# Are VW's brakes really that bad?



## bxr140 (Jul 18, 2002)

I'm just curious...ever since the A4 linup was released, the latest trend has become replacing brake compoents with non stock-like ones. i.e., bigger rotors/calipers, rather than the 'old school' standard of simply upgrading the pads/fluid. 
are you guys/gals HONESTLY doing it because you NEED the performance upgrade, or is it just for looks? now, i certainly think big brakes look cool, as do most of us here, so don't get me wrong....i just know from experience, as well as opinions from individuals who really use their brakes to the fullest, that VW typically supplies their cars (the top of the line models at least, and up to the A3's at least as i don't really have any real data from the A4's) with very good base braking systems, which only need a pad/fluid change tailored to the car's specific usage. 
seriously, how many of you A4 G/J owners (or anyone, really) have ACTUALLY experienced fade with a GOOD set of performance pads (in other words, not redbox) and high temp brake fluid? Is VW really going downhill in the braking department? 
for those of you with pad/fluid upgrades, post your brake failuire experiences, along with the driving conditions at the time of failure. list your components as well as age...especially for the fluid. don't forget the tire type/size either. 
while youre all reading,, for all you people with non-stock (bigger than stock) brakes, post your before/after braking distances, and list all the variables. i.e., weather, location, before/after components, ESPECAILLY the age/type of the "old" fluid, tires, and anything else you can think of. please no subjective "brake feel" opinions...hard numbers only. 
thanks guys/gals!


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (bxr140)*

Right on.








Event the MKIII VR6 (G/J & even the B4) (11.3" vented rotors up front) have a ton of pad to rotor contact area -- these are some pretty meaty pads. More than enough for track duty -- with the appropriate pads, fresh fluid and decent tires.
Big brake kits do look nice with +2 & +3 Wheel upgrades, but IMHO are completely un-necessary from a performance standpoint for street and most forms of amateur racing (again, assuming fresh fluid, good pads, good tires and a capable driver).


[Modified by f1forkvr6, 4:03 PM 2-21-2003]


----------



## kewl20v (May 15, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (f1forkvr6)*

I have to agree with the above post and think it is more for asthetics. I think the braking performance is very good in my 01 Jetta. I will be doing my upgrade in summer weather and run stock brakes during winter(tire size issue). I have to agree it is more for looks but the performance is good as they are oem on A4 models. When everyone asks a "decent,good" set of tires, what is implied here? Most of us with an a4 chassis have Michilon pilots and I think these are very good tires and will last a decent amount of time if taken care of. Must be talkin 'bout Lenny and Squiggy brand tires


----------



## Racewagon (Aug 22, 2001)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (kewl20v)*

I can say that I enjoy the brakes on my 337 significantly more than those on my Jetta wagon. I had significant fade and stress cracks in the rear rotors of my Jetta wagon after a track day. I would say that 8.9" solid rear rotors are a bit undersized compared to current competition. A pad and fluid upgrade might have dealt with much of the fade issue, but probably not the stress cracks. The 337 had a bit of softness in the pedal, but the brakes remained strong throughout 120 miles of track use in one day







! I am using Hawk HP + pads and will be ugrading the fluid before the next track season for good measure, though.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (Racewagon)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I would say that 8.9" solid rear rotors are a bit undersized compared to current competition.[HR][/HR]​Agreed.


----------



## chois (May 12, 2000)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (Racewagon)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I would say that 8.9" solid rear rotors are a bit undersized compared to current competition.[HR][/HR]​Wow what a difference from my experience with the older cars (A1-A2). In track situations I have no need for anything more than the old smaller 180mm drums in the rear. Rear wheel lock is a problem - rear brake fade has never been a problem. Those of you with newer cars, have you had the same types of issues with rear brakes?
I have spent a small amount of time on a track in an A4 Golf with R-tires and stock brakes with quality pads/good fluid. The brakes were great and were always there, I was very pleased with them.


----------



## Racer_X (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (Racewagon)*

I haven't run or ridden in anything newer than an A3 on the track, but I've been in some New Beetles and A4 Jettas on the street. My observation with the rears is that the newer cars don't have a proportioning valve in the brake system and let the ABS deal with rear wheel lockup. This seems to really punish the rear brakes severely in normal use because the system is over biased to the rear until the ABS kicks in. 
The smaller rears have never been an issue in any A1, A2 or A3 that I've ever been in on the track. Of course, I've never had an ABS equipped VW on the track, either.


----------



## bxr140 (Jul 18, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (Racewagon)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I had significant fade and stress cracks in the rear rotors of my Jetta wagon after a track day. I would say that 8.9" solid rear rotors are a bit undersized compared to current competition.[HR][/HR]​with what pads? what fluid? what brand rotor?
opinions on the subject are fine (i obviously have them and express them elsewhere in this fourm if you can't figure out what side of the fence i play on), i was just hoping to see some real, concrete (or at least with as few variables as possible), objective data this time. there's plenty of other threads for us to put our two cents into...keep your change on this one and just throw in the facts. 
the problem is that many people (especially when they have little/no personal experience) are easily swayed by opinion one way or the other. when you have a straight up question and a straight up answer, there is little swaying by opinion. everything is there in black and white, and the reader can make up his/her own mind based on his/her own needs/desires. what i DON'T want is one of those 'newbies' doing something (nor not doing something) to their car based on MISinformation. that's why i wanted to keep the "brake feel" comments out of the picture...there's just so much going on that no matter how many people you ask, you won't get a straight answer as to how much "better" or "worse" each mod has on feel becase there is no standard for "better" and "worse". fade, or even just brake consistency is a pretty cut and dry thing. braking distances...same deal. there's obviously going to be variables in these two 'measurements' of performance, which is why no set of data is complete without ALL the variables listed.
so anyone have answers to the original question? 60+ hits so far and NOBODY? 


[Modified by bxr140, 4:53 PM 2-22-2003]


----------



## kewl20v (May 15, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (bxr140)*

wow pushy pushy. You are going to find that at least 75%+ peeps are doing this for looks. The performace aspect is better but looks are probably the winning factor. Sorry no "hard evidence" but i am guessing this to be true. Do a search for brake #'s. Post was done by _bluevr6_ I think. His name is Kevin and seems to have quite alot of info on the matter.


----------



## 97 Golf SC (Nov 14, 2001)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (kewl20v)*

what are your opinions about the stock 2.0L brakes on the A3 cars? How well do they work on the track?


----------



## pumpkin02 (Oct 26, 1999)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (bxr140)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I'm just curious...ever since the A4 linup was released, the latest trend has become replacing brake compoents with non stock-like ones. i.e., bigger rotors/calipers, rather than the 'old school' standard of simply upgrading the pads/fluid.[HR][/HR]​I have an A3 Jetta VR6 (95, so it has the smaller 11" fronts), and an A4 GTI 1.8T.
I have never upgraded the brakes in my Jetta because the cost of replacing the calipers and carriers is a little too much for me, considering the returns. I just got better pads and fluid.
Now, on my GTI, a brake upgrade is cheap. The cost of the 12.3" rotors over the cost of stock 11.3" rotors is minimal, and the pads are the same. So, for the added $125 or whatever of the new carriers, I have a brake upgrade comprised of all OEM parts. In this car, it just seems to make sence to me. I'm not doing it just for the sake of it, I'm waiting till I need brakes, and replacing with the upgraded stuff.
There is my reasoning. Also, my VR6 is pushing around 175whp, while my GTI is prolly over the 200whp mark.


[Modified by pumpkin02, 4:13 PM 2-23-2003]


----------



## citat3962 (Oct 15, 2001)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (pumpkin02)*

When was the last time YOU did braking performance testing just for fun? And measured the difference?
It's not something you do everyday. Most people who mod their cars do it and decide if it was worthwhile by feel.. especially brakes...
There was a braking series in EC done by the tire rack a while back and most of what it broke down to was braking upgrades are ALL done to improve the feel.. If you can lock up the wheels with your brake setup theres NO reason to upgrade the brakes.... upgrade your tires so they don't lock up and then upgrade the brakes to make enough force to lock them up again... 
it will only reduce your stopping distance if you upgrade both.
Oh yeah and cracking rotors and fade sounds like FACTS not OPINIONS...
I can hear it now.... " it's my opinion these rotors are cracked and my stopping distance has been reduced, Anyone care to debate?" 
And by the sounds of it they we're stock parts..


----------



## bxr140 (Jul 18, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (citat3962)*

> When was the last time YOU did braking performance testing just for fun?
last time i changed my brakes, as a matter of fact. i like to know when i'm wasting my money. i've never driven an A4 though, and with all the talk of brake upgrades, i assumed it was plausible that VW's brakes REALLY WERE underrated. forgive me for asking if anyone had any data regarding A4's...
> Most people who mod their cars do it and decide if it was worthwhile by feel.. especially brakes...
thats fine. the problem is: A) what "feels" good to one person might not feel the same to another. B) people tend to let their imaginations take over when quantifying modifications...in other words, its easy to convince yourself those $1000 13" brakes made a huge difference. hell, my car runs better wen i chance the oil!







C) the baseline for the "feel" comparison is often a bone stock setup. D) operators of different skill and experience levels will quantify changes much differently than those with more experience.
so instead of getting a zillion posts from people regarding the "Feel" of their big brake upgrades (which you can find ALL over the place, so its not like youre missing out on them here), i asked a seemingly simple black and white question. no more, no less...just a question. 
> There was a braking series in EC done by the tire rack a while back and most of what it broke down to was braking 
> upgrades are ALL done to improve the feel..
then why do a large pecentage of the posts in this fourm imply either directly or indirectly that bigger brakes will make you stop faster? who's right? EC? the people in this fourm?
> Oh yeah and cracking rotors and fade sounds like FACTS not OPINIONS...
> And by the sounds of it they we're stock parts..
and if it was just stated from the beginning what components were used, you wouldn't need to make that assumption. 


[Modified by bxr140, 7:03 PM 2-25-2003]


----------



## citat3962 (Oct 15, 2001)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (bxr140)*

I totally agree with you I'm just letting you know why your getting feel responses not 32feet 7 inches.. 
I Can 100% Gaurantee the writer of that article in GRM GrassRoots Motorsports (I remembered it wasn't in EC) is infinately more likely to be spot on the truth than the land of fables and lies that is the Tex...
No disrespect..
I for one won't be upgrading my brake size just the components. I'm sticking with the 9.4 inch brakes VW gave me... Getting some mean pads (Porterfield R2S) and some ATE super blue fluid. New Stock rotors and such... I have a set of old Zimmerman Crossdrilled rotors 9.4 I got for free. Maybe this spring I'll do some testing and see if I can tell the difference between the two rotors.. I doubt I'll be able to tell
Personally I prefer the FEEL that my tires have alot more grip than my brakes can put out. That way I can modulate the amount I slow down as I enter a corner.. So basicly theres a pretty wide range I can use as opposed to being over braked in an emergency and really having to lay into the pedal and getting lockup instead of slowing.
That's just my vision on it... maybe it just takes more finesse to handle the greater braking force and less pedal travel before they lock up.
I could never quantify 1K spent on brakes.... never. No way.. no how.. I don't care how fast it makes me stop. 400-500 maybe but I'd still rather beat on the stock gear til I have to replace my stock parts.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (citat3962)*

quote:[HR][/HR]that article in GRM GrassRoots Motorsports[HR][/HR]​http://scirocco.dyndns.org/faq/brakes/pulpfriction/pfpage1.html


----------



## Racer_X (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (bxr140)*

I agree with most of bxr140's post, but he was being extremely generous with this statement:
quote:[HR][/HR]C) the baseline for the "feel" comparison is often a bone stock setup.[HR][/HR]​My experience is that the baseline is often a completely worn out and possibly broken bone stock setup. A good example of this is when people install braided stainless steel brake lines on a 10-15 year old car. They think all the improvement is from the new brake lines. They ignore two important facts: 
+ A new rubber line will be a lot better than a 10-15 year old rubber line, and 
+ The new brake fluid that they had to put in when they replaced the lines is probably 99% of the difference that they "feel" from the braided stainless lines.
A more fair comparison would be to take two old worn out cars and install stainless lines on one and new rubber lines on the other (with both cars getting new fluid). Then, compare the results on both cars.
Even if you are doing this at home, at least flush and bleed the system and drive on it for a week or so to get the feel of the old brakes with fresh fluid. That way you'll know how much of your improvement came from the fluid, and how much is the real benefit of the braided stainless brake lines.


----------



## chois (May 12, 2000)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (Racer_X)*

Agreed. Brake fluid maintenance is the most overlooked item on most street cars, and has an enormous effect on brake 'feel'.


----------



## FlashRedGLS1.8T (Apr 17, 2001)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (bxr140)*

I'm on stock brakes at all 4 corners on my 2000 Golf with 58,000 miles.
IMO the stock brakes on the IV chassis are very good, well atleast the
ones on my car have been.
From my experience, mostly my parents, brothers and wife, the OEM brakes on 
my car are superior to any of their new cars.
I have to admit though, I am in need of new fronts though because I don't have
much pad left and I get the shudders when stopping from anything over 70mph.
This just came on about 3 months ago and I have neglected to spend the $ on a 
new set of stoppers.
I agree with you though. The brake issue is a lot like the wheel issue, most 
people aren't buying them because they need them, they are buying them 
because they want them. And that's cool.


----------



## evoljetta. (Feb 1, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (FlashRedGLS1.8T)*

Just my 2cents.....
Had some fading issues with the stock setup at the track.....switched over to the TT upgrade and noticed little to no fade....not to sure about stopping distances...although I'm sure I have room to improve my driving skills, which would probably be more forgiving on my brakes anyways?? Anyways, I am very pleased with the results so far at the track...on the street...well...they look good....


----------



## bxr140 (Jul 18, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (evoljetta.)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Just my 2cents.....
Had some fading issues with the stock setup at the track....
[HR][/HR]​i assume by "stock setup" you mean all factory/OEM parts?


----------



## evoljetta. (Feb 1, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (bxr140)*

That is correct


----------



## Spiro SU (Dec 6, 2001)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (bxr140)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Just my 2cents.....
Had some fading issues with the stock setup at the track....

i assume by "stock setup" you mean all factory/OEM parts?[HR][/HR]​Me too. Faded and warped liked you wouldn't believe. The only good thing that came out of it is that my VW dealer actually replaced them under warranty because they shouldn't have gone that fast. Now these new one's are gone almost as well. Don't like the stock, sorry. I gave it two shots, it's out.


----------



## TDI Meister (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (Spiro D)*

well ... i went from a '99 passat 1.8t wagon to a '02 jetta tdi sedan, and there is a HUGE difference.
on the 2nd day of owning my jetta, i went back to the dealer & asked him to check my breaks, because i thought they were faulty ... i didn't seem to be able to stop very well .... but .... i guess i was just very used to the passat breaks.
I'd love to see VW put some bigger breaks in the jetta's .... they could use it.
--marco


----------



## chois (May 12, 2000)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (TDI Meister)*

quote:[HR][/HR]well ... i went from a '99 passat 1.8t wagon to a '02 jetta tdi sedan, and there is a HUGE difference.
on the 2nd day of owning my jetta, i went back to the dealer & asked him to check my breaks, because i thought they were faulty ... i didn't seem to be able to stop very well .... but .... i guess i was just very used to the passat breaks.
I'd love to see VW put some bigger breaks in the jetta's .... they could use it.
--marco[HR][/HR]​Please note that VW made a change in the brake pad compoud that they use a few years ago. People were complaining about the excellent initial bite that the brakes had, because it surprised them and did not allow them to make smooth stops. This may be the difference that you noticed. Otherwise I would suspect a problem as you did - the Mk IV brakes have felt excellent in every car I have driven.


----------



## TDI Meister (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (chois)*

hmmnn ... that would make sence .... never heard about that. people are weird ... i wish they'd have just left those breaks - they were GOOD!


----------



## GTI-Turbo (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (kewl20v)*

quote:[HR][/HR] Do a search for brake #'s. Post was done by _bluevr6_ I think. His name is Kevin and seems to have quite alot of info on the matter.[HR][/HR]​Yup. It's some interesting reading...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=472343


----------



## bluevr6 (Apr 19, 2000)

*Re: Are VW's brakes really that bad? (GTI-Turbo)*

Hey guys:
I'm still around, but I visit the tex less frequently.
Getting the GTI ready for another season of Auto-x.
Yep, those were the numbers I had.
Haven't done any VW brake pad testing recently, just max G load with suspension changes.
I have done some brake pad testing on my Fiat, but that's another forum.








Kevin


----------

