USA made rotors
09-10-2009, 03:45 PM
#1
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
USA made rotors
Some time not very long ago NAPA rotors were recommended for use on track cars, as they were, at the time, USA made and of higher quality that "economy priced" Chinese rotors. Well, the last I ordered the NAPA rotors I got 1 USA and 1 Chinese, and I believe all the new ones were going to be Chinese. So... Is there another source for inexpensive USA rotors now? I've got a cracked right front after my last auto-X day...don't remember if this was the Chinese or US rotor...
What say the sages here?
Thanks!
C-4 with C-5 front upgrade...
What say the sages here?
Thanks!
C-4 with C-5 front upgrade...
09-10-2009, 05:01 PM
#2
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC (formerly Endicott, NY)
Posts: 40,076
Received 8,910 Likes
on
5,325 Posts
The NAPA rotors are still good. They have been coming from China for about 2 years now although there is some new old stock from Canada and the US still floating around. I picked up a rotor made in the US from NAPA earlier this year. I have been buying those rotors for 5 or 6 years and that was the first one that I had ever seen made in the US. I really didn't notice any life time differences between the rotors no matter where they were made. The big issue is the move to China seems to have doubled the price. This was not a gradual increase as the price went up as soon as they started selling the rotors made in China.
Bill
Bill
09-10-2009, 05:20 PM
#3
Safety Car
The key item is the width of the "air gap". Cheap rotors use a much larger air gap - which mean less steel is necessary. Can we say cost savings?
I've got an article coming out in a few months that goes into much more detail. In the meantime you can check it out on my website.
Richard Newton
Twitter
I've got an article coming out in a few months that goes into much more detail. In the meantime you can check it out on my website.
Richard Newton
09-10-2009, 05:30 PM
#4
Team Owner
The key item is the width of the "air gap". Cheap rotors use a much larger air gap - which mean less steel is necessary. Can we say cost savings?
I've got an article coming out in a few months that goes into much more detail. In the meantime you can check it out on my website.
Richard Newton
Twitter
I've got an article coming out in a few months that goes into much more detail. In the meantime you can check it out on my website.
Richard Newton
09-10-2009, 07:08 PM
#5
Race Director
09-10-2009, 07:39 PM
#6
Team Owner
The key item is the width of the "air gap". Cheap rotors use a much larger air gap - which mean less steel is necessary. Can we say cost savings?
I've got an article coming out in a few months that goes into much more detail. In the meantime you can check it out on my website.
Richard Newton
Twitter
I've got an article coming out in a few months that goes into much more detail. In the meantime you can check it out on my website.
Richard Newton
I just did a C5 front brake upgrade on my 87 and I bought Raybestos Professional Grade Advanced Technology rotors and they held up very well for their first track day with OEM Z06 pads. IIRC, they had a "CHINA" casting on the inside of the hat but it would be interesting to see if these rotors are actually not to spec.
09-10-2009, 07:42 PM
#7
Drifting
The key item is the width of the "air gap". Cheap rotors use a much larger air gap - which mean less steel is necessary. Can we say cost savings?
I've got an article coming out in a few months that goes into much more detail. In the meantime you can check it out on my website.
Richard Newton
Twitter
I've got an article coming out in a few months that goes into much more detail. In the meantime you can check it out on my website.
Richard Newton
FM
09-11-2009, 06:16 AM
#8
Safety Car
Some answers.
1. The article is only a few weeks old.
2. I don't know the stock air gap on C5 and C6 rotors. Someone must have some OEM rotors sill on their car. Could you measure it for us?
3. The lip isn't very big. I don't know if anyone has ever found an optimum number. I used aluminum on my C4 and it's about 3/4". The factory lip on the ZO6 is smaller and some sort of high-tch plastic. The one in the picture is plastic. You might want to look at the factory lip for inspiration. That's not just a trim piece - it's part of the braking system.
Richard Newton
Twitter
1. The article is only a few weeks old.
2. I don't know the stock air gap on C5 and C6 rotors. Someone must have some OEM rotors sill on their car. Could you measure it for us?
3. The lip isn't very big. I don't know if anyone has ever found an optimum number. I used aluminum on my C4 and it's about 3/4". The factory lip on the ZO6 is smaller and some sort of high-tch plastic. The one in the picture is plastic. You might want to look at the factory lip for inspiration. That's not just a trim piece - it's part of the braking system.
Richard Newton
09-11-2009, 06:40 AM
#9
Team Owner
more
Affinia Files Suit Over Brake Safety Concerns
Wed Jul 8, 2009 10:43am EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
Featured Broker sponsored link
Lawsuit targets false advertising in aftermarket auto parts industry
ANN ARBOR, Mich., July 8 /PRNewswire/ -- Affinia Group Inc., a leader in the
aftermarket automotive parts industry, today filed suit against one of its
competitors for competing unfairly by falsely advertising the quality of
certain of its brake rotors for cars and light-duty trucks.
The issue is important to consumers because intentional deviations from
original equipment (OE) specifications for brake rotors can lead to safety
risks. (Original equipment parts are those that come in a new car or truck.)
Testing by a respected independent laboratory has shown that certain
"Lightweight Rotors" made by the defendant, Dura International of Rancho
Dominguez, Ca., weighed significantly less than OE specifications, although
the weight is not the only concern. These rotors were structurally weaker and
significantly more prone than their OE counterparts to crack and fail in
performance tests.
Manufacturers and importers of aftermarket, or replacement, parts have a
tremendous incentive to expressly state or otherwise imply to potential
purchasers that their parts are consistent with OE specifications and that
their performance and durability are consistent with the performance and
durability of OE parts.
Most do-it-yourselfers and auto repair shops rely on such advertising
statements because they lack the technical expertise to know whether a part
actually meets or exceeds OE specifications and performance. If potential
purchasers are told that aftermarket parts from competing suppliers are of
comparable quality - i.e., meet or exceed OE specifications - price
differences between competing products become significant.
"Lightweight Rotors" cost less to produce. They are, however, more likely to
fail than parts that meet OE specifications, which can create safety risks.
Despite the fact that Dura's "Lightweight Rotors" do not meet or exceed OE
specifications, the company continues to expressly state or otherwise imply
that every unit meets or exceeds OE specifications and performance.
These false claims give Dura an unfair advantage over Affinia. Dura's false
and misleading advertising creates a motor vehicle safety risk, and Affinia,
in its lawsuit, is asking the court to halt it.
Affinia's legal action addresses certain of Dura's Lightweight Rotors and not
the company's entire product line.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court, Richmond, Va.
Affinia's primary concern is safety, not sales. Had Affinia chosen to do so,
it could have imported and marketed comparable lightweight brake rotors. But
Affinia believes that to do so would have been irresponsible.
Affinia believes that Dura and other companies began introducing the
"Lightweight Rotors" into the North American market in the summer of 2008.
Affinia believes the design changes were based not on engineering or
performance criteria but on some other criteria, such as a desire to reduce
mass and control costs.
Brake rotors are the components that brake pads clamp onto to stop the
vehicle. They essentially are twin steel discs that form a "sandwich" with an
air pocket in the middle. The discs are kept apart by "vanes" that radiate out
from the interior hub. The air gap is necessary to dissipate the intense heat
generated by braking.
In "dimensional" - or precision measurement - testing, some Dura rotors were
as much as 18.83% lighter than OE specifications, and the air gaps in the
middle were up to 68.58% wider. A number of the Dura rotors also had fewer
vanes and thinner ones than in corresponding OE rotors.
The design changes are not merely cosmetic. Rather, they reduce the overall
mass of the rotor, which impacts performance. Tests conducted by the
third-party laboratory at Affinia's request confirm that these changes have
significantly impaired performance and durability.
In "thermal fatigue" tests meant to simulate the stress of long-term
start-and-stop driving, original equipment manufacturers would expect a rotor
to survive 100 testing cycles without cracking that reaches the edge of the
surface of the rotors. The industry practice is to test for 150 cycles.
Affinia's independent laboratory tested Dura rotors marketed as replacements
for the OE rotors in the model year 2007 Dodge Caravan and the model year 2005
Chevrolet Silverado. All six of the Caravan replacement rotors developed
cracks prior to completing 100 cycles, with three failing before 60 cycles and
one failing before only 50 cycles.
The six Dura replacement rotors for the Silverado were just as unimpressive.
Five of the Dura rotors developed cracks before completing 75 cycles, while
one rotor did complete 150 cycles without cracking.
In its lawsuit, Affinia seeks to enjoin Dura from making false claims for its
brake rotor products or falsely implying that its "Lightweight Rotors" meet or
exceed OE specifications and performance.
Affinia also asks the court to order Dura to publish corrective advertising
disclosing that their "Lightweight Rotors" intentionally deviate from OE
specifications, have not been tested to meet or exceed OE specifications and
performance, and have not been subjected to independent engineering
validation.
Affinia seeks damages in amounts to be determined at trial.
SOURCE Affinia Group Inc.
Thomas Mulligan, thomas_mulligan@sitrick.com; or Jeff Lloyd,
jeff_lloyd@sitrick.com, both of Sitrick And Company, +1-212-573-6100
Affinia Files Suit Over Brake Safety Concerns
Wed Jul 8, 2009 10:43am EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
Featured Broker sponsored link
Lawsuit targets false advertising in aftermarket auto parts industry
ANN ARBOR, Mich., July 8 /PRNewswire/ -- Affinia Group Inc., a leader in the
aftermarket automotive parts industry, today filed suit against one of its
competitors for competing unfairly by falsely advertising the quality of
certain of its brake rotors for cars and light-duty trucks.
The issue is important to consumers because intentional deviations from
original equipment (OE) specifications for brake rotors can lead to safety
risks. (Original equipment parts are those that come in a new car or truck.)
Testing by a respected independent laboratory has shown that certain
"Lightweight Rotors" made by the defendant, Dura International of Rancho
Dominguez, Ca., weighed significantly less than OE specifications, although
the weight is not the only concern. These rotors were structurally weaker and
significantly more prone than their OE counterparts to crack and fail in
performance tests.
Manufacturers and importers of aftermarket, or replacement, parts have a
tremendous incentive to expressly state or otherwise imply to potential
purchasers that their parts are consistent with OE specifications and that
their performance and durability are consistent with the performance and
durability of OE parts.
Most do-it-yourselfers and auto repair shops rely on such advertising
statements because they lack the technical expertise to know whether a part
actually meets or exceeds OE specifications and performance. If potential
purchasers are told that aftermarket parts from competing suppliers are of
comparable quality - i.e., meet or exceed OE specifications - price
differences between competing products become significant.
"Lightweight Rotors" cost less to produce. They are, however, more likely to
fail than parts that meet OE specifications, which can create safety risks.
Despite the fact that Dura's "Lightweight Rotors" do not meet or exceed OE
specifications, the company continues to expressly state or otherwise imply
that every unit meets or exceeds OE specifications and performance.
These false claims give Dura an unfair advantage over Affinia. Dura's false
and misleading advertising creates a motor vehicle safety risk, and Affinia,
in its lawsuit, is asking the court to halt it.
Affinia's legal action addresses certain of Dura's Lightweight Rotors and not
the company's entire product line.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court, Richmond, Va.
Affinia's primary concern is safety, not sales. Had Affinia chosen to do so,
it could have imported and marketed comparable lightweight brake rotors. But
Affinia believes that to do so would have been irresponsible.
Affinia believes that Dura and other companies began introducing the
"Lightweight Rotors" into the North American market in the summer of 2008.
Affinia believes the design changes were based not on engineering or
performance criteria but on some other criteria, such as a desire to reduce
mass and control costs.
Brake rotors are the components that brake pads clamp onto to stop the
vehicle. They essentially are twin steel discs that form a "sandwich" with an
air pocket in the middle. The discs are kept apart by "vanes" that radiate out
from the interior hub. The air gap is necessary to dissipate the intense heat
generated by braking.
In "dimensional" - or precision measurement - testing, some Dura rotors were
as much as 18.83% lighter than OE specifications, and the air gaps in the
middle were up to 68.58% wider. A number of the Dura rotors also had fewer
vanes and thinner ones than in corresponding OE rotors.
The design changes are not merely cosmetic. Rather, they reduce the overall
mass of the rotor, which impacts performance. Tests conducted by the
third-party laboratory at Affinia's request confirm that these changes have
significantly impaired performance and durability.
In "thermal fatigue" tests meant to simulate the stress of long-term
start-and-stop driving, original equipment manufacturers would expect a rotor
to survive 100 testing cycles without cracking that reaches the edge of the
surface of the rotors. The industry practice is to test for 150 cycles.
Affinia's independent laboratory tested Dura rotors marketed as replacements
for the OE rotors in the model year 2007 Dodge Caravan and the model year 2005
Chevrolet Silverado. All six of the Caravan replacement rotors developed
cracks prior to completing 100 cycles, with three failing before 60 cycles and
one failing before only 50 cycles.
The six Dura replacement rotors for the Silverado were just as unimpressive.
Five of the Dura rotors developed cracks before completing 75 cycles, while
one rotor did complete 150 cycles without cracking.
In its lawsuit, Affinia seeks to enjoin Dura from making false claims for its
brake rotor products or falsely implying that its "Lightweight Rotors" meet or
exceed OE specifications and performance.
Affinia also asks the court to order Dura to publish corrective advertising
disclosing that their "Lightweight Rotors" intentionally deviate from OE
specifications, have not been tested to meet or exceed OE specifications and
performance, and have not been subjected to independent engineering
validation.
Affinia seeks damages in amounts to be determined at trial.
SOURCE Affinia Group Inc.
Thomas Mulligan, thomas_mulligan@sitrick.com; or Jeff Lloyd,
jeff_lloyd@sitrick.com, both of Sitrick And Company, +1-212-573-6100
09-28-2009, 07:05 PM
#10
Drifting
Some answers.
1. The article is only a few weeks old.
2. I don't know the stock air gap on C5 and C6 rotors. Someone must have some OEM rotors sill on their car. Could you measure it for us?
3. The lip isn't very big. I don't know if anyone has ever found an optimum number. I used aluminum on my C4 and it's about 3/4". The factory lip on the ZO6 is smaller and some sort of high-tch plastic. The one in the picture is plastic. You might want to look at the factory lip for inspiration. That's not just a trim piece - it's part of the braking system.
Richard Newton
Twitter
1. The article is only a few weeks old.
2. I don't know the stock air gap on C5 and C6 rotors. Someone must have some OEM rotors sill on their car. Could you measure it for us?
3. The lip isn't very big. I don't know if anyone has ever found an optimum number. I used aluminum on my C4 and it's about 3/4". The factory lip on the ZO6 is smaller and some sort of high-tch plastic. The one in the picture is plastic. You might want to look at the factory lip for inspiration. That's not just a trim piece - it's part of the braking system.
Richard Newton
Air gap on no-name rotor same. No name rotor has almost .030" lateral runout after 1 track day. I spent most of the day scraping pad build-up off the rotor between sessions. I don't know why this one is so bad. I have had good luck with the cheap NAPA, Rockauto, rotors; including the made in China ones.
09-29-2009, 08:43 AM
#12
Vetteless
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Gallatin TN
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St. Jude Donor '09
On the T1 car, we ran a whole bunch of Bendix rotors that were all made in China. Before I bought those, I started out with about 5 sets of the "Made in Canada" rotors when I first got the car. As it turned out, all the rotors I used wore pretty much the same and were trashed after one weekend, and sometimes after one race. My rule was that any time I changed pads, I changed rotors as well. The one time I tried to shortcut that, I cracked both front rotors.
For a track day car, treat rotors as consumables just like gas or tires. Plan to use a set every weekend, and if you get more life out of them then great. IMHO - any extra money you spend to get "better" rotors will be wasted. If you really want more reliability out of your brakes, put on a BBK - that's the only way you'll get a C5 to stop consistently and quickly.
For a track day car, treat rotors as consumables just like gas or tires. Plan to use a set every weekend, and if you get more life out of them then great. IMHO - any extra money you spend to get "better" rotors will be wasted. If you really want more reliability out of your brakes, put on a BBK - that's the only way you'll get a C5 to stop consistently and quickly.
09-29-2009, 12:13 PM
#14
Race Director
The key item is the width of the "air gap". Cheap rotors use a much larger air gap - which mean less steel is necessary. Can we say cost savings?
I've got an article coming out in a few months that goes into much more detail. In the meantime you can check it out on my website.
Richard Newton
Twitter
I've got an article coming out in a few months that goes into much more detail. In the meantime you can check it out on my website.
Richard Newton
09-30-2009, 02:08 PM
#16
Former Vendor
Member Since: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're interested...
We're looking at a release date of roughly 3rd week of October for a 2pc replacement in C6 Z51 sizes using a Coleman ring with aluminum hat and floating hardware.
We're looking at a release date of roughly 3rd week of October for a 2pc replacement in C6 Z51 sizes using a Coleman ring with aluminum hat and floating hardware.
09-30-2009, 08:28 PM
#17
Le Mans Master
Yeah it seems like you were busting rotors after every session. I remember you saying you were switching to Carbotechs a while back. Do they have the same characteristics as the Hawks?
