Brakes: C3 vs. C5
Melting Slicks
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 156
From: Mid West
Cruise-In III Veteran
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (70 LS1)
The 2 piston calipers are not any better than a 4 piston caliper regarding performance. They do have 1/2 the seals to leak and 1/2 the pistons to manufacture. Cost and warrenty work probably drove this chose for the C5's. If you look at 1984 vettes, they only had 1 piston!!
2 pistons can work as well as 4 piston calipers as long as they float properly. This is where most floating pistons have thier down fall. After some use, if not properly lubricated on a regular bases, they tend to hang up on the pins and don't give a good consistent brake pressure across the pads.
The real benefit of a C5's brakes is they are light weight and have larger rotors. The less unsprung weight you have, the better handling the car will be. The larger rotor = more braking torque = better stopping power.
Unless you upgrade to larger rotors and wheels, going to C5 calipers shouldn't improve your breaking, but would lighten up your unsprung weight.
2 pistons can work as well as 4 piston calipers as long as they float properly. This is where most floating pistons have thier down fall. After some use, if not properly lubricated on a regular bases, they tend to hang up on the pins and don't give a good consistent brake pressure across the pads.
The real benefit of a C5's brakes is they are light weight and have larger rotors. The less unsprung weight you have, the better handling the car will be. The larger rotor = more braking torque = better stopping power.
Unless you upgrade to larger rotors and wheels, going to C5 calipers shouldn't improve your breaking, but would lighten up your unsprung weight.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 8,220
Likes: 208
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (Jason Staley)
That's great info Jason. Sorry for going bit off topic here, but I would like to ask what rear end ratio you are using with that 5 speed Richmond? How do you like it? :cheers:
Team Owner
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 65,492
Likes: 230
From: Orange Park Florida
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (70 LS1)
70LS, I looked at the Caddy and Vette cars at Daytona?? some years ago..and noticed ONE thing...the rotors were 1.25 inches thick...not these things foisted off these days as stock rotors....
argue pisons and calipers, and diameters, and floating/fixed all damn day long..but the final thing is COOLING and MASS that means thick VENTED rotors and airflow....
Yeh a 15 inch rotor is better than an 11 inch rotor....but for anything less than full out racing.....I"d stick with the stock C3 vete brakes....
GENE
argue pisons and calipers, and diameters, and floating/fixed all damn day long..but the final thing is COOLING and MASS that means thick VENTED rotors and airflow....
Yeh a 15 inch rotor is better than an 11 inch rotor....but for anything less than full out racing.....I"d stick with the stock C3 vete brakes....
GENE
Melting Slicks
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 156
From: Mid West
Cruise-In III Veteran
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (groovyjay)
groovyjav, I'm using the stock 3:08 rear end ratio with the 5 speed. It makes for a very streetable and fast car - 1st gear acts like it has ~4.56 due to the low ratio in the tranny.
As for the breaks issue, here's what I'm running:
Front: Stainless Steel Brake Corp's aluminum calipers w/ 4 stainless steel pistons and VBP's sport slotted rotors and aluminum hubs
Rear: Wilwood Aluminum 4 piston calipers with stock rotors
Brake Pads: Hawk Street Pads
System works great, doesn't leak anymore :D , and weighs 10lbs less at EACH wheel (40 lbs total reduction in unsprung weight) :D . :cheers:
As for the breaks issue, here's what I'm running:
Front: Stainless Steel Brake Corp's aluminum calipers w/ 4 stainless steel pistons and VBP's sport slotted rotors and aluminum hubs
Rear: Wilwood Aluminum 4 piston calipers with stock rotors
Brake Pads: Hawk Street Pads
System works great, doesn't leak anymore :D , and weighs 10lbs less at EACH wheel (40 lbs total reduction in unsprung weight) :D . :cheers:
Le Mans Master
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,273
Likes: 14
From: Austin TX
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (Jason Staley)
Jason, I'm curious as to what difference you noted when you changed over to the lighter calipers. Ten lbs per wheel must make some difference in feel. What did you notice?
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvette Engines RANKED by Peak Torque (70+ Years of Muscle!)
Joe Kucinski
Corvette ZR1X Will Be Pacing the Indy 500, And Could Probably Race, Too!
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvettes Coming to Mecum Indy 2026!
Brett Foote
Top 10 C9 Corvette MUST-HAVES to Fix These C8 Generation Flaws!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Revolutionary 'Corvette Firsts' Most People Don't Know
Joe Kucinski
5 Reasons to Upgrade to an LS6-Powered Corvette; 5 Reasons to Stay LT2
Michael S. Palmer
Le Mans Master
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,236
Likes: 898
From: Myrtle Beach SC
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (Jason Staley)
Dave McClellan's new book talks about this and explains the problems they had with C3 brakes early on and then the rationale behind the C5 system which Jason outlined.
C3s were engineered and tested aggressively meaning, when owners began to allow their Corvettes to sit, it compromised the intended heat buildup that would burn off the moisture that naturally accumulated inside the Dot 3 system. Engineers expected Corvette owners to drive them often and hard! While the aftermarket beat them to the punch with SS, eventually they figured it out and moved on to various alloys.
Technology for C5 brakes was intended to reduce weight, eliminate drag, and maximize fuel economy. McClellan explains that with 16 pistons, and springs, this system created lots of drag which was overcome by the HP common in the 60's and early 70's. HP just overwhelmed any drag from brake pads. But by the 90's, engineers did everything possible to maximize fuel economy and avoid the gas guzzler tax...GM's policy was to build cars that did not qualify for this tax!
So in contrast to a four piston system in the C3 that "rode" the rotor, C5 technology deployed a single piston that "floated" on its greased pins. I believe the rotors in the C5 were sized downward from those used on a C4 because they learned that by venting and tailoring the vehicle's weight...they could reduce rotor weight and still maximize braking capability.
The C5's rotor diameter and thickness are 11 1/2 and 7/8 inch and material aluminum. In contrast, C3 rotors are cast iron, 11 3/4 inch diameter and 1 1/4 inch thick.
The C4s rotors in 1990 are listed as follows but reported in metric...perhaps someone can do the conversion and report back with the inch equivalent. The C4 used a different diameter disk for the inside and outside caliper and I shows that for both. I also list bot the base rotor and heavy duty rotor for the front (ZR1?).
Thickness: Front: Base=20 mm; H/D=28: Rear=20
Diameter Outer: Front: Base=302.3 mm; H/D=327.3 mm: Rear 302.7 mm
Diameter Inner: Front: Base=222.3mm; H/D=237.3 mm: Rear 232.7 mm
So there you have it...the evolution of brake technology from C3 to C5 and something in between.
By the way...I checked out your webstie on that LS1 1970 Lt1...have you cranked it up yet?
C3s were engineered and tested aggressively meaning, when owners began to allow their Corvettes to sit, it compromised the intended heat buildup that would burn off the moisture that naturally accumulated inside the Dot 3 system. Engineers expected Corvette owners to drive them often and hard! While the aftermarket beat them to the punch with SS, eventually they figured it out and moved on to various alloys.
Technology for C5 brakes was intended to reduce weight, eliminate drag, and maximize fuel economy. McClellan explains that with 16 pistons, and springs, this system created lots of drag which was overcome by the HP common in the 60's and early 70's. HP just overwhelmed any drag from brake pads. But by the 90's, engineers did everything possible to maximize fuel economy and avoid the gas guzzler tax...GM's policy was to build cars that did not qualify for this tax!
So in contrast to a four piston system in the C3 that "rode" the rotor, C5 technology deployed a single piston that "floated" on its greased pins. I believe the rotors in the C5 were sized downward from those used on a C4 because they learned that by venting and tailoring the vehicle's weight...they could reduce rotor weight and still maximize braking capability.
The C5's rotor diameter and thickness are 11 1/2 and 7/8 inch and material aluminum. In contrast, C3 rotors are cast iron, 11 3/4 inch diameter and 1 1/4 inch thick.
The C4s rotors in 1990 are listed as follows but reported in metric...perhaps someone can do the conversion and report back with the inch equivalent. The C4 used a different diameter disk for the inside and outside caliper and I shows that for both. I also list bot the base rotor and heavy duty rotor for the front (ZR1?).
Thickness: Front: Base=20 mm; H/D=28: Rear=20
Diameter Outer: Front: Base=302.3 mm; H/D=327.3 mm: Rear 302.7 mm
Diameter Inner: Front: Base=222.3mm; H/D=237.3 mm: Rear 232.7 mm
So there you have it...the evolution of brake technology from C3 to C5 and something in between.
By the way...I checked out your webstie on that LS1 1970 Lt1...have you cranked it up yet?
Team Owner
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 65,492
Likes: 230
From: Orange Park Florida
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (flynhi)
If my C3 calipers were not allready stainless lined, I sure would not buy them.but go to the aluminum equivalent as above described....
but a 7/8 inch thick rotor will not have as good a cooling as a rotor that is 1.25 inches thick.....and if you go look at the vette/caddy ***** out race cars, the rotors are 1.25 inches thick..vented same in any case....
I very rarely if ever hear of a warped defective C3 rotor, compared to the C4-5 designs...they warp all the time...ton's of excuses as to why...but ME, sorry it's just plainly too thin for a high performance car...get over it......
Now the lighter calipers and aluminum hubs and so on are fine....
but mentioning aluminum ROTORS....maybe some center section??? no matter what you do with a rotor.....aluminum is out in my opinion....I would not have it on the car....to me, it's plainly dangerous....I think aluminum hubs are a bit much to ask too.....all the HUBS I remember seeing on a C4 were steel construction...and the rotors were iron....frankly I don't remember all the C4 front end hubs and rotors...I DO remember the rears though...they are a bitch only slightly better than a C3 rear hub.....just a plug in assy....
I contend you need three things for superior braking....simple observation here...MASS (thickness) and cooling...plus diameter...obviously.....
apparently the overall pad area is not all that critical...but I would say the C3 pads have more area than the C4 for sure....and maybe more than C5 even...
GENE
but a 7/8 inch thick rotor will not have as good a cooling as a rotor that is 1.25 inches thick.....and if you go look at the vette/caddy ***** out race cars, the rotors are 1.25 inches thick..vented same in any case....
I very rarely if ever hear of a warped defective C3 rotor, compared to the C4-5 designs...they warp all the time...ton's of excuses as to why...but ME, sorry it's just plainly too thin for a high performance car...get over it......
Now the lighter calipers and aluminum hubs and so on are fine....
but mentioning aluminum ROTORS....maybe some center section??? no matter what you do with a rotor.....aluminum is out in my opinion....I would not have it on the car....to me, it's plainly dangerous....I think aluminum hubs are a bit much to ask too.....all the HUBS I remember seeing on a C4 were steel construction...and the rotors were iron....frankly I don't remember all the C4 front end hubs and rotors...I DO remember the rears though...they are a bitch only slightly better than a C3 rear hub.....just a plug in assy....
I contend you need three things for superior braking....simple observation here...MASS (thickness) and cooling...plus diameter...obviously.....
apparently the overall pad area is not all that critical...but I would say the C3 pads have more area than the C4 for sure....and maybe more than C5 even...
GENE
Thread Starter
Melting Slicks
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,812
Likes: 4
From: Gig Harbor Wa
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (mrvette)
So let me see if I got this right.
C5
Larger diameter for more brake torque.
Lighter for less unsprung weight.
Simpler design so fewer chances of leaks.
Less drag.
Did I miss anything?
C5
Larger diameter for more brake torque.
Lighter for less unsprung weight.
Simpler design so fewer chances of leaks.
Less drag.
Did I miss anything?
Team Owner
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 65,492
Likes: 230
From: Orange Park Florida
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (70 LS1)
70LS1, most guys who have worked on a variety of cars will tell you that a floating caliper does NOT work as well as say fixed...like a C3...
mostly you can see it in the pad wear...one edge thin and the other thick...and the caliper tends to freeze in position..grinding on pad into the rotor...and causing weird wear patterns....time and time again I have seen this on my own and other folks cars....beleive when I say to NOT sell short that overall design of the C3 brakes....yeh as a stock configuration they leave some desires...but easily modified to do what is necessary....
not to say that aluminum castings are not desirable...they certainly are...but they are available apparently for the stock C3 configuration....
GENE
mostly you can see it in the pad wear...one edge thin and the other thick...and the caliper tends to freeze in position..grinding on pad into the rotor...and causing weird wear patterns....time and time again I have seen this on my own and other folks cars....beleive when I say to NOT sell short that overall design of the C3 brakes....yeh as a stock configuration they leave some desires...but easily modified to do what is necessary....
not to say that aluminum castings are not desirable...they certainly are...but they are available apparently for the stock C3 configuration....
GENE
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver BC, Canada
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (hunt4cleanair)
Dave McClellan's new book talks about this and explains the problems they had with C3 brakes early on and then the rationale behind the C5 system which Jason outlined.
C3s were engineered and tested aggressively meaning, when owners began to allow their Corvettes to sit, it compromised the intended heat buildup that would burn off the moisture that naturally accumulated inside the Dot 3 system. Engineers expected Corvette owners to drive them often and hard! While the aftermarket beat them to the punch with SS, eventually they figured it out and moved on to various alloys.
Technology for C5 brakes was intended to reduce weight, eliminate drag, and maximize fuel economy. McClellan explains that with 16 pistons, and springs, this system created lots of drag which was overcome by the HP common in the 60's and early 70's. HP just overwhelmed any drag from brake pads. But by the 90's, engineers did everything possible to maximize fuel economy and avoid the gas guzzler tax...GM's policy was to build cars that did not qualify for this tax!
So in contrast to a four piston system in the C3 that "rode" the rotor, C5 technology deployed a single piston that "floated" on its greased pins. I believe the rotors in the C5 were sized downward from those used on a C4 because they learned that by venting and tailoring the vehicle's weight...they could reduce rotor weight and still maximize braking capability.
The C5's rotor diameter and thickness are 11 1/2 and 7/8 inch and material aluminum. In contrast, C3 rotors are cast iron, 11 3/4 inch diameter and 1 1/4 inch thick.
The C4s rotors in 1990 are listed as follows but reported in metric...perhaps someone can do the conversion and report back with the inch equivalent. The C4 used a different diameter disk for the inside and outside caliper and I shows that for both. I also list bot the base rotor and heavy duty rotor for the front (ZR1?).
Thickness: Front: Base=20 mm; H/D=28: Rear=20
Diameter Outer: Front: Base=302.3 mm; H/D=327.3 mm: Rear 302.7 mm
Diameter Inner: Front: Base=222.3mm; H/D=237.3 mm: Rear 232.7 mm
So there you have it...the evolution of brake technology from C3 to C5 and something in between.
By the way...I checked out your webstie on that LS1 1970 Lt1...have you cranked it up yet?
C3s were engineered and tested aggressively meaning, when owners began to allow their Corvettes to sit, it compromised the intended heat buildup that would burn off the moisture that naturally accumulated inside the Dot 3 system. Engineers expected Corvette owners to drive them often and hard! While the aftermarket beat them to the punch with SS, eventually they figured it out and moved on to various alloys.
Technology for C5 brakes was intended to reduce weight, eliminate drag, and maximize fuel economy. McClellan explains that with 16 pistons, and springs, this system created lots of drag which was overcome by the HP common in the 60's and early 70's. HP just overwhelmed any drag from brake pads. But by the 90's, engineers did everything possible to maximize fuel economy and avoid the gas guzzler tax...GM's policy was to build cars that did not qualify for this tax!
So in contrast to a four piston system in the C3 that "rode" the rotor, C5 technology deployed a single piston that "floated" on its greased pins. I believe the rotors in the C5 were sized downward from those used on a C4 because they learned that by venting and tailoring the vehicle's weight...they could reduce rotor weight and still maximize braking capability.
The C5's rotor diameter and thickness are 11 1/2 and 7/8 inch and material aluminum. In contrast, C3 rotors are cast iron, 11 3/4 inch diameter and 1 1/4 inch thick.
The C4s rotors in 1990 are listed as follows but reported in metric...perhaps someone can do the conversion and report back with the inch equivalent. The C4 used a different diameter disk for the inside and outside caliper and I shows that for both. I also list bot the base rotor and heavy duty rotor for the front (ZR1?).
Thickness: Front: Base=20 mm; H/D=28: Rear=20
Diameter Outer: Front: Base=302.3 mm; H/D=327.3 mm: Rear 302.7 mm
Diameter Inner: Front: Base=222.3mm; H/D=237.3 mm: Rear 232.7 mm
So there you have it...the evolution of brake technology from C3 to C5 and something in between.
By the way...I checked out your webstie on that LS1 1970 Lt1...have you cranked it up yet?
don't forget C5s have very open wheels which play an important part in rotor cooling.
Melting Slicks
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 156
From: Mid West
Cruise-In III Veteran
Re: Brakes: C3 vs. C5 (flynhi)
I haven't had it to the track, so I can't quote you numbers. But, the car does feel alot more nimble since I lost the extra wait. I can't contribute all of the better feel to just the brakes, because I also upgraded to 17x8" rims with Nitto tires at the same time.
Also, I think somebody on here mistook one of my earlier posts. I DO NOT HAVE ALUMINUM ROTORS - you can't use that material for rotors or any other wear surface. It would just gawl up and rip itself to pieces. However, I do have aluminum hubs and calipers and the system works great. Been driving it on the streets with speed bumbs, pot holes, bad pavement, etc. for ~2 yrs now with no adverse affects yet.
Oh, and by the way the front SSBC aluminum calipers I'm using bolt directly to the existing brackets. The rear Wilwood calipers required an adaptor bracket. Just to break down the weight savings:
SSBC caliper - 5 lbs
VBP hubs/rotor - 5 lbs
Wilwood caliper - 10lbs
Cheers :cheers:
Also, I think somebody on here mistook one of my earlier posts. I DO NOT HAVE ALUMINUM ROTORS - you can't use that material for rotors or any other wear surface. It would just gawl up and rip itself to pieces. However, I do have aluminum hubs and calipers and the system works great. Been driving it on the streets with speed bumbs, pot holes, bad pavement, etc. for ~2 yrs now with no adverse affects yet.
Oh, and by the way the front SSBC aluminum calipers I'm using bolt directly to the existing brackets. The rear Wilwood calipers required an adaptor bracket. Just to break down the weight savings:
SSBC caliper - 5 lbs
VBP hubs/rotor - 5 lbs
Wilwood caliper - 10lbs
Cheers :cheers:
