NAPA Ultra Premium vs Raybestos Element3/RPT

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm pretty sure that the "FZN" in the part # signifies it's Raybestos' "Fusion" coated rotor line. NAPA uses "CR" for "Coated Rotor".
 
Originally Posted by doitmyself
It's all a great mystery. For my application (Patriot), the Element 3 shows the gray fusion coating and the specialty version looks like the old Advanced Technology rotor with black painted hat/vanes.
780459FZN
[Linked Image]

VS
780459.
[Linked Image]

NAPA # = UP 880459CR or UP 880459 ...what's the CR difference?
A very recent inquiry to RockAuto to verify if their stock was RPT or Element 3 was replied with "Those are listed as having a proprietary Gray Fusion coating."
21.gif
I'm buying EBC coated plain rotors next week.


I myself am wondering, is the painted version better?

Is the specialty version worth the extra $$$?
 
painfx, you are pondering questions that many (myself included) have already done here. Study all the recent threads and the same non-conclusions are reached. There is no definitive answer. We simply don't have enough follow-up responses after people have used these rotors for a few years. Add to that all of the huge variables between our member's use conditions that confounds any solid data interpretation.

Some "think" that the 100% coated rotor will only rust where the pad interaction is. Vs. the painted rotors have a bit of unprotected bare metal on the rotor face. Does it matter? We don't know. At least one member here showed a pretty rusty Raybestos fusion coated rotor after less than a year's use. We don't know if the painted type would do better in the same circumstances.

At least one member says that the metallurgy quality trumps any coating comparison. I might tend to believe this, My OEM Mopar rotor is rusty at 6.5 years of salty roads, BUT it is relatively good for an uncoated rotor and much better than some cheapies I used in the past. Is this because of higher quality metal??
21.gif
Mopar brake parts are 2x to 3x more than quality aftermarket parts.

Some believe that pad quality is much more important than rotor concerns.

Let us know if you find any more definitive information. I share your pain - I'm due for new front brakes within the next month.
 
Originally Posted by doitmyself
painfx, you are pondering questions that many (myself included) have already done here. Study all the recent threads and the same non-conclusions are reached. There is no definitive answer. We simply don't have enough follow-up responses after people have used these rotors for a few years. Add to that all of the huge variables between our member's use conditions that confounds any solid data interpretation.

Some "think" that the 100% coated rotor will only rust where the pad interaction is. Vs. the painted rotors have a bit of unprotected bare metal on the rotor face. Does it matter? We don't know. At least one member here showed a pretty rusty Raybestos fusion coated rotor after less than a year's use. We don't know if the painted type would do better in the same circumstances.

At least one member says that the metallurgy quality trumps any coating comparison. I might tend to believe this, My OEM Mopar rotor is rusty at 6.5 years of salty roads, BUT it is relatively good for an uncoated rotor and much better than some cheapies I used in the past. Is this because of higher quality metal??
21.gif
Mopar brake parts are 2x to 3x more than quality aftermarket parts.

Some believe that pad quality is much more important than rotor concerns.

Let us know if you find any more definitive information. I share your pain - I'm due for new front brakes within the next month.


Ive been searching up and down on google about this ecoating rotors. And it put me here. I am also waiting for an answer. Ecoat from Wagner which is more expensive. Or the Raybestos element
 
BTW- in response to an earlier post. That coating will wear off in less than 10' of braking. Your first pedal stab, however, will be like putting it in park, so buckle the seat belt and press the pedal so gingerly.
 
Just for fun I emailed Raybestos asking if there are differences between the RPT and Element 3 and also several questions concerning vendors advertising Element 3 but delivering the older RPT.

Their response was : "The RPT have a different metalluragy than the element 3." It's difficult to put any faith in that answer.
 
You can call them and talk to a technical person. Do that and see what answer you get. I am willing to bet the change from RPT to Element3 is a marketing change only.
 
Originally Posted by hallstevenson
You can call them and talk to a technical person. Do that and see what answer you get. I am willing to bet the change from RPT to Element3 is a marketing change only.


That was my guess also, and I think painx is leaning that way too. If you look at their site, even though they market the Element 3 as Ultra Premium, they imply that their police/specialty/performance line has better (enhanced) metallurgy and better runout specs.. My guess is that the police/specialty/performance line is equivalent to the old Advanced Technology line. The Element 3 might simply be the R line with a coating. R line is the jobber grade with no coating.
 
I did speak to a "technical" person there and he spoke very openly. Not your typical script-guided phone rep. He said they have an OEM line of rotors -- I want to say it is/was their Advanced Technology line -- that they produce for automakers as well as sell aftermarket. The metallurgy matches the OEM specs. The RPT/Element3 line uses gray iron (G3000) material across the board, with their "special" coating, of course. Where it falls in their line, i.e. premium, mid-grade, budget, etc I don't know. They market it as a "premium" product but that doesn't mean from a technical standpoint it truly is.
 
I'm not sure why (runout specs.?), but this makes me think that the NAPA Ultra Premiums are the better grade, more similar to the Raybestos police/specialty/performance (old Advanced Technology) vs. the Element 3. Pricing wise, at RockAuto my rotors are $23 for "Element 3" and $42 for Specialty. NAPA Ultra Premium is $57.

EDIT: Just called Raybestos tech line. He stated without hesitation that the NAPA Ultra Premiums are equivalent to the higher grade Raybestos Specialty line, NOT the Element 3 line. Bingo!!!!!!!! There's your answer painfx!
 
Originally Posted by doitmyself
Originally Posted by hallstevenson
You can call them and talk to a technical person. Do that and see what answer you get. I am willing to bet the change from RPT to Element3 is a marketing change only.


That was my guess also, and I think painx is leaning that way too. If you look at their site, even though they market the Element 3 as Ultra Premium, they imply that their police/specialty/performance line has better (enhanced) metallurgy and better runout specs.. My guess is that the police/specialty/performance line is equivalent to the old Advanced Technology line. The Element 3 might simply be the R line with a coating. R line is the jobber grade with no coating.


Exactly... Although these are just hypothesis, is it worth spending the extra money for the "performance" specialty rotors.

If they can show the thickness comparison and the weight of the rotors, then we can simplfy things out.
 
Originally Posted by doitmyself
I'm not sure why (runout specs.?), but this makes me think that the NAPA Ultra Premiums are the better grade, more similar to the Raybestos police/specialty/performance (old Advanced Technology) vs. the Element 3. Pricing wise, at RockAuto my rotors are $23 for "Element 3" and $42 for Specialty. NAPA Ultra Premium is $57.

EDIT: Just called Raybestos tech line. He stated without hesitation that the NAPA Ultra Premiums are equivalent to the higher grade Raybestos Specialty line, NOT the Element 3 line. Bingo!!!!!!!! There's your answer painfx!



Looks like my guess was correct.
Because if you compare the run out tolerance they are similar.
 
I think that going up to the next quality level(s) above generic white box rotors is justified for a long term daily driver. The difference of $20 more amortized over 50 -75 thousand miles is pretty small - extra 40 cents per 1000 miles. It's not like we are stepping up to crypto treated rotors with slots.

Yes, your original hunches seemed to play out correct if we can trust the data sources. The .004 runout spec of the lesser rotor was played down in other threads. Those threads assumed that the high runout spec. was just there as part of the marketing spiel and that most, if not all of today's rotors would be manufactured well under that spec..

Many people get excellent results with the cheaper rotors, but we don't know the operating variables. My hypothesis questions the supposed better rotor metallurgy and fit/finish - does that help the rotor perform better under less ideal conditions? Does better metal metallurgy result in a rotor naturally resisting salt corrosion better? Does it result in better pad deposition for less chance of pulsation developing? Better heat/cold tolerance to avoid warping? Longer wear? Less noise? I'm done over-thinking this! On to the next crises.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top