focus on weight - a lb or two of unsprung weight in most cases isn't going to make or break anyone, especially a street car like most on this board have.

I guess Baer isn't on top of what wheels fit their kits either - you can fit the 14" Baer kit with a little extra room under the CTW Motorsports wheels (my company), weighing in at 20lbs - lighter than every OEM 16" 3rd gen wheel except for the cross laces.

So a 3rd gen with our wheels, the same Baer kit I have, and a set of 275 tires is going to weigh 10 to 15lbs less than stock, be able to stop from 60mph in about 100ft, and outhandle the OEM 16" setup by at least 5% for under $3k. No need to fabricate much - just make a couple of calls, some UPS packages and an easy install.

 

Where did you buy the stillen pads and rotors? How about their slotted front rotors instead of the napa ones? Does that spring normally come on ws6 cars?

 

The pads and rotors were purchased off of Stillen's website.

I didn't want or need slotted front rotors. I am happy with the blanks.

I'm assuming you're talking about the spring in the proportioning valve. That spring did not come in any 3rd gen to my knowledge. It is an upgrade that somebody way back when stumbled upon, I think.

 

I got the Stillen pads and rear cross drilled rotors from Stillen's website.

I chose not to go with the cross drilled Stillen front rotor. Sticking with the solid NAPA rotor instead. Reason being the fronts are 10.5" and the rear are 11.8". The rear rotors will never overheat. Very little chance of warping them. The fronts are the ones that see the heat. And a 10.5" drilled rotor is something like a 10.0" solid rotor (in terms of surface area. And surface area = heatsink).

Simply put, the 10.5" fronts are too small to do cross drilled. The newer Corvettes with their 15" front rotors don't have to worry about this. We do.

The other aspect is that the cross drilled rear/solid front is the secret sauce that gives you the momentarily stronger rear brakes upon initial braking and then they equalize out front and rear. Keeps the car planted and stable when braking on a highway corner. No teeter tottering on the brakes. Same thing when braking in a straight line. The car doesn't shift forward and down as much. It's like dropping an anchor and then the brakes kick in a tenth of a second later.

The spring came from Grainger. There is a thread here with hundreds of replies on the benefits of the new spring. Should be on the 1st page of the Braking forum. $5-10 or so.

In case anybody is wondering, I'm still running the full setup. Still really like it. The performance to value ratio is hard to beat.

 

Just as an update for anyone thinking about doing this, the D413HD (rear pads) and GM6101 (rear drilled rotors) are not available on the Stillen website, but they will make them for you if you call. The D154HD pads are still on the website.