Ah, but I'm a looking me the way "too thick" pads -- on purpose of course.
Here's what I found out so far.
http://www.ebcbrakes.com/Assets/USA2006MCcat.pdfGo here, let the .PDF load completely then scroll about 35% down the scroll bar until you see pictoral drawings of the individual brake pads.
Find the FA 106 drawing and you will see that the FA 106/2 is the 2.5mm thicker pad that was all the rage back in 1987 and there-abouts on dirt bikes.
That's a combined 5mm too thick (about .2" too thick) to fit on a stock Suzuki 650. That's not too far off twice as much brake pad material available for some real extended use life.
Now WHICH brake pad material would be the ideal for this trick? Kevlar would be nice and that would be an "X" grade according to the .PDF information on grade designations. Description given is "cool running, low disk abrasion and quiet". My, my, wouldn't that be nice for our sqeeky old front disks?
Problem is dirt bikes generally ran R (sintered metal) compounds (good service in mud and dirt). I mean, they was dirt bikes, right?
R sintered sounds sorta sqeeky gritty to me, don't you agree?
Shame you can't find that Kevlar X grade anywhere on the thicker dirt bike style /2 pads. My, that would be nice -- nearly twice the life and all quiet too.
Only thing that could be sweeter would be to catch them on sale, of course.
Now that would be just "toute sweet" as the frenchies would say.
Where is them ebay crazy dot com places when you really need them to find you something that's 1987 obsolete and wasn't ever made that way in the first place?
<grin>
Oldfeller