CIEKA- bolt on aftermarket brake kits for W202's

[Vetruck]

Opps- CEIKA (not cieka)

Found these guys by accident- trick stuff and great prices. Can do both front AND rear 6piston 13" (330mm) 2 pc rotor colored setups for under $2300 front AND rear. I spent over 2k alone custom machining and building a front package only in the same size for a Camaro about a decade ago. You can not touch Ksport, Stoptech, nor Brembos for that price even for only fronts that size.

http://ceikaperformance.com/Small-6-...e-kit-p29.html

I would not recommend going any larger than the small 6pot setups and a 330x32 front/330x28 rear and keeping all for wheel brake pad sizes the same purchase choice for easy future reference. Easy to keep i set on hand for emergencies that will work on all 4 wheels.

330x32 is a massive 12.90" x1.25" rotor compared to what we have stock. Going any larger on a w202 is just adding unneeded rotation weight as well as unneeded unsprung weight which reduces perfromance accelerations, handling and ride quality reductions. 356mm is the largest you can fit under an 18" wheel- so a 330 is still pretty damn big.

I priced the fronts at $1080.00 and the rears at $1180 in the above sizes (330x32f/ 330x28rear with internal stock parking drum) if you look at their "appication page", they have the w202 fitments already listed and engineered.

Great find.

[Vetruck]

I don;t care for the Red, but that Champagne Gold is sexy. Looks like alot of the high end full race Brembo kits they put on the Evo's and such in the gold color.

[Vetruck]

I found these guys looking at coilover options. They also make a trick 2way monotube inverted shock setup (both compression and rebound settings separated) with external reservoirs. I was undecided between Koni Yellows and H&R's, or the Ksport (1way comp/rebound linear adj- which sucks) coilovers. I am definately going to these units

[anf6789]

awesomeeee!!!! wish i had money, lol! though the brakes are pretty awesome on the c36 already, I love the gold ones and would love some coilovers.

.....eventually

[Dearlove]

The c36's brakes are sufficient even for the track, spend spend that 2 and a bit grand on getting an ecu upgrade would be much better...

[Dearlove]

the c36 is also 12.6 in the front btw, so not that much bigger at all...

You dont want the same size front and rear, other wise you'll be locking the rears up. Considering that the engineers that build these cars may know a thing or two, i'd be trying to keep the same 'ratio' (rears are 10.9 inches btw)

[Vetruck]

the c36 is also 12.6 in the front btw, so not that much bigger at all...

You dont want the same size front and rear, other wise you'll be locking the rears up. Considering that the engineers that build these cars may know a thing or two, i'd be trying to keep the same 'ratio' (rears are 10.9 inches btw)

I know a whole lot about building custom brake setups on cars. First off my car is designed with a 11" front rotor and a 10" rear rotor, not 12.6- so that is what base I am working from. Secondly the car stands on the nose right now with ALOT of nose dive and too much front brake in bias. Once I dail the chassis and lower the cg and control the weight transfer a little better from coming off the rear wheels unloading them, I will need quite a bit more rear brake to get the car to rotate.

A system like this will eat the fastory c36 brakes for lunch.

And as for how I should spend my money better? The car is a c220 with 147hp- so an ECU will get me a rocketship 155 hp? LOL. No, I'd be much better spending my money on safety and passing you going in to any corner on a race track

[Vetruck]

{EDIT- disregard the info in this post, more accurate info is posted below}

I contacted them and got a quick answer on caliper piston size- The response was to use LARGE 6pot front and SMALL 6 pot rear for balance- no other info. I have to assume that they machined them proprtionately with piston area volume accordingly so using these will be a crap shoot without better info

So I am wrong on my assumption of using the same caliper and pad on each axle like alot of cars do. The caliper and pad volume may be the same but the actual piston volume inside the calipers larger for the fronts and smaller for the rears. THis company does not offer those choices like what WIlwood, Brembo, etc do. (for example a Wilwwod 4pot SL caliper can be used both front and rear with a 1.75" pison fronts and a 1.375" rear piston size)

This Ceika company choices means that the front has to use the "Large" 6 piston front caliper and the "Small" 6 piston rear caliper to get the proper proportion on piston volume-= or just use a simple inline Wilood prop valve coming off the combo valve to the rears in the engine bay.

THis does raise the price, but still very reasonable if doing all four wheels with big brakes.
Front Large 6pot 330x32 setup with SS pistons is $1430.00- so it raises the 4 wheel price buy $350 from $2260.00 to a total of $2610 for both axles. Still an awesome price

[Dearlove]

clearly i was referring to a c36 for comparison/what money would be better spent on.....

[Vetruck]

Now back to the subject- The quick email I recieved is wrong- must be a stand in tech at Ceika during the holidays. Their website as I scroll down clearly lists that there ARE in fact caliper piston options as I was first assuming. THe small 6pot setup has the option of 3 different piston setups in that size, same for the Large 6pot has two piston otions for volume.

So far here is the info on these. I will start with the large 6pot info(even though I plan to use the small because I want lighter weight and the piston volume is large enough for me in preliminary calculation- I might change my mind as I study more but for now the small look large enough for my desires in gettingdramatic balance and performance gains)
Large 6POT options- 38/36/30mm which is a 4.44" total Surface Area volume against the pads.
- 28/30/28mm 2.99" SA
Small 6POT options- 36/32/28mm 3.77" sa
- 28/32/28mm 3.14" sa
- 22/28/22mm 2.13" sa

My car has a 15/16"-3/4" master cylinder volume. My experience with a car in weight bias and proportion very similar to this with about the size 15/16" MC was a 13.06 front rotor and 4.02" sa balance with a 12.2 rear rotor and 2.98 sa with both front and rear brake pad surface area being the same- with that "assumption" my initial thoughts on choice is to still look into a 13"front /13" rear rotor setup and to reduce a little rear leverage would be to increase the 4:3 bias ratio of the SA to the 3.77/2.13 caliper choices. That is just the initial hunch- I need to do alot more research and calculations.

Also I have learned that both their LARGE and SMALL 6pot calipers use the same exact brake pad size. So with that said, the caliper choice comes down to "SA" availiability while also considering componant weigth as my main focus. I do not care so much about looks as I do function so bigger is not better- buigger often means running around the street too cool. I want pwoerful, but I also want to retain a little heat into them all the time so they work even when cruising in lower temp conditions. Massive brakes on the street is just not practical for safety- trust me Ive been there and have had notoious problems with brake noise from lack of heat.

Before I go any further, I want to point out a few differences I am dealing with in making my ultimate final choice- this is where everyone need to weigh their own car differences and make appropriate changes in brake system build decisions. I am using a staggered rear wheel and tire- which alot do, but some do not. This means a greater rear tire contact patch compared to front grip as opposed to the factory bias of all 4 wheels the same. Also secondly and most importantly, I am modifying a lighter nosed 4 cylinder car and am going to a 17kg/13kg wheel rate rather than the heavier nosed I6 engine cars with the standard 17kg/12kg spring option. I can use a little more rear brake bias than the I6 cars expecially when I use the staggaered wheel choice.

[Vetruck]

Factory C220 brake system info-

Front 1pot floating caliper 54mm piston. 3.54" surface area 11.18" rotor 3/4" MC bore
Rear 2pot fixed caliper 35mm pistons. 2.96" surface area 10.31" rotor 15/16" MC bore (to move more volume. The C36 had to go up in rotor diameter to increase braking leverage to mate the rear bias from what I am seeing. Engineers generally do things like this so as to simplify production line install for a one size fits all MC and combo valve. This makes it easier for the dealers to service cars by simply having only the wheel assemblies different. Case in point the GM engineers had a world of headaches trying to recalibrate diferent wheel combinations offsets, and brake packages in the mid 80's performance cars that the list of hydraulic options is a novel. Auto manufactureres are required under US rules to suply replacement parts for 10 years. The upper scale manufacturers like Mercedes engineers were obviously doing a little more homework becuase when I cross check the C36 MC its the same.

The caliper SA volume is aprox 3.5:3 ratio with and increase of leverage using a slightly larger front rotor and a much smaller surface area brake pad. I can not find the brake pad friction volume (makes a difference- larger volume is more stopping friction area- thus more stopping power. I would guess the stock system to be overall aprox a 4:3 to 4:2.5 bias range. My initial intuistion on using equal rotors and increase the caliper piston surface area volume to about 55% or a 4:2.2 ratio would yeild me an aproxoverall 4:3 ratio like I am after when I use the larger rear rotor and larger rear pad surface)

[anf6789]

Vetruck, not sure if you have already seen this thread, or if it helps at all. It has some info on the C36 setup, and how it varies from year to year. It might help with your bias/staggered inquiry. I know you arent going with the C36 stuff (front calipers have to weigh at least 20lbs a piece, cast iron for sure) I know the fronts are from the SL600 and rear may be from the e420 if i remember correctly. wheel size 17/7.5f 17/8.5r. everyone has problems replacing the parts on the various year C36's it seems when AMG got the cars from MB they threw whatever they had laying around on!

I just did a full brake job on mine. Balo Rotors and Akebono pads. I must say the akebonos take some getting used to, but the state the brakes were in when i bought the car, they are a huge improvement.

The Ceika website looks awesome, and when I decide to uprade the "already way better than my old c280" suspension I may go with their coil overs. The wannabe engineer in me loves this stuff. too bad i went to business school


http://mbworld.org/forums/c36-amg-c4...ber-error.html

[Vetruck]

^^^ You spiked my curiosity to check a few other applications too. Turns out there are ALOT of changes.

1994 BOTH c220 and 280- front rotors 11.18", rear rotors 10.3125"
1995 and 1996 c220 are the same...BUT...

1995 c280 front the same 11.18" , BUT the rear went to almost the same size with a 10.94 rear rotor
then...
1996 c280 went to a 11.34" front and the 10.94" rear

then the 95 to 97 AMG had changes also. It is not nor ever has been a 12.6" front rotor as Dearlove stated, so I do np;t know where you retrieved that info but I have cross referenced it with a few different parts stores and here is my findings on that-

1995 AMG c36 front 12.44", rear VENTED rotor 10.95"

then 1996 AND 1997 AMG c36 both still had the 12.44" front vented rotor like the 1995 has, HOWEVER, they went to a larger but thinner non-vented rotor like the standard models had but in aan 11.42" diamater rotor- so 12.44" front and 11.42" rear

[Vetruck]

All of the c220 and c280 applications use the same front and rear brake pads and same Master Cylinder (MC) so the engineers were just making fine tune adjustments with rotor sizes off of prior year useage data. Looks to me they were chasing a wild goose becasue that is very minor changes and alot of abutment bracket changes they then had to stock for different year caliper fitment as well as different rotor sizes.

The c280 changes are what most puzzle me. 11.18/10.31, then 11.18"/10.94", then 11.34"/10.94" all in three years with no change to the same year c220 (11.18"/10.31") <- my car stands on its nose a little much when braking hard, I see the need for more rear brake. What puzzles me is the heavier nosed c280 will stand on its nose alot more weighing 250lbs more up front- so with that you use less rear brake whereas the engineers were throwing more rear brake at it then backed down the ratio the 3rd year. How about a few test track days guys? unbelievable at that level. I saw this ALOT from the 80's GM engineers like stated earlier, would not expect it from Mercedes. That is alot of flipflopping and alot of money in production changes that is passed on to the consumer.

I can not find anything on brake combo valves (proportioning valves)

1997 c230 and c280 then stayed the same size through 2000 (11.34"/10.94") so the car without staggered wheels remained almost the same rotor diameter front to rear.

You then lower the center of gravity and add a staggered (larger footprint grip) rear tire and the car can utilize more rear bias- you can do that three ways 1) larger caliper piston surface area (hydraulic force), 2) larger rotor diameter (greater leverage), or 3) larger brake pad surface area (larger mechanical friction)

I choose to error on the rear brakes being on the "slightly too large" side of a build and simply add a Wilwood propr valve to turn them down to perfect balance.

[Vetruck]

Now to the MC (master cylinder)and why caliper piston SA(surface area) is so important-

If you go up in caliper Hydraulic volume needed to push the lager total piston area, the MC will increase travel to do so. THis leaves a long travel pedal and also the potential to run out of pedal when the pad wear low. MC diameter has to be in proportion to the caliper volume or SA. If I were to go to the LARGE 6pot calipers on the front, or even the 8POT calipers, the larger piston choices of those would be too much SA for the factory MC to move. You would have to go up to at least a 1" bore MC if not a 1 1/8"- I do not even know if one is availiable, I hardly doubt it. SO the better choice is to build a system with the SMALL 6pot front and rear or even the 6pot front and a small SA 4POT rear.

It is important to keep an aprox ratio within the MC range so the 4" sa front and 2.5-3" sa rear combo will work perfect with the factory 3/4-15/16" bore factory MC.

[anf6789]

maybe an ML or larger MB sedan master cylinder is compatible. i actually noticed the pedal travel is slightly further versus the c280, or maybe its my imagination...

[Vetruck]

maybe an ML or larger MB sedan master cylinder is compatible. i actually noticed the pedal travel is slightly further versus the c280, or maybe its my imagination...

The pedal travel in a c36 would have to be greater than the c280 given they run the same MC. The front C36 calipers have a greater front piston SA than the c280 caliper so the same MC will have to move the piston in the bore futher to pump hydraulic fluid into the caliper.

The MC is actually a different # and diffent outlet line specs, but they have the same identical bore. Changing line size and thread pitch of the outlets was a common thing also with GM cars(makes no difference in pressure, just cuts down overall line volume and slows the initial bite of the front brakes to allow the rears to come on a little quicker on the AMG before the fronts to allow for stability under initial hard braking.

[Dearlove]

Sorry mate, i must have been in a shit mood the other day.

But i do stand by my comment for the AVERAGE person looking to up there brakes on a lower model, the amg ones would be best bang for buck.

eventually i would like to up my brakes, even though the c36 are relatively big they are shitty 2 piston sliding calipers...
I'm very interested in hearing what you do for the bigger MC, i all ways presumed they pulled a bigger one of the sl600 (if its bigger) to go with the calipers

so with the sizing of front vs rear, the way a thought of it in my head was that when your hitting the brakes all your weight is at the front and the effective mechanical grip of the rears was relatively low?

[Dearlove]

also i could have sworn they were 12.6, ill have to dig round for a tape measure and check on some rotors i have sitting around

[Vetruck]

Thank you for being friendly- I appreciate the appology and can respect that we all have our bad days.Hell, I'm no saint but do try to be helpful.

I do not plan to hunt out a bigger MC for this car. The main point of my post was to figure through my experience and educated guess on if a small 6 pot front and rear setup with both being 13" rotors will work- based on the specs I have from Ceika on Caliper SA I can easily use the MC I have right now. So no need for me to hunt any further.

The only reason to use the larger 6pot calipers is for using a larger rotor choice for heat control- that would only be needed for an all out track car that would never see street use. The figures I have listed above will work with the MC I have. I want to stay as lightweight as I can while gaining adequate performance for very hard street use. The small 6pot setup with 13"x1.25 2pc front rotors, and 13x1.1" rear asembly with stock internal drum parking brake will be alot more powerful, lightweight, and manage heat alot better than what I have now- large rotors with lots of brake pedal sweet spot to modulate.

[W202FTW]

Poo. I contacted them about getting some normal rotors [neither slotted or cross drilled] and it turns out that their "supplier" doesn't make any regular rotors. Cedric recommended just slotted rotors for daily driving and track use.

[Vetruck]

Trust me you do NOT want just slotted rotors for street use. They wear the brake pads way too quickly. You'll be replacing pads every 6 months (aprox 6,000miles).

Cross drilled rotors are nice for the street because they aid in initial pad bite and lessen the rotation mass. I recommend going a good set of Brembo drilled rotors like the first shown on this link-

http://www.brakeworld.com/ProductLis...CEDES&mod=C280

[W202FTW]

Trust me you do NOT want just slotted rotors for street use. They wear the brake pads way too quickly. You'll be replacing pads every 6 months (aprox 6,000miles).

Cross drilled rotors are nice for the street because they aid in initial pad bite and lessen the rotation mass. I recommend going a good set of Brembo drilled rotors like the first shown on this link-

http://www.brakeworld.com/ProductLis...CEDES&mod=C280

Yeah I thought it was weird that he mentioned that. I'm probably going to end up painting the calipers instead and get either crossed drilled rotors or just blank rotors so that I can still have the option of turning them on the brake lathe at work.

[zmatt]

slotted rotors improve cooling, drilled ones won't, but the lower weight is nice.

[Vetruck]

slotted rotors improve cooling, drilled ones won't, but the lower weight is nice.

Respectfully- this is partially wrong info, and partially correct. They both aid in cooling the brake pad by allowing a void in the rotor surface for the gases to escape. Drilled rotors are more efficiant in cooling than slotted rotors only because they reduce more of the friction area and allow for more exposed heat sink area. The problem is that volume of metal on the rotor (overall weight) is the main heat disapant so when you remove material with drilling you are lessening the heat sink voulme but increasing the heat sink surface area. Its about a fair trade. Better off going a slightly larger drilled rotor than a slightly smaller slotted rotor for street use (pound for pound)- however with the extreme heat of racing 9and we are not talking little heat of AutoX racing, were talking big track road racing heat) then slotted rotors are far safer from cracking between the holes since the holes will weaken the overall structure. you will never have a problem with drilled rotors for street use because you will never get them hot enough to have a problem- you'd get thrown in jail long before this could happen going a city block then braking & turning, etc.