[ToCo]

Does anybody know the operating and optimal temperatures range for the OEM brake pads front and rear of the G87 M2.

I have done some research and can't seem to find the answer.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by ToCo

Does anybody know the operating and optimal temperatures range for the OEM brake pads front and rear of the G87 M2.

I have done some research and can't seem to find the answer.

They are GG rated whether Akebono or Pagid (also branded as Brembo)

GG pads are able to maintain 0.45 to 0.55 friction coefficient in both the “normal” low temp usage and the high temp fade test including temperatures up to 650F. See attachment to how this is determined in the SAE spec.

[ToCo]

Originally Posted by aerobod

They are GG rated whether Akebono or Pagid (also branded as Brembo)

GG pads are able to maintain 0.45 to 0.55 friction coefficient in both the “normal” low temp usage and the high temp fade test including temperatures up to 650F. See attachment to how this is determined in the SAE spec.

Thank you !!!! Very good info !!!!

[TallGibbs]

aerobod super nice info to read the SAE docs. Now, can we get any of the brake pad models to specify this info? For example, the isweep 1500s: can anyone find their markings? Would be great to get this info when people review different pads.

[TallGibbs]

Answered my own question: https://isweep-tuning.com/products/brakepad.html

Seems like people should be referencing these types of specs when talking about different brake pad performance and how they operate at different temps/conditions.

[TallGibbs]

Originally Posted by aerobod

They are GG rated whether Akebono or Pagid (also branded as Brembo)

GG pads are able to maintain 0.45 to 0.55 friction coefficient in both the “normal” low temp usage and the high temp fade test including temperatures up to 650F. See attachment to how this is determined in the SAE spec.

I'm actually a little confused by this if the OEM brake pads are "GG" rated (great coefficient of friction both cold and hot), then why does the M2 manual say "the OEM pads are not suited for track driving." Can the brake pads maintain high CoF but still wear through extremely quickly? I'm assuming wear rating may be independent of maintaining CoF through the temperature range?

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by TallGibbs

aerobod super nice info to read the SAE docs. Now, can we get any of the brake pad models to specify this info? For example, the isweep 1500s: can anyone find their markings? Would be great to get this info when people review different pads.

iSweep don’t seem to be certified, so probably the reason they are not legal for road use on the EU. They may also theoretically not be road legal for use elsewhere, either. From the EBC pads I have seen photos of the printing on the back, most aren’t certified for road use either and are labelled “off-road use only” Hawk pads are typically FF and GG rated, Ferodo DS2500 are FF rated.

If the pads are certified to SAE J866, it has to be embossed on the edge of the pad, like this, together with the copper content rating (A,B or N):

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by TallGibbs

I'm actually a little confused by this if the OEM brake pads are "GG" rated (great coefficient of friction both cold and hot), then why does the M2 manual say "the OEM pads are not suited for track driving." Can the brake pads maintain high CoF but still wear through extremely quickly? I'm assuming wear rating may be independent of maintaining CoF through the temperature range?

I would say that is correct, they will work fairly well on the track but not last long, as they are OK for high temp use (compared with street pads on other cars), but also optimized for low temp use that most track pads are not.

Track pads will work better overall on the track, but most aren’t road legal, especially if used in the EU and UK, where they generally won’t pass an MOT or equivalent test if a brake tester is used and will also void insurance.

[Dave07997S]

I know the EBC Red Pads are ECE R90 approved for Europe. Not sure what that means for the US though

[TallGibbs]

Originally Posted by aerobod

I would say that is correct, they will work fairly well on the track but not last long, as they are OK for high temp use (compared with street pads on other cars), but also optimized for low temp use that most track pads are not.

Track pads will work better overall on the track, but most aren’t road legal, especially if used in the EU and UK, where they generally won’t pass an MOT or equivalent test if a brake tester is used and will also void insurance.

I live in the US, so no worries on the MOT. I saw in a thread on the X3 forums some discussion on Akebono performance pads (ceramic?) being a great option (https://akebonobrakes.com/performance-vehicles) but I cannot tell if these are the same as our OEM pads with the "GG" rating but just not being a good track pad? Seems like the ceramic offers the low dust, while still having excellent cold & hot friction ratings.

https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1971753

[TallGibbs]

Originally Posted by aerobod

iSweep don’t seem to be certified, so probably the reason they are not legal for road use on the EU. They may also theoretically not be road legal for use elsewhere, either. From the EBC pads I have seen photos of the printing on the back, most aren’t certified for road use either and are labelled “off-road use only” Hawk pads are typically FF and GG rated, Ferodo DS2500 are FF rated.

If the pads are certified to SAE J866, it has to be embossed on the edge of the pad, like this, together with the copper content rating (A,B or N):

Makes me wonder if the SAE certification process is highly expensive, or iSweep just avoids doing it because it would show their pads as actually being inferior from a friction standpoint? This allows them to just use their marketing materials and people's "feel" of how good the pads are (like air intake "butt dyno" claims vs. actually being tested on a dyno for performance).

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by TallGibbs

Makes me wonder if the SAE certification process is highly expensive, or iSweep just avoids doing it because it would show their pads as actually being inferior from a friction standpoint? This allows them to just use their marketing materials and people's "feel" of how good the pads are (like air intake "butt dyno" claims vs. actually being tested on a dyno for performance).

I think the price paid for low dust is somewhat lower hot fade resistance compared with the OEM pads. Using the iSweep friction curve for the IS1500 pads, they seem to have a 0.385 average "normal" friction coefficient and a 0.34 "hot" coefficient over the J866 tested range. This would rate them as FE compared with OEM GG.

The ECE R90 tests are potentially more rigorous as friction coefficient is just one of the parameters, but EU spec cars seem to all have high dust levels to meet those requirements with OEM pads.

[aerobod]

One of the other parameters for brake pads being legal for road use is the copper content. I see that California will make it illegal for pads that don't meet the J866 "N" spec of less than 0.5% copper to be sold as replacements or fitted to new vehicles after 1 Jan 2025: https://dtsc.ca.gov/scp/limiting-copper-in-brake-pads/

[TallGibbs]

Originally Posted by aerobod

I think the price paid for low dust is somewhat lower hot fade resistance compared with the OEM pads. Using the iSweep friction curve for the IS1500 pads, they seem to have a 0.385 average "normal" friction coefficient and a 0.34 "hot" coefficient over the J866 tested range. This would rate them as FE compared with OEM GG.

The ECE R90 tests are potentially more rigorous as friction coefficient is just one of the parameters, but EU spec cars seem to all have high dust levels to meet those requirements with OEM pads.

Yeah, I agree that the iSweep1500 pads certainly seem to have lower friction ratings at both cold and hot compared to the new OEM standard "GG" rated pads.

First time I've ever done any reading on the E90 testing. Appears that although it tests for "more things" it does not necassirly mean more rigorous testing. Here is EBC's documentation on the testing: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/race-motor...-it-all-about/

From what I can gather, the E90 test is more designed to be an "equivalancey" test only to verify the pad is equivalent to OEM (+/- 15% of coefficient of friction, along with many other criteria for equivalency). I don't think it really has to do with "rating" of a brake pad.

This website seems to have all the E90 regulation documents available: https://www.6thgearautomotive.com/te...ertifications/

Let me know though if I am not understanding something correctly; I (clearly) find this quite an interesting subject to learn more about.

[BroDoze]

I think RG posted the actual specs of the G87 1500 and 2000 pads on here, because I was asking all of the same questions, months ago. GG vs FE etc etc.

Cannot seem to find that post.

[TallGibbs]

BroDoze I'm not sure if this is thread? It looks like in the photo is actually a Brembo produced pad, but I cannot clearly see everything. Almost looks like a "GC" rated pad, but I'm not confident in that conclusion.

https://g87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=2052122

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by TallGibbs

BroDoze I'm not sure if this is thread? It looks like in the photo is actually a Brembo produced pad, but I cannot clearly see everything. Almost looks like a "GC" rated pad, but I'm not confident in that conclusion.

https://g87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=2052122

This post shows a photo of an M2 front pad with Brembo branding and GG rating: https://g87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...&postcount=123

[marconi118]

the pad in the picture is marked brembo but also on the top pagid

in general BMW pads are pagid.
Any info on the 4007 BMW performance pads? Pagid - textar