2.7tDallas

I agree - the tires make a big difference

Muhammad

This applies to 2000-2001 models, not the 2002 ... '02 models have different systems I don't know much about.

Muhammad

Pagid Orange - $500/set front - Best stopping power, also the most dust, hard to find ... only through Joe Hoppen (MTM).

Porterfield R4S - $?/set - Better stopping power, dusty.

Rofren - $170/set - Better stopping power, modulation, etc... dusty.

Ferodo - $?/set - Similar to Rofren in performance, but a little harder and no dust.

Mintex - Similar to Ferodo.

EBC green - Similar to Ferodo and Mintex.

PBR Metalmaster - Ditto

Auto Union Jack

My car is stock of course. However, the numbers game is a bunch of crap. Brakes are used most often for slowing down. Stopping is just the end result and the tyres are the instrument of friction. If you take a stock system and enhance its ability to operate efficiently in a greater heat delta, then you drastically affect that system's ability to repeatedly slow down by eliminating fade factors. I've ridden on a tight mountain ride in a car with this set up (01 2.7T) and it was more challenging then a track day without fade issues. With this system, you have to get on the brakes deeper and more frequently, but the consistant slowing down power is significantly higher.

captainbilly

but traction and control (modulation) might improve stopping distance. Any car (at least any that I have ever heard of) has brakes strong enough to stop the wheels. When you look at braking distances virtually all of the difference from one car to annother is traction and control, not the power of the brakes.
Of course this is not true of fade resistance. When it comes to absorbing the energy of multiple stops, bigger disks and better pads can make a huge difference. I remember my father's Dodge Polara couldn't make a single max power stop from 120 mph without so much fade that the brakes were virtually gone. If you do track events you may seriously want to consider a major brake upgrade. Better pads may help because they may not fade until a higher temp. and a higher boiling point fluid may help for similar reasons.

It's also possible that different brakes may provide better control and allow the ABS system to modulate the brakes closer to the limit so you would stop faster. But in the end I think you will see the greatest difference in braking performance (in normal street driving) by getting better tires/wheels.

chard20

A C&D "Short Take" about a year ago listed 70-0 in 170 ft on Dunlop SP9000's

Aries

"feel" and performance? And better than a Mercedes C320 in braking performance (perhaps BMW 5&3 series and the Volvos also), assuming you test drove any of these.

My wife and I test drove back-to-back the BMW330 and IS300 (when it first came out 18 months ago). I loved the IS's brakes, and she preferred the 330's.

Putting aside for moment, the comments that others have made about tires/wheels and other issues.


Wow, Muhammad, you're an encyclopaedia. I hope you are other experts such as April, Andre, Tom, Chuck and many others on this Forum (and other experts) one day soon consolidate your knowledge and make a "idiot's guide handbook" for Audi owners worldwide. Maybe an updateable web version or CD Rom or printed booklet, whatever.

Aries

at least from driving the 02 2.7T. But I wouldn't be surprised.

But I thought (according to that Audi Quattro Club web page) that some improvements had been made to the braking system to improve braking spontaneous response, efficiency, control and effort. This was to make it "possible to achieve a level of deceleration that is in keeping with the engine's increased power potential." Unless the braking systems on older European models (then 230bhp) were trying to catch up to our 250bhp North American versions.

For 2002, according to the info, "upsized tandem brake servo is new on all A6 models." "Flow-optimized control device" was supposed to accelerate build up of pressure in brake system. Disc brakes at front (12.6" or 321x30mm ventilated dics with one piston and two brake pads) and rear (10.1" or 256x22mm). The 02 2.7T was supposed to have "new, upsized floating caliper brakes with aluminium housing at the front wheels."

So given what has been removed and what has been added, what should the overall effect be on braking performance?

Does anyone know if those C&D tests used a 2002 2.7T? Maybe we need to have our own brake tests. Who has new tires you'd like to have broken in for you?

Muhammad

Changes the feel as well as the actual decrease in speed. I can say that the improvement in my 2.8 with slotted Zimmermann rotors and Rofren pads (Ferodo rears), over the stock rotors and pads, was noticeable and now the car stops SAFELY rather than needing a lot of pressure on the pedal and still getting that unsafe feeling. They're completely adequate on my 100CS, though, which is about 400lbs lighter. Same brakes.

Auto Union Jack

I don't know why they don't have those numbers in their historical database. As the acceleration, braking, skidpad, etc. numbers don't match up with the 4.2 A6 or 2.7T Allroad unless it is a recent test done for the benefit of the AMG C32 in the article.