|
The only drawback is cost. I have had multiple carbon brake vehicles and the wet performance is no worse than steel brake cars. All cars initial bite is reduced when it's wet, Mercedes has been dragging their pads in the rain for many years to prevent this.
Yes, they are expensive if you track the car a lot. If you don't track it then they are actually a maintenance free brake setup as 99.9% of us will never wear the rotors or even pads out. They don't wear out by time....ask yourself, are you going to put 100k plus miles on this car? I doubt I'll put 10k on it....
Iron brakes produce loads of dust, like more than any other manufacturer I have ever seen. Carbon, close to zero. They are lighter and it is noticeable. They bite better, they resist fade better (if you track it). They are just a much nicer brake system.
As I said, the only real drawback is cost, everything else is justification for not getting them. I am a huge carbon brake fan for street use. Track use, it's a bad financial decision not to swap to steel rotors. Girodisc makes a steel rotor kit that fits the carbon system calipers on 911's. That's the good play.
|