Best Brake Pads for SUV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
288
Location
KC Metro
I'm looking for a consensus here ... for the best brake pads to use on my 1999 Suburban. The pads are for the front (I have drums on the rears). I'm also open to changing rotors as well. Any and all insights are welcomed and appreciated!
grin.gif
 
I used Wagner Thermoquiet's on my 1998 chev k1500 extended cab which is on the same chassis as your suburban (and likely has the same brakes unless yours is a 3/4 ton).

I was pleased with them.
 
I don't know if they're the best, but I use Bendix with Kevlar in them. Supposedly the same type they spec for ambulances.
 
You need to tell us what you mean by best. Ultimate stopping power? Low dust? Low Noise? Long wear?

There really is no best, it is a matter of what you want. It is all a trade off.

In my experience a carbon metalic type tend to stop the best. Ceramic tend to produce the least amount of dust. Stay away from organic.
 
Thanks to everyone who's replied so far.

Junior - good questions. I guess what I'm looking for is stopping power. While keeping brake dust low is ideal, it isn't the most important thing for me.

I've heard good things about Axxis and Hawk Performance pads. Any thoughts on either of those?

What about rotors?
 
I haven't used either of those pads. I would probably try them at some point when I need to replace brakes. One thing to keep in mind is all brake pads have to fall in a coefficient of friction range. Most MFG won't publish that data.

I am currently using Performance Friction pads on an 04 Accord. Butt dyno seems to feel like slightly better braking performance, work better when hot, more resistant to fade. A little more dust than Honda OEM but to me they have a better feel. I use the Z-rated on my F150, they dust more, have a better initial bite when warm and work better when above 200F. The first stop on cold mornings feels a little different.

As far a rotors: On lightly loaded systems, most aftermarket will probably work ok. Personally, I believe there is a difference between the el-cheapos and the name brand rotors and buy the more expensive rotors.

If you want to spend some money I have heard good things about cyrogenically treated rotors. Google "frozen rotors" Supposed to last longer, less prone to warp and disapate heat better.
 
Quote:


I haven't used either of those pads. I would probably try them at some point when I need to replace brakes. One thing to keep in mind is all brake pads have to fall in a coefficient of friction range. Most MFG won't publish that data.




. . . except on the side of the pad!

I just bought the cheapest FF pads I could find (Jasper) for the brake pad changes I've done. They haven't been in use long enough to determine longevity, but brake feel was better than with FE pads.
 
I use Hawks on my 91 GMC 2500 Van. Great Stopping Power but are noisy sometimes. Not dusty to me. I am using plain brembo blanks
 
Mostly comes down to how much you're willing to spend. Pick a price range then compare what's available there. No 18.95 AZ pads' gonna be as good as 89.95 whatevers.

Bob
 
Great stuff so far everyone - thanks!

Junior - I've heard of those cryogenically treated rotors. They sound fantastic! I might be willing to give them a try.

I guess I'm looking for pads to go with rotors like those; ones that work well with them, that brake well and last a while.
 
Quote:


Quote:


I haven't used either of those pads. I would probably try them at some point when I need to replace brakes. One thing to keep in mind is all brake pads have to fall in a coefficient of friction range. Most MFG won't publish that data.




. . . except on the side of the pad!

I just bought the cheapest FF pads I could find (Jasper) for the brake pad changes I've done. They haven't been in use long enough to determine longevity, but brake feel was better than with FE pads.




Coefficient of friction:

E .25 to .35
F .35 to .45
G .45 to .55
H .55 to .65

Note a range. Most MFGs will not give you the exact value.

Pads are rated at two temps (i.e. EE FE FF etc.)

First letter is at 250F Second letter is at 600F
 
Junior -

Please excuse my ignorance. Could you define (in as simple terms as possible) coefficient of friction? Also, what impact does that have on brakes?

Thanks!
smile.gif
 
I'm guessing that a higher coefficient of friction means a grippier or more abrasive brake pad.

More friction means faster pad/rotor wear, usually more dust, but better braking.
 
Coefficient of Friction is the force required to slid an object across a surface divided by the objects weight. For example if you have a 100 pound weight and it takes 35 pounds of force to slide the object the coefficeint of friction would be 35/100 or .35

I'm not a brake expert but higer COF puts more of the brake pad/caliper clamp load/force into slowing the rotating rotor.

The higher the COF the greater the initial bite, higher rotor wear and noise. From what I have read, it is not recommended to use higher COF than FF rated pads for street use.
 
Thanks for the help, Junior. Now I understand the terminology a lot more. It's nice to know/understand what everyone is talking about. I'm not afraid to admit when I don't know something!
smile.gif
 
I also scrub the new pads against a sheet of sandpaper to lightly scuff them before installation. It seems to eliminate any issues with break in. I hate noisy brakes.
 
The reason I go with FF over FE pads is that there is more potential for brake fade with an FE pad. An FE pad could have a Cf of .45 cold and .25 hot, while an FF pad at .45 cold must be at least .35 hot. However, an FE pad could be .36 cold and .34 hot, which would fade less than most FF pads, but likely requires a little more pedal force. On some vehicles with more heavily assisted brakes, that might not be a bad thing.

Maybe it doesn't matter that much, but I'm going to stick with FF pads because I've had good experiences with them and it seems that most higher-quality brake systems use FF pads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top