McLaren Life banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I finally had a test drive with the CB's AND WAS IMPRESSED. When cold at low speed they responded OK and could be modulated, unlike the 458 which is hopeless at low speed.

At higher speeds they were very predictable, modulated well and if needed stopped the car dead.

Are they worth the £10k premium.........a tough question, they are much better than expected.

The Sports Exhaust is loud when on full chat, very loud. However it is also quiet when cruising. I think I now understand why it is not acceptable at some tracks......a shame if you like big noise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,889 Posts
I finally had a test drive with the CB's AND WAS IMPRESSED. When cold at low speed they responded OK and could be modulated, unlike the 458 which is hopeless at low speed.

At higher speeds they were very predictable, modulated well and if needed stopped the car dead.

Are they worth the £10k premium.........a tough question, they are much better than expected.

The Sports Exhaust is loud when on full chat, very loud. However it is also quiet when cruising. I think I now understand why it is not acceptable at some tracks......a shame if you like big noise.
Awesome. Was your impression of the exhaust from inside the car only? Or did you hear it at full chat from outside, too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I was in the car thus it is an 'inducted' noise. When the car was driven away it sounded better, 'in the flesh' so to speak, but I still have to hear it drive by.

It is noisy when on chat and leaves you in no doubt what the revs are and how they are progressing!

Still think I will be happy with the standard exhaust and will have to be as Donnington , Brands, Cadwell Park and Silverstone are tracks that I want to take the MP12 around. The Sports Exhaust will not pass the noise regs unless it is a noisy day.

The car is ballistic, those Turbo's do their job and more..........wonder how many will get caught out with their enthusiasm on bends and visit the scenery?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Hmmm, I should get a go in a car with Ceramics soon. I wasn't impressed with the feel or progression of the standard ones - do you reckon they are much better?

I take it there's no "sport off" mode on the exhaust to pass noise regs? Nuts that you can quite legally rag it up and down past the circuit all day, making as much noise as possible, but aren't allowed to go on the track :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I really think it's worth a go in a CB car, is it better?......different and better than I expected......you have to drive the car I think.......and find £10,000.

You cannot switch the exhaust noise off other than by the accelerator closing the valve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Do you really think the CB's are that much better ? I wasn't sure, and besides Mclaren said unless your tracking the car on a regular basis stay with standards, they are lighter so less unsprung weight. I personally would get CB's just because i love the way the massive caliper looks, and besides i cant drive well enough to notice the difference in unsprung weight !;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Major benefit of ceramics in general is lack of brake dust all over the wheels!

The steels seemed OK when you were at 100% (high speed, braking hard enough to get the airbrake up) but anything lower and they were very vague which is apparently normal. Hoping the ceramics do offer more feel at all speeds...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
I'm not sure the CB's are better other than on track where they will take the abuse. The discs are massive. I would have to drive at speed to judge any difference.

Where I have noticed CB's before is at speed and how they retard over short distance better than iron.

There was brake dust on fronts and rear wheels.

If I had £10,000 in loose change I'd be tempted.

Having said all that I have discussed the brakes with many Mclaren employees at the MTC and MPC and they are all consistent in saying the iron brakes are the choice for the average customer, very effective and powerful. This includes test drivers, designers, marketeers and top management that I have spoken with.

So I conclude the CB's are therefore for people who race or want fade free track performance and can afford the replacement cost of £10k or so. By comparison the iron disc replacement cost fitted is £2k.

My track buddies with GT3's have all switched back to iron on a running cost basis as they all were stung with £15k (Porsche discounted from £20k due to customer hostility ) replacement after a few hard track months.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
On a test-drive in traffic and rain, the carbon ceramic brakes tended to grab. Perhaps a different set of pads would help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Having said all that I have discussed the brakes with many Mclaren employees at the MTC and MPC and they are all consistent in saying the iron brakes are the choice for the average customer, very effective and powerful. This includes test drivers, designers, marketeers and top management that I have spoken with.

QUOTE]

I obviously spoke to the same people :) like i said i just love the way the big brakes look.
I will ask my dealer tomorrow the cost on the brakes, i know the SLR disc's are $24k each and the last time i had to change on the 599 they where about $5k each. They are made by Brembo for the 12C so i think they will be more in the Ferrari price range. The SLR disc's are the size of a dustbin lid, and they last, hence the price.
 

·
Performance Geek
Joined
·
17 Posts
I'm not sure the CB's are better other than on track where they will take the abuse. The discs are massive. I would have to drive at speed to judge any difference.

Where I have noticed CB's before is at speed and how they retard over short distance better than iron.

There was brake dust on fronts and rear wheels.

If I had £10,000 in loose change I'd be tempted.

Having said all that I have discussed the brakes with many Mclaren employees at the MTC and MPC and they are all consistent in saying the iron brakes are the choice for the average customer, very effective and powerful. This includes test drivers, designers, marketeers and top management that I have spoken with.

So I conclude the CB's are therefore for people who race or want fade free track performance and can afford the replacement cost of £10k or so. By comparison the iron disc replacement cost fitted is £2k.

My track buddies with GT3's have all switched back to iron on a running cost basis as they all were stung with £15k (Porsche discounted from £20k due to customer hostility ) replacement after a few hard track months.
Keep in mind both brake options were developed by the same team of engineers and craftsmen at AP Racing. What I'm reading here regarding feel has more to do with pads than anything else. There are lots of compound options for pads on iron rotors, while pads for carbon-ceramic discs are still few and far between. Look for better and better feeling C-C brakes a little further down the line as development continues. The feature improvement being chased most aggressively right now is better cold bite, since the ceramic discs do not contribute to brake torque like iron rotors do.

Also, for serious track use, the iron discs are a better choice. While the hit on unsprung weight is undeniable, the thermal capacity and lower replacement cost (plus no issues with oxidation) outweigh the weight issue for most people. Just make sure to choose appropriate pads for the course, tire choice and driving style.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Early ceramics suffered during track use and got a bad name but the Carrera Cup teams now use one set for a season!

It was definitely a feel thing. In fact if you look at the autocar MP4 v GT3 video, the GT3 takes chunks out of it under braking and given the way the car felt when I drove it, I'm really not surprised.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top