When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
yet everyone always looks for lighter forged wheels, it's all the same principle of reducing weight.
I figure I won't be replacing rotors all the time so i'll opt for the pricer solution without much worry and shop around for a better deal. If i put one piece on i'd end up putting 2 piece back before i sold the car anyway
it's all about choices and thankfully there is an option
i find the whole premise of reducing weight in these cars laughable. your buying a pig with a v8, yet you have guys trying to cut off 20 pounds. woopty doo. you want a lightweight car with power, go with a viper or vette. end of story.
stop trying to "reduce" weight on a bloated mercedes.
i find the whole premise of reducing weight in these cars laughable. your buying a pig with a v8, yet you have guys trying to cut off 20 pounds. woopty doo. you want a lightweight car with power, go with a viper or vette. end of story.
stop trying to "reduce" weight on a bloated mercedes.
^ horrible advice.
Weight reduction can be one of the cheapest ways to make the car perform better. 100lbs is 1/10th at the track. Some guys spend thousands and thousands of dollars to get a tenth. There is an easy 250lbs to be removed from the car if needed which can help lots. Some of the fastest C63s aka Dodger63 would remove 500lbs from his car in race trim. Every pound adds up.
Weight reduction can be one of the cheapest ways to make the car perform better. 100lbs is 1/10th at the track. Some guys spend thousands and thousands of dollars to get a tenth. There is an easy 250lbs to be removed from the car if needed which can help lots. Some of the fastest C63s aka Dodger63 would remove 500lbs from his car in race trim. Every pound adds up.
i know what weight reduction can do. You missed the concept of what I said.
Are you going to buy a minivan and strip out the seats to make it "faster"?
You know what i call guys who spend thousands to make a 4000 pound car 20 pounds lighter? stupid. take the Merc for what it is.
i know what weight reduction can do. You missed the concept of what I said.
Are you going to buy a minivan and strip out the seats to make it "faster"?
You know what i call guys who spend thousands to make a 4000 pound car 20 pounds lighter? stupid. take the Merc for what it is.
you want a fast, lightweight car, go buy one.
You might be looking at the wrong car then, a portion on this site taken the c63 and turned it into an even bigger beast than it is. Calling posters stupid for stating their opinions that weight savings can matter isnt going to endear you to the community.
What people do with their money is their business
Weight reduction can be one of the cheapest ways to make the car perform better. 100lbs is 1/10th at the track.
I agree with you, but this thread was referring more to street cars.
Originally Posted by papashango
Here's a picture of my brakes looks like it's the p31?? If so I see the brake difference in p30 and p31 posted above. What's the difference in these cars? I always thought they were the same...
The giant red caliper should have been a pretty big clue ya know. The P30 package (with two piece rotors) was 2010 and prior only as well. I am going to be "that guy" and say that the differences between p30 and p31 are well documented and a simple p30 vs p31 search will yield many results.
i find the whole premise of reducing weight in these cars laughable. your buying a pig with a v8, yet you have guys trying to cut off 20 pounds. woopty doo. you want a lightweight car with power, go with a viper or vette. end of story.
stop trying to "reduce" weight on a bloated mercedes.
Are you kidding me? Imagine what that 1/10 of a second could mean as you head to the line at Chipotle and some heffer beats you by a millisecond. Could be the difference between missing the opening tip of an NBA game and seeing the whole shebang.
You might be looking at the wrong car then, a portion on this site taken the c63 and turned it into an even bigger beast than it is. Calling posters stupid for stating their opinions that weight savings can matter isnt going to endear you to the community.
What people do with their money is their business
No. I know what i want, and more importantly i know what i'm getting.
A 4000 pound 4 door Mercedes with a v8 that gets 170 miles out of a tank of gas.
I never in anyway said i cared what anyone did with their money. I did say it was stupid though.
I'm perfectly fine with keeping my C63 stock, or adding a tune and exhaust and calling it a day. to each his own.
No. I know what i want, and more importantly i know what i'm getting.
A 4000 pound 4 door Mercedes with a v8 that gets 170 miles out of a tank of gas.
I never in anyway said i cared what anyone did with their money. I did say it was stupid though.
I'm perfectly fine with keeping my C63 stock, or adding a tune and exhaust and calling it a day. to each his own.
Shaving weight on a sports car is nothing new people look for any way to improve performance and if you are for instance buying wheels that are 20lb each its not stupid to shave some more weight in the brake rotors. It all depends on what you're doing with the car be it drag strip, road coarse or just a daily driver.
Me personally I know what I bought and I know brakes won't be cheap, I knew going in that two piece rotors and pads for brake job would be over a grand thanks to threads like these. Could be a lot worse, could be carbon M series brakes
i find the whole premise of reducing weight in these cars laughable. your buying a pig with a v8, yet you have guys trying to cut off 20 pounds. woopty doo. you want a lightweight car with power, go with a viper or vette. end of story.
stop trying to "reduce" weight on a bloated mercedes.
It's all about "unsprung weight" here. With rotors and wheels we are easily talking about 10+lbs of possible unsprung weight reduction per corner on a C63, and for those of us who care, it's a really.big.deal. to take that much weight off.
From the F1 Dictionary:
"Sprung" weight is a term used to describe the parts of a car that are supported by the front and rear springs. They suspend the vehicle's frame, body, engine, driver, all liquids and the power train above the wheels. These are quite heavy assemblies.
The "unsprung" weight includes wheels and tires, brake assemblies, the rear axle assembly, and other structural members not supported by the springs. We can say all parts outboard from suspension springs. "Unsprung weight" is an important concept. This is weight that is not supported by the suspension of the car. This usually includes a some percentage of the weight of the suspension itself, including control arms, push-road, and struts.
Reducing unsprung weight is the key to improving handling. The lower the unsprung weight, the less work the shocks and springs have to do to keep the tires in contact with the road over bumpy surfaces. Lot of problems, if not all of them is caused by inertia. Bigger weight means higher inertia. Higher inertia means more workload for shocks and springs to keep tiers on the ground. If unsprung components have a high mass they are harder to accelerate/decelerate and thus it is more difficult for the suspension to maintain a consistent tire load.
It's all about "unsprung weight" here. With rotors and wheels we are easily talking about 10+lbs of possible unsprung weight reduction on a C63, and for those of us who care, it's a really.big.deal. to take that much weight off.
I think what he's trying to say is that unless you race/track your C63 on a daily basis and try to set record times, it doesn't matter which rotor you go with. The extra 20lbs or so isn't going to make any noticeable difference for daily street driving.
W204 C63 Coupe, W166 ML350 BlueTEC, 928GT, C5 Z06 & IS300 race cars, EQE 4Matic+ on order
Originally Posted by bhamg
It's all about "unsprung weight" here. With rotors and wheels we are easily talking about 10+lbs of possible unsprung weight reduction per corner on a C63, and for those of us who care, it's a really.big.deal. to take that much weight off.
From the F1 Dictionary:
"Sprung" weight is a term used to describe the parts of a car that are supported by the front and rear springs. They suspend the vehicle's frame, body, engine, driver, all liquids and the power train above the wheels. These are quite heavy assemblies.
The "unsprung" weight includes wheels and tires, brake assemblies, the rear axle assembly, and other structural members not supported by the springs. We can say all parts outboard from suspension springs. "Unsprung weight" is an important concept. This is weight that is not supported by the suspension of the car. This usually includes a some percentage of the weight of the suspension itself, including control arms, push-road, and struts.
Reducing unsprung weight is the key to improving handling. The lower the unsprung weight, the less work the shocks and springs have to do to keep the tires in contact with the road over bumpy surfaces. Lot of problems, if not all of them is caused by inertia. Bigger weight means higher inertia. Higher inertia means more workload for shocks and springs to keep tiers on the ground. If unsprung components have a high mass they are harder to accelerate/decelerate and thus it is more difficult for the suspension to maintain a consistent tire load.
Ahhh... yes, it is unsprung weight - but in the case of brake rotors it's not only a reduction in unsprung weight, but also in rotational mass (intertia) which has an even greater impact on performance.
In terms of weight reduction vs. performance, generally it's almost impossible to accurately quantify a ratio between spring vs. unsprug weight (depending on who you talk to, it varies from 2x to 10x), but as a rule of thumb, a 1 lb reduction in unsprung weight - NOT ROTATIONAL WEIGHT THOUGH - is roughly equal to about 3.5x that from the body of the vehicle. The reduction in rotaing mass has an even greater effect, and again, depending on where the rotating mass is removed (i.e. whether it's near the center or near the priphery of the rotating assembly - the stored energy is proportional to the square of the mass but also the distance) it is also almost impossible to quantify a universal ratio, but again as a general rule of thumb when it comes to wheels and brakes is that it's roughtly 3x that of UNSPRUNG, NON-ROTATING mass. So - when you multiply the two, overall the effect on traction and performance due to the 18 lb lighter rotors alone would be roughly equivalent to 10x the weight, or carrying a ~180 lb passenger, which is by no means insignificant. And, with the addition of lightweight forged wheels and shaving off another, say, 9 lbs of rotating mass per corner (so another ~360 lbs in addition to the ~180 lbs due to the front rotors), the difference in acceleration and braking is indeed about the same as having three 180 lb passengers in the vehicle. The difference in cornering would also roughly be equally noticeable, with the suspension being able to move the wheel rotating assembly that much faster so the wheels are able to track the road surface better and thus give you better traction.
Are you going to notice it in city driving? Well, the rotating mass affects braking and acceleration, so at the same throttle and brake applications you will be slower off the line and it would take you longer to stop. Now, on the road and thus "passenger-friendly" acceleration and deceleration rates, you can always compensate for the three extra passengers by stepping on the gas and brake pedals slightly harder to achieve the same performance. It's only when you're at the track where you repeatedly accelerate and decelerate as quickly as possible that this comes into play, and the difference there is indeed huge.
And, while this is slightly off-topic - the rotational mass issue also applies to the lighter, forged engine einternals of the P31 engine. The P31 crankshaft and pistons - the parts that need to accelerate and decelarate as quickly as possible - are about 7 lbs lighter, so it definitely makes for a much more responsive motor, which is why just adding an equivalent tune to the non-P31 engine will still not equal the performance of the P31 motor. It's not just about the maximum power and torque numbers - in real life you unfortunately also have to take physics into account.
Ahhh... yes, it is unsprung weight - but in the case of brake rotors it's not only a reduction in unsprung weight, but also in rotational mass (intertia) which has an even greater impact on performance.
In terms of weight reduction vs. performance, generally it's almost impossible to accurately quantify a ratio between spring vs. unsprug weight (depending on who you talk to, it varies from 2x to 10x), but as a rule of thumb, a 1 lb reduction in unsprung weight - NOT ROTATIONAL WEIGHT THOUGH - is roughly equal to about 3.5x that from the body of the vehicle. The reduction in rotaing mass has an even greater effect, and again, depending on where the rotating mass is removed (i.e. whether it's near the center or near the priphery of the rotating assembly - the stored energy is proportional to the square of the mass but also the distance) it is also almost impossible to quantify a universal ratio, but again as a general rule of thumb when it comes to wheels and brakes is that it's roughtly 3x that of UNSPRUNG, NON-ROTATING mass. So - when you multiply the two, overall the effect on traction and performance due to the 18 lb lighter rotors alone would be roughly equivalent to 10x the weight, or carrying a ~180 lb passenger, which is by no means insignificant. And, with the addition of lightweight forged wheels and shaving off another, say, 9 lbs of rotating mass per corner (so another ~360 lbs in addition to the ~180 lbs due to the front rotors), the difference in acceleration and braking is indeed about the same as having three 180 lb passengers in the vehicle. The difference in cornering would also roughly be equally noticeable, with the suspension being able to move the wheel rotating assembly that much faster so the wheels are able to track the road surface better and thus give you better traction.
Are you going to notice it in city driving? Well, the rotating mass affects braking and acceleration, so at the same throttle and brake applications you will be slower off the line and it would take you longer to stop. Now, on the road and thus "passenger-friendly" acceleration and deceleration rates, you can always compensate for the three extra passengers by stepping on the gas and brake pedals slightly harder to achieve the same performance. It's only when you're at the track where you repeatedly accelerate and decelerate as quickly as possible that this comes into play, and the difference there is indeed huge.
And, while this is slightly off-topic - the rotational mass issue also applies to the lighter, forged engine einternals of the P31 engine. The P31 crankshaft and pistons - the parts that need to accelerate and decelarate as quickly as possible - are about 7 lbs lighter, so it definitely makes for a much more responsive motor, which is why just adding an equivalent tune to the non-P31 engine will still not equal the performance of the P31 motor. It's not just about the maximum power and torque numbers - in real life you unfortunately also have to take physics into account.
All I can say is that rotor weight saving and its benefit can hardly be explained and defined better than above. Thank you for sharing "Diabolis"
We have customers from ML63 using RacingBrake two piece light weight rotors even reported fuel saving (after close monitoring), in addition to the handling and driving comfort which most of us know. - Some real life experience -
Another long term update:
Hey guys, I have had a chance to drive the car more and the long term fuel efficiency has stabilized at 13.4 MPG after 2,500 miles of driving. It fluctuates from 13.2-13.4 over the past 500 miles depending if I am on freeway or city driving. Now it seems to be stable at 13.4. This is a huge jump up from 11.8 before for combined driving and I actually notice longer periods between fill ups.
So in about 2 years the wheels & tires will completely pay themselves off and be essentially free. Not bad for such a drastic change.
Also, I have officially ordered my rear 2-piece rotors from RacingBrake. Each rotor will shave an astonishing 10lbs per rotor and will push my over all weight reduction to 90lb!! (up from 70lbs)
I think the rear rotors may have the biggest impact on fuel efficiency because the 4WD system will send most of its power to the rear wheels under daily driving conditions do it should push that number hopefully up to 13.8-14.0 MPG. If I can get over 14 MPG, that would be amazing.
Anyways, just wanted to keep everyone updated on the project, it is nearing fruition
Just think why OE has to put more money on lighter weight rotors for more expensive models - Must be a reason... So a sensible replacement is to be at least equal or better than OE and RB two piece rotors are probably what you need - A better rotor with less cost.
anyone know the quick and easy, and proper, way to remove the wear sensors when replacing pads on 09 C63? is the actual sensor just a pin that extends through the brack pad backing?
anyone know the quick and easy, and proper, way to remove the wear sensors when replacing pads on 09 C63? is the actual sensor just a pin that extends through the brack pad backing?
it's just a piece that clicks into a notch in the pad. at least that's how it is on my porsche.
anyone know the quick and easy, and proper, way to remove the wear sensors when replacing pads on 09 C63? is the actual sensor just a pin that extends through the brack pad backing?
They pretty much get wedged in tightly. Both times I've removed them I used Liquid Wrench first, then tapped with a punch from the bottom. The plastic base portion tends to break easily. I've ended up using new sensors, they're pretty cheap.
W204 C63 Coupe, W166 ML350 BlueTEC, 928GT, C5 Z06 & IS300 race cars, EQE 4Matic+ on order
I thought they're pretty much a single-use item (at least they're on my P-cars) since they function on the principle of melting/breaking the wire in the sensor and thus electrical circuit when the pad material becomes too thin, so I would not be worried about destroying them during the removal process as you have to replace them with new ones anyway.
And, I know this is slighly off-topic and I certainly wouldn't recommend it on ANY street vehicle, but the little wire inside the wear sensor has been known to melt from using more aggressive, hotter-running pads at the track in which case you get the "Check Brakes" warning light even when the pads are at full thickness, which will put a rather disapointing end to your HPDE day as no car club will ever let you run when the car reports some kind of brake system fault (for all we know, you could be low on brake fluid or have a leak). The solution is cheap and simple - soldering a resistor to the pad wear indicator connectors from a used set, putting a couple of layers of heat shrink if it's exposed and/of filling it up with epoxy if you can make it fit inside the conenctor itself, and nicely tucking it all away and securing it with some zip ties. Most experienced drivers can easliy tell when the pads are near the wear limit just by how the brakes feel (way before you get to the backing plate touching and scoring your rotor). Again, I am NOT suggesting that you do this to your C63, but if you're a track junkie and inspect your car on regular basis, regularly swap pads and/or are confident in your ability to tell when your pads need to be replaced, you can bypass the wear sensors completely without permanently molesting anything.
I thought they're pretty much a single-use item (at least they're on my P-cars) since they function on the principle of melting/breaking the wire in the sensor and thus electrical circuit when the pad material becomes too thin, so I would not be worried about destroying them during the removal process as you have to replace them with new ones anyway.
Absolutely correct. It's just that I've never let pads get down to the wear indicator actuating, nor do I know any enthusiast friends who have waited that long either, so I wasn't thinking in those terms. But either way, you should have a pair of new sensors on hand. IIRC I paid somewhere around $16 per sensor last time.
I have yet to let pads wear so thin that the car needs to alert me but replacing pads and sensors is extremely easy. I'll re-post some pics from another thread where I showed the same ....
2012 C63;1971 280SE 3.5(Sold);2023 EQS 450 SUV 4 Matic (Wife's)
If you directly uploaded the pics to this site you should be able to find them in Attachments listed in User CP. If so right click on the pic and select Copy Link Location and you will be able to paste it into a tread reply box. Well I am not sure about mobile apps as I don't have any but it works from a PC.
2012 C63;1971 280SE 3.5(Sold);2023 EQS 450 SUV 4 Matic (Wife's)
I just did one.
Right click on the original image in the other thread; select Copy Image Location; Select Post Reply in new thread and select the Insert Image icon; it will open in the Paste a Picture URL box; right click again and select Paste or enter Ctrl V from a keybord and there you have it, Bobs your uncle....LOL
I just hit 50k and my service advisor recommended changing my rotors and pads. I havent gotten the brake wear message but i have noticed a change in stopping distance as well as a little bit of noise from the brakes. I changed my front and rear pads before but never my rotors. Is it about that time? I was quoted for $1,900
I had similar comment from MB service saying that my pads are weared out and that I should consider also rotors to be replaced. Then I started to think about what to do and decided to purchase the replacement kit from RB. They offer set of all two-piece rotors for both front and rear axle and set of pads. I selected the kit also with the SS braided lines and selected the "semi racing" pads (XT910). The kit contains also high boiling brakefluid originally, but there are shipping restrictions to where I live so it was not part of the supplied kit. The price in the end was nearly comparable to the costs of the standard MB rotors and pads offered by the MB showroom and garage which I am using normally for servicing. RB helped to confirm the proper type of the set according to the VIN code which helped to assure me I am not buying something wrong and they also proved to be very supportive when it came to the customs procedures in my country (Czech Republic /Europe). The delivery was all in all very quick. I did not make the change myself I asked local service specialised to tunning and they made it at very reasonable costs within about 3 hours (chrged actually 2 hours only). The new rotors look magnificent and I believe that I managed to make the pads bedding with the rotors reasonably well following the detailed procedure suggested by RB - also very helpful. There is no noise or vibration at all.
Very happy with the upgrade. However as I do not plan to go to tracks frequently I do not consider the carbon ceramic option although it might be also interesting option for racing enthusiasts.
01-24-2015, 09:39 AM
The P30 package (with two piece rotors) was 2010 and prior only as well. I am going to be "that guy" and say that the differences between p30 and p31 are well documented and a simple p30 vs p31 search will yield many results.
