[peva]

The "If you need brakes, READ THIS" thread inspired me to post this.

Does anyone have any experience with the EBC Kevlar™ brake pads that they show on www.tirerack.com? They would run $90 (fronts) + $60 (rears) for our cars, but aren't going to be available in the U.S. until later this year (according to Tire Rack's web page).

Claimed benefits:
1. Rotor "friendly" (low rotor wear)
2. 0.46 COF vs. typical 0.25-0.35
3. Dustless
4. Fadeless

Are there similar type pads (Kevlar™?) available already?

[cobra65]

I know that my brother used to use kevlar pads on his old rear drive regals and Monte Carlos and such. He did say that they didn't produce as much dust and his rotors did have less wear...which makes sense...I mean those semi-metallic pads if you feel them are like sandpaper so of course you have rotor wear.

[Maverick9110E]

bullet proof brake pads. nice.lol. did it say when later this year they'd be avalibale?

[peva]

Tire Rack web site says rears ETA this Fall, fronts in December.

[Warlord187]

I don't know much about those Kevlar pads so I really can't comment on them. But I can say a couple of things about pads in general. Yes, the semi-mettalic pads feel like sandpaper because there is metal in the friction material. Compared to the Kevlar pads, semi-met may wear down the rotors more, but because of the friction material make up, the kevlar pads may not have as much stopping power. But like I said I don't know a whole lot about those kevlar brakes so I can't say for certain which would have more stopping power. I just wanted to give you something to think about because there is always trade offs. Yes, the kevlar doesn't have as much rotor wear or creates as much dust as semi-met, but what do the kevlar pads "give up" to the semi-met pads. It could be the stopping power.

[peva]

Good point. That's why I threw in the coefficient of friction figures (0.46 COF vs. typical 0.25-0.35 for OEM pads) from the Tire Rack EBC pad web page in my orginal post (sorry for abbreviating "COF") , which IIRC is similar to what they claim for the Hawks. That's why I thought these might be the best of everything (as the Hawks may also be).

The Hawks may have an advantage at this point because they are at least available, and, IIRC, for a little less dinero. Looks like the two products achieve similar all-around results by different materials (EBC => Kevlar™; Hawk => "ferro-carbon" compounds).