Not so.....

From the Porsche site:
Porsche engineering is all about performance

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Strike
Oh, and one more thing.

 

what was his name?
unless we heard exactly what he said it's hard to say if what he told you is correct.

1. bc of weight transfer the front brakes do more of the work, so front brakes tend to be bigger/better than rear

2. bc of weight transfer when you brake in a corner your rear will become loose

possibly he meant that bc the front brakes have more braking power when you brake it magnifies the weight transfer, magnifying the loosening of the rear (?)

personally i don't see the need for engine braking. i think this is a relic of when the brakes on cars weren't as good. with brakes these days it shouldn't be necessary, just use your brakes to brake. not sure if there's other benefits i'm unaware of.

 

I notice this only because my friend car is a MR2 and his rear brakes are bigger then the front.

 

I think his name is Joe.

 

Is it an MR2 Spyder? If so, it would be great if someone who actually has a Spyder handy could confirm (I've driven one but don't have one), but it would appear that although the rear rotors are larger in diameter than the fronts, the fronts are still thicker and have more swept area.

As pointed out above, the 911, which is to my knowledge the only rear-engined new car for sale in North America today, has significantly larger front brakes than rear. A rear-heavy car will definitely tax its rear brakes more, but regardless of static weight distribution, no car is immune to weight transfer while braking.

Steve