96_Camaro_B4C

Once you get to the point where the brakes have enough power to lock up the wheels (which I'm sure the Mustang brakes could do) and you are at ABS / threshold braking levels, you are really limited by the tires (plus weight, weight distribution, etc.). And the Track Pack Mustangs actually have 255 series summer tires up front (where most of the braking power is) compared to the Camaro's 245s, while the Camaro has 275s at the rear compared to the Mustang's 255.

If both have adequate brakes and grippy tires, that's about all you are going to get. The Camaro is heavier, which favors the Mustang, but also has slightly better weight distribution, which should favor the Camaro. One reason Porsche 911s put down such outstanding braking numbers is that they have over 60% of their weight over the rear wheels, so under braking when the load is transferred forward, the rears are able to contribute more than they can on most cars.

Even the V6 Camaro is putting down basically the same braking distances as the SS, when the V6 has the RS package (and the summer 20" tires that go with it).

The advantage to the big 14" brembos is their heat dissipation / fade resistance.

Hell, even the LT1 F-cars way back in the day put down some pretty good braking numbers on the Eagle GS-Cs. That was with rather small (down right dinky by today's standards) 11" front rotors. LS1 cars, IIRC, didn't really do much better in an outright 60-0 test, but I think you'll find that they resisted fade better with their 12" rotors (after multiple stops or track running).

2010_5thgen

so even though we have these sweet brembos, we probably would have been just as good with the regular 2 piston /1 piston combo?

96_Camaro_B4C

Depends on how you'll use the car. If you are going to use it to cruise around town, maybe do the occasional trip to the drag strip or whatever, then sure you would.

If you plan to autocross it, or go to open track days, or do lots of twisty road attacks, you'll be glad to have the bigger binders.

Here's a reprint of the Car and Driver comparo of the '93 Camaro to the new-for-'94 Mustang GT.

http://www.fastcoolcars.com/z28_vs_gt.htm

Camaro did a 70-0 stop in 167 feet. That's pretty respectable even today. They gave the brakes a 9/10 rating. (The car also ran a 14.1 @ 101 mph...). I'm having trouble finding it, but I think it was even a bit better when they first tested the car in Feb '93 (against the prev gen Mustang Cobra and the LT1 Firebird Formula), like 163 feet or so.

99SilverSS

No the Brembo's allow the Camaro to compete with lighter cars so without them the car wouldn't stop as well and under the same fadeless conditions the 2010 Camaro has. The Mustang has shaved some feet off their stopping distance too or else the Camaro would look quite a bit better. For it's weight the stopping performance is quite good by all reports.

Brakes were an issue in the 4th Gens so I'm glad to see Chevy stepped up and got the brakes done right. Besides they would never have been able to do a single lap at the Nurburgring without great brakes on this car.

2010_5thgen

maybe ill just change out the rotors for some slotted.

96_Camaro_B4C

That isn't going to give you any more stopping power. Perhaps a bit more brake cooling, which I could see doing if fade were an issue, but from the reviews it sounds like these badass Brembo 14 inchers don't have much of an issue with fade.

I'd just leave 'em alone and enjoy it. The car has an impressive set of brakes. Spend the money on a cam or something instead.

2010_5thgen

id actually like to do a 6 piston up front and keep the 4 in the rear.

thought about doing the cam,but ive got something im working on with vortech and a few other suppliers.

detltu

Its a new thing GM is doing. you control fuel flow and throttle position seperately. Gives you an extra degree of control. It does get kind of confusing when you get the manual trans though.