Upgrading Brakes Question

ScottG wrote:

I'll try to do a brief explanation.
Brake pads gas when they get very hot. Those gasses cause the pads to lift slightly from the surface of the rotor - reducing effectiveness. This is where slotted and drilled comes into play. They trade having less surface area (so less braking) for the ability to get rid of these gasses and allow the pads to press on the rotor harder.
Since gassing hasn't had a chance to develope during a single hard stop, it is thought that solid rotors have better initial braking becasue this gassing condition doesn't come into play. So something like a truck doing a panic stop will in threory, stop better during that single emergency application.
Now a truck that is hitting the brakes many times without being able to let them cool may enjoy the benefits of drilled slotted rotors. So there's an argument for them there as well.

Sorry Scott but that is old thinking and old pad technology.

Here is what one web site says:

Cross-drilling of brake discs began in the early days of disc brakes, when existing pad materials and adhesives tended to outgas strongly when heated. Cross-drilling relieved the fractional layer of (compressible, remember) gas the pad would exude between it and the disc. But modern brake pads exhibit virtually none of this outgassing. More importantly, a cast-iron brake disc relies on its mass to absorb and dissipate heat. When you drill a bunch of holes in it, you are reducing that mass. (One company actually boasts that its drilled discs are 16 percent lighter than non-drilled discs.) Some arguments—especially from those who sell them—still maintain that the ventilation and added surface area of cross-drilled discs provide enough cooling to offset the loss of mass. But the further I investigated, the more testimonials I read from objective experts in the field who called nonsense. At best, many referred to any cooling effect as a wash, and several pointed out how often cross-drilled discs wind up plugged with brake dust—a giveaway that not much air flow is occurring through those holes (unlike the well-documented radial flow through the center vanes of a ventilated disc). Add to that the fact that, even when properly cast in and chamfered rather than simply drilled, cross-drilling can introduce stress risers into the disc that promote cracking, and you have a powerful argument against it, no matter how stylish it looks. (And if you look at the ads from companies who sell them you’ll be amused at how many mention the style factor as an actual reason to spend your money.)

The sole theoretical advantage to drilled discs mentioned by those same experts was a slightly enhanced initial “bite” in wet conditions, when the holes might provide an exit for surficial water on the disc. But brake pads quickly squeegee water off that surface anyway, so even this attribute is of questionable value in the face of the expense and loss in mass of a drilled disc.

Thus we can say pretty confidently that replacing your plain brake discs with cross-drilled discs of the same size will probably result in no reduction in fade, and could conceivably exacerbate it.

OP, as you can see from above, this site (and many more) (I use to have a great article from Wilwood too but can't find it now) agree with what Ben and I have told you.

Now, I'm not saying that all aftermarket brakes are bad. Not at all. What I am say is you better be careful and know what your getting into before you make a mistake.