Front disc brake upgrade?

[kdd5ltr]

Does anybody know if there is an upgraded disc brake kit for the front on the vibe gt?

[slbpsi63]

NOPI.COM has AEM drilled rotors for sale at $99 (Approx) each. It doesn't include new calipers or anything though. Check it out.

[kdd5ltr]

Thanks but I just put 18's on my vibe gt and the stock rotors look very small.I want to go to 13" rotors.

[Yoda]

might as well leave the spare in the garage then - it'll just weigh you down and take up space...

[Yoda]

Also, a quick search brings up the following links which you might find helpful : http://forums.genvibe.com/zerothread?id=118 is a kit with spacers so you don't have to break into the hydraulics. Plus it will only cost you $1000 bucks front and rear. http://forums.genvibe.com/zerothread?id=95 is a kit with new calipers, so you'll have to re-bleed and it's $2200 for just the fronts. Either way - you'll want to get a full size spare or a can of fix a flat.

[Lorin]

TRD has their "Big Brake Kit" for $1938. Lots of dough. Think of the sound system you could put in with that much money! http://www.trdracing.com/matrix/matrix.htm

[philndz]

can u change rear drums to a disc setup

[NSimkins]

quote:can u change rear drums to a disc setupCheck out these threads:http://forums.genvibe.com/zerothread?id ... ad?id=2135

[MadBill]

Hmmm...There's a few good points above! On the one hand, the perfectly adequate stock rotors/drums look pretty wimpy "lost in space" at center of a set of 18" or 19" wagon wheels. On the other, blowing $2,000 or more mostly for appearance and losing the use of the stock spare in the process sounds more than a little off base!Seems like there might be a market for high grade pizza pan-sized simulated rotors that preferably also helped rather than hindered cooling air flow..."Any idiot can make a car go slow. It takes a genius to make one go fast!" (Enzo Ferrari, circa 1963, on why his race cars still had drum brakes.)

[Stang2Vibe]

Poor old Enzo must have been scratching his head for about 6 years back then wondering why he was having his a$$ handed to him in many races by Jaguar. They were the first to switch to 4 wheel discs on race cars. They could brake much later into the turns because their brakes were much more effective. This amounted to less time being spent at lower speeds preparing for corners. Faster average lap times means more races won.

[NovaResource]

OK, so the next time I go to race Jaguars I'll take a Vibe GT with 4-wheel discs. However, for everyday driving and the limited "stoplight grand prix" races I get into, the rear drums on my base Vibe are more than enough.

[savedbyzero]

Nova, I can't help but think that you would be on the other side if you had a GT, saying that rear discs are the best. I could really care less. Just seems that anytime someone talks about a feature the GT has that the base doesn't, you have to come defend it. I think both vehicles have their +'s and -'s. Your's can be supercharged quite easily, mine cannot. Mine stops better than yours. There's no need to defend here. We all love both models. I'm sure you'll come back with some insightful and whitty comment. Just seems like there's no car better than yours...Not trying to be pissy, just don't understand...

[NovaResource]

quote:Mine stops better than yours.I dispute that. A base Vibe with disc/drum and ABS will stop just as short as a GT with disc/disc and ABS (with the same tires). Rear brakes do only about 30% of the stopping and the rear discs have little improvement over rear drums.Car and Driver, February 2002 tested a Vibe GT with the 205/55-16 wheels/tires and got a 70-0 stoping distance of 184'Car and Driver, June 2002 tested a base Vibe with ABS and 205/55-16 wheels and tires and got a 70-0 stoping distance of 181'.So:Vibe GT, disc/disc, ABS, 205/55-16 tires = 70-0 @ 184'base Vibe, disc/drum, ABS, 205/55-16 tires = 70-0 @ 181'Why did the base Vibe stop SHORTER than the GT? Easy:GT = 2862-lbsbase = 2778-lbsDrum brakes are actually lighter and a superior stopping design . . . . . when cool. Drum brakes are "self-energizing". That means that as they start to grip they get tighter on their own. This is why drag racers in the stock classes like to use front drum brakes because they hold the car at the line better, they are lighter and have less rolling resistance.Drum brakes downfall is that they don't dissipate heat and shead water as well as discs. This is why when drums get hot they don't stop as well as discs. However, in everyday driving situations, the rear drums won't get that hot.quote:Just seems like there's no car better than yours.Not true. I fully understand a stock GT will beat my stock base Vibe. I even know a base Vibe with a 5-speed will beat my base Vibe with automatic.

[Lorin]

quote:Car and Driver, February 2002 tested a Vibe GT with the 205/55-16 wheels/tires and got a 70-0 stoping distance of 184'Car and Driver, June 2002 tested a base Vibe with ABS and 205/55-16 wheels and tires and got a 70-0 stoping distance of 181'.So:Vibe GT, disc/disc, ABS, 205/55-16 tires = 70-0 @ 184'base Vibe, disc/drum, ABS, 205/55-16 tires = 70-0 @ 181'Why did the base Vibe stop SHORTER than the GT? Easy:GT = 2862-lbsbase = 2778-lbsCertainly the weight makes a difference, but also weather, the degree the brakes and tires are broken in, track conditions, and mASS (weight) of the driver. When C&D does a comparo of different cars, they have spoken before about how they try to minimize the differences in driver, track, etc. Since these tests were done months apart, 3 ft could just be due to these variables. For all practical purposes in a single stop there probably is very little difference between the disc and drums. But, it makes me feel "happy" every time I drive down the mountain and my brakes don't start fading at the bottom like they did on my Protege' (drums) or van (drums) even though I use a lower gear.

[NovaResource]

So let me try and understand what you're saying.1. Car and Drivers tests are basically worthless because there are too many variables. So the fact that the data shows that disc/drums are just as good as disc/discs it's not the case.2. Disc/discs are superior to disc/drums because they make you feel "happy".OK, I'll buy that. I'm wrong. You are correct. Disc/discs are far superior to disc/drums.

[NovaResource]

quote:Certainly the weight makes a difference, but also weather, the degree the brakes and tires are broken in, track conditions, and mASS (weight) of the driver. When C&D does a comparo of different cars, they have spoken before about how they try to minimize the differences in driver, track, etc. Since these tests were done months apart, 3 ft could just be due to these variables.OK, excuse the sarcastic remarks in my previous post. Track conditions are a valid reason to question the numbers so let's use the 300-diameter skidpad g-force numbers from the 2 tests to see if the conditions and tires were equal.Base Vibe = .76gVibe GT = .78gHmmmmm . . . . looks like traction was close to me.

[Lorin]

quote:1. Car and Drivers tests are basically worthless because there are too many variables. So the fact that the data shows that disc/drums are just as good as disc/discs it's not the case.I'm not sure how you would reach the conclusion their tests are worthless. The mere fact that C&D attempts to minimize the differences posed by those varaibles when they do a direct comparo of, for example "top selling sport sedans" for an article speaks for itself.quote:2. Disc/discs are superior to disc/drums because they make you feel "happy"."Happy" is a statement of subjective opinion - I'm not sure why you would be using it to reach such a conclusion. quote:OK, I'll buy that. I'm wrong. You are correct. Disc/discs are far superior to disc/drums.Wow - I didn't realize we were having a win-loose debate.

[NovaResource]

quote:It always depends on the size of your discs..... Some tests done on the Mazda P5 (discs all around) showed that the stopping distance was not shorter that the Focus.If you rear discs are 4", the won't give you more braking power than big drums. They sure look better but it doesn't mean they brake betterThank you. I'm glad somebody here understands.

[NovaResource]

quote:I'm not sure how you would reach the conclusion their tests are worthless. The mere fact that C&D attempts to minimize the differences posed by those varaibles when they do a direct comparo of, for example "top selling sport sedans" for an article speaks for itself."Happy" is a statement of subjective opinion - I'm not sure why you would be using it to reach such a conclusion.It's called sarcasm.quote:Wow - I didn't realize we were having a win-loose debate.We aren't. We are having a right-wrong debate.

[NovaResource]

quote:AND you are WRONG!I know. Remember, I'm the guy who thinks his car is superior to everyone elses car and never supplies facts or data to back up my claims.[note: the above statement is dripping with sarcasm]

[NovaResource]

quote:Doesnt the weight of the vehicle also play a factor also, just like the speed too.Yes but the difference in weight is only 84 pounds, less than 3% difference between the two.

[canadavibegt]

Well....... i have to side with the disc/disc as being superiour. Plus I have to disagree that drums provide more stopping power. I would like to see some test that prove this theory. I will agree that on similar vehicles (again numerous factors are involved size of discs and drums, meterial they are constructed from, etc) in single test stopping distances they should be fairly equal. If you start making multiple brake applications or prolonged applications then disc/disk are superior. (this is why on the long hill the disk disc set up feels better). This is also why you do not see drums on F1 cars.... and the draw backs to disc are far outweighed by the benifits ........ and were all your statements true about drums over disks then why do outomakers no longer make cars with front drums........ if the drums are just as good in everyday driving plus lighter then the automakers should still be using them. this link explains some braking basics. http://www.stoptech.com/whitepapers/bra ... 122701.htmsome intresting stuff on rear brakes. http://www.stoptech.com/whitepapers/rea ... 01.htmThis link pretty much explains why the stopping distance is similar because the front disks I beleive are identicle on the two.My car is not better than yours it just cost me more......

[canadavibegt]

Just found this interesting bit on http://www.musclecarclub.com/library/te ... shtmlQuote: In recent years, brakes have changed greatly in design. Disc brakes, used for years for front wheel applications, are fast replacing drum brakes on the rear wheels of modern cars. This is generally due to their simpler design, lighter weight and better braking performance. The greatest advantage of disc brakes is that they provide significantly better resistance to "brake fade" compared to drum type braking systems. Brake fade is a temporary condition caused by high temperatures generated by repeated hard braking. It occurs when the pads or shoes "glaze" due to the great pressure and heat of hard use. Once they cool, the condition subsides. Disc brakes allow greater air ventilation (cooling) compared to drum brakes. Drum brakes are not internally ventilated because if they were, water could accumulate in them. Disc brakes can rapidly fling off any water that they are exposed to, and so they can be well ventilated.Disc BrakesDisc brakes use a clamping action to produce friction between the "rotor" and the "pads" mounted in the "caliper" attached to the suspension members. Inside the calipers, pistons press against the pads due to pressure generated in the master cylinder. The pads then rub against the rotor, slowing the vehicle. Disc brakes work using much the same basic principle as the brakes on a bicycle; as the caliper pinches the wheel with pads on both sides, it slows the bicycle. Disc brakes offer higher performance braking, simpler design, lighter weight, and better resistance to water interference than drum brakes.Disc brakes, like many automotive innovations, were originally developed for auto racing, but are now standard equipment on virtually every car made. On most cars, the front brakes are of the disc type, and the rear brakes are of the "drum" type. Drum brakes use two semi-circular shoes to press outward against the inner surfaces of a steel drum. Older cars often had drum brakes on all four wheels, and many new cars now have 4-wheel disc brakes.Because disc brakes can fling off water more easily than drum brakes, they work much better in wet conditions. This is not to say that water does not affect them, it definitely does. If you splash through a puddle and then try to apply the brakes, your brakes may not work at all for a few seconds! Disc brakes also allow better airflow cooling, which also increases their effectiveness. Some high performance disc brakes have drilled or slotted holes through the face of the rotor, which helps to prevent the pads from "glazing" (becoming hardened due to heat). Disc brakes were introduced as standard equipment on most cars in the early seventies.Brake DrumThe brake drum is a heavy flat-topped cylinder, which is sandwiched between the wheel rim and the wheel hub. The inside surface of the drum is acted upon by the linings of the brake shoes. When the brakes are applied, the brake shoes are forced into contact with the inside surface of the brake drums to slow the rotation of the wheels.The drums are usually covered with fins on their outer surfaces to increase cooling. They are not cooled internally, because water could enter through the air vent cooling holes and braking would then be greatly impaired.Drum brakes are found on the rear wheels of most older cars, but they are increasingly being fazed out in favor of rear disc brakes. Drum brakes were standard equipment on all four wheels of most cars until the early 70's.other site explainign brake performancehttp://www.teamscr.com/grmbrakes.htm

[bellwilliam]

quote:Car and Driver, February 2002 tested a Vibe GT with the 205/55-16 wheels/tires and got a 70-0 stoping distance of 184'Car and Driver, June 2002 tested a base Vibe with ABS and 205/55-16 wheels and tires and got a 70-0 stoping distance of 181'.So:Vibe GT, disc/disc, ABS, 205/55-16 tires = 70-0 @ 184'base Vibe, disc/drum, ABS, 205/55-16 tires = 70-0 @ 181'.I have a major in economics, so I would like to add that 3' of difference is statistically insignificant. You can't really say base Vibe stops in shorter distance than the other. 3ft falls easily within confidence windows.

[Lorin]

quote:I have a major in economics, so I would like to add that 3' of difference is statistically insignificant. You can't really say base Vibe stops in shorter distance than the other. 3ft falls easily within confidence windows. This is my point exactly. A lot of good information has been presented on the general merits of drum vs. disc brakes. I'm going to expand on the statistical significance of the C&D braking tests. Their tests evaluate >oneWhy? Variability in track conditions has already been discussed. There are likewise differences in the condition of the cars used in the tests. The car could be brand new and not broken in, properly broken-in and in ideal condition, or beat to death by the press corps in previous tests. In addition, there are variations in manufacturing processes. The fact that companies implement programs like Statistcal Process Control (SPC) and Six Sigma to attempt to reduce these differences speaks for itself. Because the braking tests are so close, you might have to test perhaps 20 different cars of each type to get a difference that is statistically significant. Statistically significant simply means you have collected data from enough test runs to account for naturally occuring differences between individual cars. I searched the web trying to find enough numbers to perform some sort of confidence test (a statistical measure), but I couldn't find enough numbers. Consumer Reports reported 139 feet for the drums and 136 for Discs (60-0). This is a 2.2% difference in the opposite direction of the C&D test. Motor Week report 135 feet in 60-0 for Discs. Consumer Guide Rated the Drums a 5 and the Discs a 7. These differences between the C&D and CR tests have an average + or - 1.9% variability in distance between disc and drum.Given only the C&D, CR, and MW tests, you would be RIGHT to say "Disc and drum brakes on the Vibe appear to have similar stopping distances." To make a general statement that Base Vibes with drum brakes have a shorter stopping distance than GT with disc brakes based only on one sample of each car (the C&D test alone) would be going beyond the evidence and would be (are you ready? ) WRONG.

[NovaResource]

I never said base drum brakes were better than GT discs, I said the different between the two was negligible.quote:A base Vibe with disc/drum and ABS will stop just as short as a GT with disc/disc and ABS (with the same tires). Rear brakes do only about 30% of the stopping and the rear discs have little improvement over rear drums.I only used one example because it was the only one I could find where both cars had the same tires and the base had the optional ABS. It just happened to turn out the the GT took 3' longer than the base. However, your above statement just proved me correct. There is little difference between the GTs discs and the base drum brakes.Next time, please read what I wrote before incorrectly assuming what I said.

[MadBill]

For what it's worth, I'd say the single biggest factor in a well controlled single stop test from less than triple digit speeds for any modern car would be the tire compound, not the brake type...

[bellwilliam]

quote:For what it's worth, I'd say the single biggest factor in a well controlled single stop test from less than triple digit speeds for any modern car would be the tire compound, not the brake type...that's is a very ACCURATE statement.Drum and disc brake, in theory, should provide the same stopping distance, and as stated in one of earlier post. the only difference is disc brake is better for preventing brake fade.let me tell a short story. 10 years ago, I was driving at Willow Spring Rackway in 100 degree weather (Williow is in the desert, close to where space shuttle would land in California), I lost my brake from fade completely, and I plowed into turn one at over 100mph. then I did it again a couple of months later. THAT's why you need a bigger disc brake and always flush out your old brake fluid at least every other year. Before this, I never bothered with the brake other than checking if there are linings left.for you guys up north, you guys probably don't care for brake fade. but here in the California desert (I was at death valley this last weekend), brake fade issue is really important.

[NovaResource]

quote:For what it's worth, I'd say the single biggest factor in a well controlled single stop test from less than triple digit speeds for any modern car would be the tire compound, not the brake type...Totally correct. The issue of C&D where I got the base Vibe numbers also did a Matrix XRS. The Matrix outstopped both the base Vibe (from the same article) and the Vibe GT (from the 2/02 article). The reason I didn't use the Matrix XRS numbers (since it has the same rear discs as the Vibe GT) was because it had the stickier 17" wheels and tires. Even C&D said that was the main reason for the better stopping distances.From the article:quote:Vibe:Braking required 181 feet to stop from 70 mph, one foot longer than in the Ford, earning last place. The Vibe also ranked last in skidpad grip in a tie with the Suzuki, although, to be fair, all but the performance-equipped Matrix were tightly grouped in their capability. The Vibe's 55-series Goodyears provided a notably good balance of grip, noise, and ride smoothness.Matrix:Nothing like 50 extra animals on the treadmill and one more ratio in the gearbox to add gusto. Also included are disc brakes all around, a sport-tuned suspension, and 16-inch alloy wheels. But why stop there when, for an extra $150, you can replace the 16s with seven-inch-wide 17s wearing sticky 215/50 Z-rated Firestone Firehawks?The brakes (together with the tires) stopped 17 feet shorter than the Vibe's and bested all the others'. On the skidpad, nothing else came close to the Toyota's 0.83 g.Here are those numbers again:Matrix XRS, disc/disc, ABS, 215/50-17 tires = 70-0 @ 164' (C&D 6/02)Vibe GT, disc/disc, ABS, 205/55-16 tires = 70-0 @ 184' (C&D 2/02)base Vibe, disc/drum, ABS, 205/55-16 tires = 70-0 @ 181' (C&D 6/02)Matrix XRS = 0.83g (C&D 6/02)Base Vibe = 0.76g (C&D 2/02)Vibe GT = 0.78g (C&D 6/02)As you can see, the tires make more of a difference than the type of rear brakes.

[Yoda]

As others have pointed out - all you need to do is ask yourself one question - Can I lock up my tires or get into ABS anytime I want?If your answer is yes, then you want to buy an $800 set of tires before you go and spend thousands trying to upgrade your brakes. If you still can't answer no after new tires, the brakes still are not the problem. I don't think stock, 60-0, single-stop stopping distances tell you a thing about the brakes. Four reasons I wanted discs - 1. I want to change them myself and I don't like changing drums. I'm scared of a spring flying off and hitting me in the eye. 2. I think discs feel more linear - drums tend to "bite" a litle more when you engage them. This might have something to do with Scott's "self-energizing" comment above. 3. I don't think I ever have to worry about fade for what I'm going to do in the vibe, it's just kinda nice to have some extra cooling. If I ever got performance brake linings, then I'd care...4. They do look cool - I saw an old truck with 24" wheels on it and I couldn't see the rear drums, because the hub covered them. Looked like something was missing. All of these are subjective, personal preference type reasons, so I can't imagine adults arguing about which is better...

[NovaResource]

quote:As others have pointed out - all you need to do is ask yourself one question - Can I lock up my tires or get into ABS anytime I want?If your answer is yes, then you want to buy an $800 set of tires before you go and spend thousands trying to upgrade your brakes. If you still can't answer no after new tires, the brakes still are not the problem.I couldn't agree more.quote:1. I want to change them myself and I don't like changing drums. I'm scared of a spring flying off and hitting me in the eye.LOL! Drums aren't so bad but they are more work.quote:2. I think discs feel more linear - drums tend to "bite" a litle more when you engage them. This might have something to do with Scott's "self-energizing" comment above.Yep. You are correct.quote:3. I don't think I ever have to worry about fade for what I'm going to do in the vibe, it's just kinda nice to have some extra cooling. If I ever got performance brake linings, then I'd care.I don't think I'll every worry about fade with my drums either but discs by design fade less than drums.quote:4. They do look cool - I saw an old truck with 24" wheels on it and I couldn't see the rear drums, because the hub covered them. Looked like something was missing.LOL! I can't argue with you there.

[canadavibegt]

quote:For what it's worth, I'd say the single biggest factor in a well controlled single stop test from less than triple digit speeds for any modern car would be the tire compound, not the brake type...Here yee...... as was stated in one of my posts...... (link anyway)... Tire size type and compound is the most important factor in single braking aplications........ No need to improve or upgrade brakes unless you will be racing or have improved your tires to the point where you can no longer activate ABS or lock them........

[mkosem]

I dunno, the vast majority of large diesel trucks you see on the road have drum brakes. I'm of the school that either technology is as good as the other when done correctly in it's application.--Matt