OEM Front brake pads vs EBC Yellow Stuff DP4120R

[DAC21]

The yellow stuff pads seem to be recommend as OEM replacements. I have not done the pads on my 1600 so bare with me as I can't envision how the pads are retained in the caliper. Having said that the DP4120R pads are 10mm longer than OEM spec and have two posts for lack of a better term coming out the side vs a rounded drilled out ring on the OEM pads which I assume this is for retention in the caliber? Bottom line the Yellow Stuff DP4120R is kosher to use? are modifications needed?

[rwmann]

I have used Porterfield R4S material all around, on OEM backing plates and shoes, with good results.

If by 10mm (~1/2”) longer you mean wider (or thicker), they won’t fit. If you mean deeper, they may contact the hub. Whatever friction material you choose, I would stay with OEM backing plate geometry, unless you are also changing calipers and mountings.

[PandaBoy]

I'm not sure about the fit of the Yellow Stuff DP4120R pads but I've had good luck with "EBC Brakes DP2120 - EBC Greenstuff 2000 Series"
They are spec'd for the "1963 Jaguar XKE" & there is no issue wit fit.

[DAC21]

I'm not sure about the fit of the Yellow Stuff DP4120R pads but I've had good luck with "EBC Brakes DP2120 - EBC Greenstuff 2000 Series"
They are spec'd for the "1963 Jaguar XKE" & there is no issue wit fit.

On Amazon the DP4120R and DP2120 are diagrammed as the exact same dimension 46x63x17mm. So fit should be no issue if the DP2120 works for you. Just the oem ring vs the EBC two posts design is me throwing off.

[DAC21]

I have used Porterfield R4S material all around, on OEM backing plates and shoes, with good results.

If by 10mm (~1/2”) longer you mean wider (or thicker), they won’t fit. If you mean deeper, they may contact the hub. Whatever friction material you choose, I would stay with OEM backing plate geometry, unless you are also changing calipers and mountings.

If you scroll down at this Amazon link it shows a diagram comparing the Dunlop design vs EBC. You can see the dimension in question difference.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CGPIKY/re ... RFbQ61JBS8

[rwmann]

They seem to be 10mm longer, so may interfere with the hub. Retention mechanism will work to keep the pads from migrating out, but not inward. The hub would be the limiter there. I see one review states ‘didn’t fit’, but no idea what car/calipers they didn’t fit...

[DAC21]

I have used Porterfield R4S material all around, on OEM backing plates and shoes, with good results.

If by 10mm (~1/2”) longer you mean wider (or thicker), they won’t fit. If you mean deeper, they may contact the hub. Whatever friction material you choose, I would stay with OEM backing plate geometry, unless you are also changing calipers and mountings.

OK I found the Porterfield RS4 equivalent, P/N DD704. The dimension in question is actually .5 mm longer on the Porterfield than the EBC = 63.5 vs 63mm so I should be golden. Interestingly the Porterfield pad is 14.5mm pad thickness vs the EBC 17mm vs OEM Spec 16.7. That 14.5mm probably helps with the install if the pistons are being a pain in retracting.

I went ahead and snagged a set of the ECB on Amazon for $45, normally these go for $85-105. Only two sets were left and I was going to give the board the heads up on the great price. When I refreshed the listing it jumped to $84....whatever. It appears the set I order were directly from Amazon. Now it is third party availability.

[rwmann]

So you decided not to go with the DP4120R?

[DAC21]

So you decided not to go with the DP4120R?

No I did go with ECB DP4120R. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Based on a couple others that bought them and the comparable size to the Brand of the Pads that you bought they should fit fine. Probably a bit of over kill, but they were $20 cheaper than the OEM and by all accounts much better.

[rwmann]

Ah, OK, interesting, because I actually supplied Porterfield OEM backing plate/shoe cores to get mine done.

[DAC21]

Ah, OK, interesting, because I actually supplied Porterfield OEM backing plate/shoe cores to get mine done.

I don't think front Rotor type pads require core swap with most any Retailor (maybe not with Porterfield as they sound like the manufacturer) Rear shoes more so, I'm not in a position to get the rears shoes off yet, but I expect I will need to turn them in or pay the core charge. All the pads on my 67 are conceivably fine. but they are over 40 years old and are made with Asbestos.

[rwmann]

They did require front cores when I ordered them, which was when Porterfield first started offering their R4S compound, which was early 2000s. Most of their product at the time was big bore Detroit-oriented.