I have to ask, but you realize bigger brakes are used to stop added momentum (more weight, more speed) and not more power, right?

So for example, if you regularly go 80 on the highway and after the turbo still only go 80, you don't *need* bigger brakes.

 

power + stupid factor = speed =)
car weight + my bigger ego = more weight
new_speed * new_weight = BIG momentum

I agree with what you are saying, but I still beleive in a well balanced vehicle from all aspects.

 

roger that

 

I JUST had this argument with a coworker. I think braided lines and great heat shielding the brake components will be enough for me. Im working on making the car equal weight with the turbo system as stock or lighter. I hit the breakeven point on paper allready.

 

Yeah, I see it in magazines and on TV all the time; "With this much power you're going to need some big brakes." Me, I drive 90-95 max on the highway so the 1.6 brakes are perfect no matter what kind of power I'm making. But, if Beasty is going to be going faster with the turbo then I understand.

 

Hmm... guess I'm not sold on the 1.8 brakes just yet unless you just happen across a screamin' deal for them. Pads are far more important than an extra 1/2" of rotor. My bro's car has the upgrade and I have yet to notice any difference given identical pads, street or track. I can track my car in the TX heat on Brembo blanks and Hawk pads for an entire season with enough power lock all 4 no matter how hot they are. I'd say that if you start to run out of brake before grip, then think about upgrading. Until then, it's not worth the money unless you just NEED to have that bigger rotor staring back at you...

 

I just did the swap and absolutely recommend it, especially if you are thinking about tracking the car.

As a comparison two 1.6 turbo Miata members (one with the same pads; Hawk HP+ [Rappadan & Newbsauce]) drove my car and immediately commented on the brakes and how superior they performed.

The larger surface is less prone to fade & has a higher surface area. You may be fine with the 9" rotors, but the surface area of the pad is signifigantly smaller.

I believed all the M.net "the factory brakes are fine BS", then wondered, why did they go to 10" with brakes and a 7" rear with a small bump in power in 94? The 1.6 brakes even with a track pad were not up to snuff @ 170rwhp IMHO.

 

All very good points.
I did lose my brakes to overheating just once. We were at a resort in upstate new york. The ride back to the highway invloved going down a very steep road for a few miles. So i was on brakes pretty much all the time just trying to keep the car from accelerating downhill. About 3/4 way down brakes just stopped responding. Thanks to whoever came up with a E-break idea no crashing happened.
Granted that 4 people in an Nissan Altima and a super steep downhill is an extreme endurance test to any brakes, but the ugly feeling is still there...
I haven't had any problems with Miata brakes, except for a lil' flex play in the pedal under heavy braking. But that's brake lines and not rotors or pads.

 

Actually, that flex you're feeling is more likely the brake booster flexing the entire portion of the firewall to which it's connected.

 

for what its worth, I have a rather big intercooler (16x10x2 core) with a garret gt2554 at 4-5 psi and was able ran it at 14* with just a little bit of pinging. I have since set it at 8* to be safe. However, this is with a head that was DIY port n' polished, chambers cc'd, gasket matched and polished. I bet 11 - 12 could be done safely with my setup and 10* on a stock motor. Air temperature was 30 - 40*F at time of testing. Butt dyno says 10hp over 8*.

Air cooling makes a significant difference in the timing that can be run and since your setup is not intercooled (assuming stock greddy), you would probably be best not to run any higher than 8*