In article , "W. eWatson" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Sanity
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "W. eWatson"
wrote:
I guess there's no NG for auto repair, so ..

I bought my Forester in Sept. 2002, and apparently drove 42K without
getting
new brakes. I then drove 22K before getting new breaks, and finally
another
22K, when I now need new front brakes. I live in a foothill area of
Calif.,
and drive up and down at least one 5-600' hill each day. I talked to a
mechanic today and he said that brake life is usually quite good at the
start.
Driving *up* that hill is irrelevant. How you drive *down* it makes all the

difference: do you slow down only by stepping on the brakes? Or do you
shift the transmission to a lower gear too?

He drove that same hill with the original pads so that doesn't enter the
picture.

Sure it does -- he didn't get the life out of the original pads that he
should
have, either. The shorter life of the replacements is no mystery at all;
they're usually lower quality than the original equipment. My point is that
his pad life is way too short, period -- probably because he's riding the
brakes all the way down that hill instead of downshifting like he should.

Fix the driving habits that are shortening the pad life, and the difference
between the originals and the replacements will cease to be significant.
Automatic. Doesn't down shifting create wear on the transmission? It's not
the only hill around here. I'd probably wear out my hand down shifting.

So what if it's automatic; you still downshift on long and/or steep
downgrades to save the brakes. The wear on the transmission is negligible,
and, in any event, safety is the prime concern here.

Good rule of thumb: if the hill is so long, or so steep, that you can't stay
under the posted speed limit (or posted advisory speeds for curves), plus
about 5mph, without using the brakes, you should downshift. Failing to do so
can result in complete brake failure.