On 17 Jan 2010 00:09:49 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:

In article , writes:

| As for machining vs replacing? On today's cars, with rotors often
| available for less than $40 and machining costing 30+, why would you
| EVER machine the rotor??

About 25 years ago I had a Honda Accord which I took to a Honda Barn for
service. They frequently machined the rotors. What did I know? It was
my first car. Eventually on one service I got a sad call that my rotors
were too thin to machine and would have to be replaced. The cost to replace
was just slightly _less_ than the cost to remove/machine/install. Maybe
this is related to high labor charges at dealer shops, but since then I've
always insisted on replacement.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Back when the rotors on front drive cars were mounted to the BACK of
the hub and the front bearings needed to be pressed apart, it was a
different story.
We invested in an "on car" brake lathe to skim the rotors on Toyota
Tercels because to remove them was a roughly 2 hour job and involved
replacing seals and a "crush spacer". The oncar lathe could do the job
in less than 15 minutes. Honda had a similar setup, and because they
were replaced so often the "economy of scale" allowed the parts prices
to drop to the point that if you were taking them apart anyway it just
did not make ANY sense to machine the old rotors.

The same has transpired with generally all makes now - with the
generally underbraked cars today, and the ecology limitations on brake
pad material, rotors have become "consumables" and the price reflects
that reality (in most cases)

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:55:41 -0500, Phisherman
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:59:25 -0500, "RBM" wrote:

Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time



Don't replace the rotors unless absolutely needed. The objective is
to replace the (cheaper) pads well before the rotors become damaged.
It's a good idea to inspect the pads yearly, perhaps more often if you
are driving on a lot of salted roads.


Not true any more. The pads for my PT cruiser cost over double what
the set of replacement rotors cost.
Same for my Mercury Mystique.
You CAN buy pads for roughly the cost of one rotor if you are buying
the cheapest available of both.

Recommendation is to service the brakes twice a year - spring and fall
- to be sure the caliper sliders are not stuck, the pads are not stuck
or worn, and the rotors are not corroded. Knocking off the ridge of
rust from the edge of the rotors can extend the life of both pads and
rotors significantly.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:31:15 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:09:19 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down
to the rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still
had some life left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I
was in for an inspection, and they told me that they routinely
replaced the rotors at the same time

It seems to be coming more routine. Rotor are made thinner and cheaper than
in the past. If a rotor was getting grooved, it could be turned down.
Today, there is barely enough to turn and they can be replaced for $25 on
some cars.

If your rotors were in decent condition, you did right in leaving them
alone. Some brake shops won't just replace pads. They insist on going a
complete change of pads, rebuilding the calipers, etc. The reasoning is
that they can then give a warranty on the entire job knowing that faulty
parts were not missed and cause a problem in a few weeks. Far more
expensive that just popping in a set of pads though.


There reasoning is that they make a hell of a lot more money. Most
people need nothing more then pads replaced on the first brake job.
I'm had many cars with the original calipers still going strong past
125,000 miles. Most brake work is a scam to move money from your
pocket to the shops pocket.


With some shops that is a definite truth - they will replace anything
if you let them.
However, a shop makes MORE money machining a set of rotors than they
do replacing that same set of rotors, all things considered.
Assuming nothing goes wrong with the job and they don't end up having
to do the job over on their dime a month or two down the road.

In some parts of North America 125,000 miles on the original calipers
is no stretch at all. Perhaps even on the original rotors - and with
strictly highway miles?? Even a chance on the first set of pads if the
driver is conservative in his driving habits.

In other parts of North America, in urban driving conditions, 30,000
miles on a set of pads and rotors would be almost miraculous, and
50,000 on the calipers would be uncommon, particularly without that
"un-neccesary" bi-annual brake service that all the "crooked,
unscrupuolous" mechanics try to stuff down your throat.

Like the manufacturer of that orange oil filter used to say back in
the sixties and seventies "you can pay me now, or you can pay me
later"

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:29:45 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:59:25 -0500, RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

If it works, don't fix it.
Right - but when you fix it, fix it RIGHT.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:00:10 -0600, Red Green
wrote:

"RBM" wrote in :

Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to
the rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had
some life left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in
for an inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the
rotors at the same time



Personal experience and not 2nd hand.

I had pads and rotors put on my car by a 20yr friend and PROFESSIONAL fleet
mechanic of 30+ years. He was the only person besides the dealer I would
trust with my 3000GT. I relocated to NC since. About a year later I needed
tires. Front brakes started squeaking a few weeks earlier like 90% of the
time.

Did a little shopping around here and Pep Boys (auto parts and service
center) had the best bottom line out the door price after a rebate. I tell
them the brakes have been squeaking 90% of stops like it's the squeaker
warning and while it's on the rack to take a peek and let me know if
anything abnormal.

After a bit guy says front pads are starting to hitting the rotors. Can't
turn rotors any more because they are out of spec. I'm like thinking wtf to
myself. I smell a rat. I haven't put that many miles on the car. But there
is bad squeaking and the annoyance alone makes me want the pads changed. I
ask how much to replace pads while it's up there. They say $125. So I tell
them to continue with tires and I'll be right back. I go over to parts
counter on the store side and ask about pads. They say $20 (cut & glue
shipping box on to old pads quality) / $35 mid grade/ $45 ceramics. OK,
thanks. Go back to service side. Ask which pads they are gonna put on for
$125. Says the $20 ones. I say yo, no thanks. I already have pads that
squeak. Finish up tire install.

Next morning I go to parts store here and get pads for $32 at Advance Auto.
Pull off wheel, caliper and pads on one side. Pads are worn maybe 1/3. I'm
like oh ****. One side wearing normal and the other way too fast. Bad
$caliper$? Do that wheel and go to other side. Lug wrench on. Nut spins off
effortlessly. *******s left a loose lug. Next lug same thing. Took lugs 3,4
&5 off with fingers. Wonderful, I drove home 10 miles @ 50mph with all lugs
on a front wheel finger tight.

Anyway, I take off caliper and pads for this wheel. Pads worn 1/3 same as
other. This is good. So, how can pads be hitting rotors some idiot might
ask? And how could new rotors be out of spec with new pads that were put on
with them if pads are only 1/3 worn? This is not good. You don't think anus
remodeling was a free service of theirs do you?

Anyway, never squeaked again after replacement.

So yea, some are blatant crooks. I hear (this IS 2nd hand info) service
techs make commissions on parts or parts in excess of $xxx for given time
periods.
This is true at the "big chain" tire and brake shops, but NOT at most
dealerships, or most independent shops
I always recommend that IF you have a good dealer in your area you use
them for service. If you catch them raping you, run the other way and
let everyone you know know. Keeps them honest.

Otherwise find a good independent shop. Generally speaking either one
is a large step ahead of the tire, brake, and alignment type chain
stores or the Pep Boys/Advanced Auto/ Canadian Tire type shops.

I've worked at all 3. You'd never get me back into a tire/brake type
shop or a mass merchandiser shop. Either as a mechanic or a customer.
I buy my tires from a tire specialist - but he does not get to install
them either on the rims or on the car anymore.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:24:01 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

That's as relevant as moldy bread behind the refrigerator.
No, actually it is EXACTLY the same.
EVENTUALLY both the rings and pads may seat and do their job, but both
will have reduced life and reduced effectiveness.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:48:18 -0600, FatterDumber& Happier Moe
wrote:

RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time


If the brake pedal isn't pulsing and depending on your driving habits.....
If the drivers are an easy on the equipment type of drivers a new set
of decent brake pads ought to get you at least 30-40K miles down the
road and possibly twice that amount. If you or the driver are hard on
brakes such as frequent long hard stops than put everything back to new
car specs and that includes changing the brake fluid every two years.
And did you know? A new set of pads needs to be properly "broken in".
http://www.tirerack.com/brakes/tech/....jsp?techid=85
which requires a proper surface preparation on the rotors.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:15:55 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:29:45 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:59:25 -0500, RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

If it works, don't fix it.
Right - but when you fix it, fix it RIGHT.

Worthless cliche. If it is brake replacement time, it is just the pads
that need to be replaced unless the car has symptoms of warped rotors.
If the rotors are good, leave them the **** alone. Replacing good
components is insanity.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:32:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 17, 8:29Â*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
Ron wrote:

True, you might only need pads, but if the don't turn the rotors (if
they are thick enough) the pads will not seat and the brakes will not
work like they are supposed to, therefore they will not give you a
warranty.

Never found seating to be a problem, but it probably can under the right
conditions. Â*OTOH, this may save you a few bucks if the brakes are
pulsating.

http://www.stoptech.com/tech_info/wp...rakedisk.shtml
The obvious question now is "is there a "cure" for discs with uneven
friction material deposits?" The answer is a conditional yes. If the
vibration has just started, the chances are that the temperature has never
reached the point where cementite begins to form. In this case, simply
fitting a set of good "semi-metallic" pads and using them hard (after
bedding) may well remove the deposits and restore the system to normal
operation but with upgraded pads. If only a small amount of material has
been transferred i.e. if the vibration is just starting, vigorous scrubbing
with garnet paper may remove the deposit. As many deposits are not visible,
scrub the entire friction surfaces thoroughly. Do not use regular sand paper
or emery cloth as the aluminum oxide abrasive material will permeate the
cast iron surface and make the condition worse. Do not bead blast or sand
blast the discs for the same reason

Another cure that I've not tried, is a series of about hard stops from 60 to
about 5 as hard and fast as you can. Â*It is supposed to burn off any
residue.

So, you have brakes that are pulsating. And you're supposed to take
them apart, put on a set of new semi-metalic pads, scrub with garnet
paper, use them hard, etc. to try to fix it? Who in their right
mind would do all that instead of just buying new rotors or turning
the old ones? In my experience, a pulsating peddle is a WARPED rotor
and none of that procedure is gonna solve it. Even if it might be
capable of solving it, it's one hell of a lot more work than the
obvious and correct solution. And when it doesn't work, you get to do
it all over again.
I agree with you in principal, but the incidence of actual WARPED
rotors is extremely low compared to pitted or collapsed rotors when it
comes to pulsations. The so-called "material transfer", or
intergranular corrosion that makes high spots or hard spots on the
rotors is much more common - as is the pitting that results when that
high spot pops off.

This intergranular corrosion and hard spotting makes machining rotors
an uncommon solution today, because generally by the time it gets to
the shop that corrosion is SO DEEP that machining it out gets you
below the machinability limit of the rotor.

If I was equipping a new automotive shop today I don't think I'd waste
money on a disc lathe because there is no way it would EVER pay for
itself under today's conditions. There was a time it was a definite
money-maker and the ability to do it inhouse rather than using a
jobber shop was a big plus.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:43:20 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
m:

Ron wrote:

True, you might only need pads, but if the don't turn the rotors (if
they are thick enough) the pads will not seat and the brakes will not
work like they are supposed to, therefore they will not give you a
warranty.

if the disc isn't grooved,then it doesn't need turning,and the new pads
will "seat" just fine.

If it is not grooved , pitted, or discoloured just scuffing with "40
grit abbrasive will allow them to seat just fine.
HOWEVER, in at least half of North America finding rotors in that
condition while requiring pad replacement is getting to be a rare
occurrence. (Particularly on the inner surface of the rotor)

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:25:42 -0600, (Lp1331 1p1331)
wrote:

FWIW, I have a 3/4 (or1) ton 2001 Dodge van company truck that I have
had since new. At about 47K, the chirpers on the pads started making
noise. I went to the parts house down the street from our shop, got a
set of the best pads they had, about $50, put them on myself--did
absolutely nothing but replace the pads. At about 97K, we were doing a
routine inspection onthe truck, including pulling the wheels and
checking the brakes. The pads still had probably 10-15K left on them,
but our manager had a garage we use replace them and they turned the
rotors at the same time. Truck has 125K on it now, still stopping fine,
and still has the original shoes/drums in the rear. Larry
Just for interest. Larry, where are you located?
And yes, on a heavy duty vehicle this is more likely to happen than on
a passenger vehicle or "light" truck.

"Lp1331 1p1331" wrote in message
...
FWIW, I have a 3/4 (or1) ton 2001 Dodge van company truck that I have
had since new. At about 47K, the chirpers on the pads started making
noise. I went to the parts house down the street from our shop, got a
set of the best pads they had, about $50, put them on myself--did
absolutely nothing but replace the pads. At about 97K, we were doing a
routine inspection onthe truck, including pulling the wheels and
checking the brakes. The pads still had probably 10-15K left on them,
but our manager had a garage we use replace them and they turned the
rotors at the same time. Truck has 125K on it now, still stopping fine,
and still has the original shoes/drums in the rear. Larry


Take a look at the thickness of that rotor on a 3/4 ton (or 1 ton) and
compare it to a rotor on todays cars. No comparison.

wrote in
:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:19:30 -0600, Red Green
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
om:

Red Green wrote:

Personal experience and not 2nd hand.

I had pads and rotors put on my car by a 20yr friend and
PROFESSIONAL fleet mechanic of 30+ years. He was the only person
besides the dealer I would trust with my 3000GT. I relocated to NC
since. About a year later I needed tires. Front brakes started
squeaking a few weeks earlier like 90% of the time.

Did a little shopping around here and Pep Boys (auto parts and
service center) had the best bottom line out the door price after a
rebate. I tell them the brakes have been squeaking 90% of stops
like it's the squeaker warning and while it's on the rack to take a
peek and let me know if anything abnormal.


There is a lesson to be learned from your story. First, the lowest
price is not the best value.

Most know that by now. I was fortunate I didn't get caught up in this
proctology exercise. But those damn loose lugs is what got me. So damn
busy trying to screw me they didn't screw the lugs.


You'd do far better by finding a good small shop, one that comes
from recommendations, one that proves trustworthy over time, and
stop shopping. Trust him, give him all your business, pay him
promptly.

Absolutely. But where I am now that is a difficult thing. It's like an
accepted, expected practice to be a scumbucket. Responsibility of
buyer to beware. Totally backwards.
.

The big chains are hit or miss. Some are good, others are on the
sleazy side, all tend to be high priced and have a "replace
everything" attitude.


Even in North Carolina there are a few reputable shops around.
Generally small shops owned by people with principals in their lives,
over-all.


You're right. I shouldn't generalize NC. A local thing is more like it
and it's just that I haven't been exposed to enough places to find the
ones you speak of.

wrote:
On Jan 16, 2:59�pm, wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? �I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

Well I always replace rotors!

But thats just me but heres why.

Rotors on newer vehicles arent very heavy, so generally shops
recommend on turning them so they are straight and smooth. turning
them costs money

But this maes them thinner and before you know it
rotors warp and pulsate

So now you need new rotors anyway and pads again.

In my case its worse I carry extra weight in my van for my
job.........


Hi,
Then you should get a after market better replacement than OEM ones.
The casted ones like old days. My brakes usually last at least 100K
miles. Mostly driving on freeway.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:35:21 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:15:55 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:29:45 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:59:25 -0500, RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

If it works, don't fix it.
Right - but when you fix it, fix it RIGHT.

Worthless cliche. If it is brake replacement time, it is just the pads
that need to be replaced unless the car has symptoms of warped rotors.
If the rotors are good, leave them the **** alone. Replacing good
components is insanity.
I agree with you IF the rotors are good. If there is wear you can see,
feel, OR measure, they MAY NOT be "good componentsa"

Clare, I am in San Antonio, so no salt and mostly fairly flat roads. For
sure, 3/4-1 ton truck brake components are much heavier than modern
cars, and even 1/2 ton trucks. The pads alone for mine are about 8"
across and the lining itself is at least 5/" thick. I'm sure the rotors
are thick and heavy. The company had bought a bunch of 1/2 ton Chevy and
GMC vans before I started there--- I think they were 94-95's.They were
junk. Besides shelling the rear ends out on every single one right out
of warranty at between $800 to $1200, they did good to get 25K between
brake jobs.FWIW, I probably get more mileage out of brakes than almost
anyone there. I am the oldest one there. and am a pretty conservative
driver. Now that I think about it, I have a friend who is about 70, and
I am terrified to ride with him. He takes off from a stop just short of
burnig rubber even if he is only going one block, then slams on the
brakes just short of running a stop sign. His Lincoln Town Car gets
--maybe -- 20K between brake jobs, not to mention probably half the gas
mileage it should get. So, how a person drives has as much to do with
brake wear as the quality of the brakes. Larry

Lp1331 1p1331 wrote:

His Lincoln Town Car gets --maybe -- 20K between brake
jobs, not to mention probably half the gas mileage it should get. So,
how a person drives has as much to do with brake wear as the quality
of the brakes. Larry


Not to mention where you live. When I lived in Philadelphia, I'd get 25,000
miles from a set of pad. Where I am now, I just traded in my '07 with
67,000 miles and the brakes were in very good condition, close to half the
pad left. I put on more miles per y ear, but hit the brakes much less.
Instead of a stop sign at every corner, I can drive home 25 miles and hit
the brakes two or three times.

On Jan 17, 2:27*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:24:01 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
That's as relevant as moldy bread behind the refrigerator.

*No, actually it is EXACTLY the same.
EVENTUALLY both the rings and pads may seat and do their job, but both
will have reduced life and reduced effectiveness.

Correct.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:20:48 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 16, 2:59?pm, wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? ?I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

Well I always replace rotors!

But thats just me but heres why.

Rotors on newer vehicles arent very heavy, so generally shops
recommend on turning them so they are straight and smooth. turning
them costs money

But this maes them thinner and before you know it
rotors warp and pulsate

So now you need new rotors anyway and pads again.

In my case its worse I carry extra weight in my van for my
job.........


Hi,
Then you should get a after market better replacement than OEM ones.
The casted ones like old days. My brakes usually last at least 100K
miles. Mostly driving on freeway.
Cast iron rotors are extremely dangerous. Wrought iron is better, or
maleable cast.. A straight cast iron rotor would shatter when it hids
a puddle of ice water after hard breaking. I've seen it happen.
(Rallye Mini Cooper in the early seventies)

Through-way driving is pretty easy on brakes compared to city and
urban thoroughfare driving.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:14:14 -0600, (Lp1331 1p1331)
wrote:

Clare, I am in San Antonio, so no salt and mostly fairly flat roads. For
sure, 3/4-1 ton truck brake components are much heavier than modern
cars, and even 1/2 ton trucks. The pads alone for mine are about 8"
across and the lining itself is at least 5/" thick. I'm sure the rotors
are thick and heavy. The company had bought a bunch of 1/2 ton Chevy and
GMC vans before I started there--- I think they were 94-95's.They were
junk. Besides shelling the rear ends out on every single one right out
of warranty at between $800 to $1200, they did good to get 25K between
brake jobs.FWIW, I probably get more mileage out of brakes than almost
anyone there. I am the oldest one there. and am a pretty conservative
driver. Now that I think about it, I have a friend who is about 70, and
I am terrified to ride with him. He takes off from a stop just short of
burnig rubber even if he is only going one block, then slams on the
brakes just short of running a stop sign. His Lincoln Town Car gets
--maybe -- 20K between brake jobs, not to mention probably half the gas
mileage it should get. So, how a person drives has as much to do with
brake wear as the quality of the brakes. Larry

San Antonio is likely one of the best places to live for brake life.
You have no road salt and relatively low humidity, so corrosion is not
a big concern, and you are not a "large municipal region" like the LA
basin, so have less Urban Gridlock. Much of your driving would be
relatively open road, except during rush-hour. (comparing to, say, the
wachington DC area, NYC, Toronto, or Montreal or even Vancouver - or
Dallas/ft Worth) - and like you say - FLAT - kinda like Saskatchewan -
where you can watch your dog running away for a week.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:55:17 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:31*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:09:19 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? *I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down
to the rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still
had some life left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I
was in for an inspection, and they told me that they routinely
replaced the rotors at the same time

It seems to be coming more routine. *Rotor are made thinner and cheaper than
in the past. * If a rotor was *getting grooved, it could be turned down.
Today, there is barely enough to turn and they can be replaced for $25 on
some cars.

If your rotors were in decent condition, you did right in leaving them
alone. *Some brake shops won't just replace pads. *They insist on going a
complete change of pads, rebuilding the calipers, etc. *The reasoning is
that they can then give a warranty on the entire job knowing that faulty
parts were not missed and cause a problem in a few weeks. *Far more
expensive that just popping in a set of pads though.

There reasoning is that they make a hell of a *lot more money. Most
people need nothing more then pads replaced on the first brake job.
I'm had many cars with the original calipers still going strong past
125,000 miles. *Most brake work is a scam to move money from your
pocket to the shops pocket.

True, you might only need pads, but if the don't turn the rotors (if
they are thick enough) the pads will not seat and the brakes will not
work like they are supposed to, therefore they will not give you a
warranty.

Most car makers do NOT recommend routine turning of the rotors when
pads are replaced. And the worst that would happen if you don't turn
them is that the pads last longer, hardly a reason not to honor the
warranty on the pads. It's just another excuse the shops use to avoid
doing inexpensive work.

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:20:48 -0700, Tony
wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 16, 2:59?pm, wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? ?I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

Well I always replace rotors!

But thats just me but heres why.

Rotors on newer vehicles arent very heavy, so generally shops
recommend on turning them so they are straight and smooth. turning
them costs money

But this maes them thinner and before you know it
rotors warp and pulsate

So now you need new rotors anyway and pads again.

In my case its worse I carry extra weight in my van for my
job.........


Hi,
Then you should get a after market better replacement than OEM ones.
The casted ones like old days. My brakes usually last at least 100K
miles. Mostly driving on freeway.
Cast iron rotors are extremely dangerous. Wrought iron is better, or
maleable cast.. A straight cast iron rotor would shatter when it hids
a puddle of ice water after hard breaking. I've seen it happen.
(Rallye Mini Cooper in the early seventies)

Through-way driving is pretty easy on brakes compared to city and
urban thoroughfare driving.
Hi,
No doubt. My last brake job was done at 230K Km.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Lp1331 1p1331 wrote:

His Lincoln Town Car gets --maybe -- 20K between brake
jobs, not to mention probably half the gas mileage it should get. So,
how a person drives has as much to do with brake wear as the quality
of the brakes. Larry


Not to mention where you live. When I lived in Philadelphia, I'd get 25,000
miles from a set of pad. Where I am now, I just traded in my '07 with
67,000 miles and the brakes were in very good condition, close to half the
pad left. I put on more miles per y ear, but hit the brakes much less.
Instead of a stop sign at every corner, I can drive home 25 miles and hit
the brakes two or three times.



yeah, I never actually wore out a set of brakes before I moved to
DC-land. Before that, I'd do a brake job when I bought a "new used" car
and they'd last until the car wore out or I got sick of it.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:26:01 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:35:21 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:15:55 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:29:45 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:59:25 -0500, RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

If it works, don't fix it.
Right - but when you fix it, fix it RIGHT.

Worthless cliche. If it is brake replacement time, it is just the pads
that need to be replaced unless the car has symptoms of warped rotors.
If the rotors are good, leave them the **** alone. Replacing good
components is insanity.
I agree with you IF the rotors are good. If there is wear you can see,
feel, OR measure, they MAY NOT be "good componentsa"

Bad rotors aren't subtle. If they're bad, you'll feel the vibration.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

why would you replace rotors if they don't need replacing?
Why turn them if they don't need turning?

agreed. Too many shops have gone to the shotgun approach to repairs.
Don't inspect and evaluate, just replace the whole system. Whenever I've
done my own brakes, I've just put new pads on and been done with it.

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

why would you replace rotors if they don't need replacing?
Why turn them if they don't need turning?

agreed. Too many shops have gone to the shotgun approach to repairs.
Don't inspect and evaluate, just replace the whole system. Whenever I've
done my own brakes, I've just put new pads on and been done with it.


yeah,that's what I did the last time,on my Sentra SpecV.
I also had to replace the left front caliper bracket and slide pins because
the pins had rusted into the bracket,causing uneven wear on the pads.
I had less than 1/16" pad material left on the outer pad,very lucky the
rotor wasn't scored. the inner pad was nearly new.

I tell ya,the Internet is fantastic for parts shopping;
it's saved me SO much money over buying local,even after paying shipping.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:17:59 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:55:17 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:31Â*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:09:19 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? Â*I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down
to the rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still
had some life left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I
was in for an inspection, and they told me that they routinely
replaced the rotors at the same time

It seems to be coming more routine. Â*Rotor are made thinner and cheaper than
in the past. Â* If a rotor was Â*getting grooved, it could be turned down.
Today, there is barely enough to turn and they can be replaced for $25 on
some cars.

If your rotors were in decent condition, you did right in leaving them
alone. Â*Some brake shops won't just replace pads. Â*They insist on going a
complete change of pads, rebuilding the calipers, etc. Â*The reasoning is
that they can then give a warranty on the entire job knowing that faulty
parts were not missed and cause a problem in a few weeks. Â*Far more
expensive that just popping in a set of pads though.

There reasoning is that they make a hell of a Â*lot more money. Most
people need nothing more then pads replaced on the first brake job.
I'm had many cars with the original calipers still going strong past
125,000 miles. Â*Most brake work is a scam to move money from your
pocket to the shops pocket.

True, you might only need pads, but if the don't turn the rotors (if
they are thick enough) the pads will not seat and the brakes will not
work like they are supposed to, therefore they will not give you a
warranty.

Most car makers do NOT recommend routine turning of the rotors when
pads are replaced. And the worst that would happen if you don't turn
them is that the pads last longer, hardly a reason not to honor the
warranty on the pads. It's just another excuse the shops use to avoid
doing inexpensive work.
Obviously spoken by a non-mechanic.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:36:19 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:26:01 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:35:21 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:15:55 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:29:45 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:59:25 -0500, RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

If it works, don't fix it.
Right - but when you fix it, fix it RIGHT.

Worthless cliche. If it is brake replacement time, it is just the pads
that need to be replaced unless the car has symptoms of warped rotors.
If the rotors are good, leave them the **** alone. Replacing good
components is insanity.
I agree with you IF the rotors are good. If there is wear you can see,
feel, OR measure, they MAY NOT be "good componentsa"

Bad rotors aren't subtle. If they're bad, you'll feel the vibration.
Not always, by a long shot. Rotors can be worn so rough (grooved}
that new pads would not have a 5% contact and you would not feel
ANYTHING on the pedal to indicate there was anything wrong..

They can asl be so badly corroded that you only have a ring 1/2 inch
wide where the pads are doing anything - with the OLD pads, and not
have ANY vibration..

Brake pu;sation is not the ONLY reason brakes need replacing - and
rotors too.

I've had some experience with worn rotors. Like you write,
sometimes the rotors groove, and then the pads don't make
complete contact. And they can do that (incomplete contact)
and still not be pu;sating.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...


Bad rotors aren't subtle. If they're bad, you'll feel the
vibration.
Not always, by a long shot. Rotors can be worn so rough
(grooved}
that new pads would not have a 5% contact and you would not
feel
ANYTHING on the pedal to indicate there was anything wrong..

They can asl be so badly corroded that you only have a ring
1/2 inch
wide where the pads are doing anything - with the OLD pads,
and not
have ANY vibration..

Brake pu;sation is not the ONLY reason brakes need
replacing - and
rotors too.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:09:36 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

why would you replace rotors if they don't need replacing?
Why turn them if they don't need turning?

agreed. Too many shops have gone to the shotgun approach to repairs.
Don't inspect and evaluate, just replace the whole system. Whenever I've
done my own brakes, I've just put new pads on and been done with it.


Used to be I could do that too - but the rotors on the mystique were
bad - all 4 of them, at less than 120,000km. The rotors on the PT were
bad at 115,000km.
The rotors on the TransSport were bad every 70,000 kms, and before I
caught on to the carbon metallic pads, the Aerostar needed rotors
every 2 years ( pads were still about half lining, but hard as glass
and had "eaten" the rotors). With the carbon metallic pads I got 3
years out of them (both pads and rotors) and they still looked like
new when I sold it.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:37:08 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:17:59 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:55:17 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:31*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:09:19 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? *I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down
to the rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still
had some life left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I
was in for an inspection, and they told me that they routinely
replaced the rotors at the same time

It seems to be coming more routine. *Rotor are made thinner and cheaper than
in the past. * If a rotor was *getting grooved, it could be turned down.
Today, there is barely enough to turn and they can be replaced for $25 on
some cars.

If your rotors were in decent condition, you did right in leaving them
alone. *Some brake shops won't just replace pads. *They insist on going a
complete change of pads, rebuilding the calipers, etc. *The reasoning is
that they can then give a warranty on the entire job knowing that faulty
parts were not missed and cause a problem in a few weeks. *Far more
expensive that just popping in a set of pads though.

There reasoning is that they make a hell of a *lot more money. Most
people need nothing more then pads replaced on the first brake job.
I'm had many cars with the original calipers still going strong past
125,000 miles. *Most brake work is a scam to move money from your
pocket to the shops pocket.

True, you might only need pads, but if the don't turn the rotors (if
they are thick enough) the pads will not seat and the brakes will not
work like they are supposed to, therefore they will not give you a
warranty.

Most car makers do NOT recommend routine turning of the rotors when
pads are replaced. And the worst that would happen if you don't turn
them is that the pads last longer, hardly a reason not to honor the
warranty on the pads. It's just another excuse the shops use to avoid
doing inexpensive work.
Obviously spoken by a non-mechanic.

Nope. Years of experience on my own cars. Apparently you don't
bother reading the genuine repair manuals put out by the automakers.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:41:23 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:36:19 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:26:01 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:35:21 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:15:55 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:29:45 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:59:25 -0500, RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

If it works, don't fix it.
Right - but when you fix it, fix it RIGHT.

Worthless cliche. If it is brake replacement time, it is just the pads
that need to be replaced unless the car has symptoms of warped rotors.
If the rotors are good, leave them the **** alone. Replacing good
components is insanity.
I agree with you IF the rotors are good. If there is wear you can see,
feel, OR measure, they MAY NOT be "good componentsa"

Bad rotors aren't subtle. If they're bad, you'll feel the vibration.
Not always, by a long shot. Rotors can be worn so rough (grooved}
that new pads would not have a 5% contact and you would not feel
ANYTHING on the pedal to indicate there was anything wrong..

They can asl be so badly corroded that you only have a ring 1/2 inch
wide where the pads are doing anything - with the OLD pads, and not
have ANY vibration..

Brake pu;sation is not the ONLY reason brakes need replacing - and
rotors too.

When you replacing pads, you'll see the grooves. If there's
no vibration and no visible grooving, then the rotors are fine.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:25:14 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:37:08 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:17:59 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:55:17 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:31Â*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:09:19 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? Â*I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down
to the rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still
had some life left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I
was in for an inspection, and they told me that they routinely
replaced the rotors at the same time

It seems to be coming more routine. Â*Rotor are made thinner and cheaper than
in the past. Â* If a rotor was Â*getting grooved, it could be turned down.
Today, there is barely enough to turn and they can be replaced for $25 on
some cars.

If your rotors were in decent condition, you did right in leaving them
alone. Â*Some brake shops won't just replace pads. Â*They insist on going a
complete change of pads, rebuilding the calipers, etc. Â*The reasoning is
that they can then give a warranty on the entire job knowing that faulty
parts were not missed and cause a problem in a few weeks. Â*Far more
expensive that just popping in a set of pads though.

There reasoning is that they make a hell of a Â*lot more money. Most
people need nothing more then pads replaced on the first brake job.
I'm had many cars with the original calipers still going strong past
125,000 miles. Â*Most brake work is a scam to move money from your
pocket to the shops pocket.

True, you might only need pads, but if the don't turn the rotors (if
they are thick enough) the pads will not seat and the brakes will not
work like they are supposed to, therefore they will not give you a
warranty.

Most car makers do NOT recommend routine turning of the rotors when
pads are replaced. And the worst that would happen if you don't turn
them is that the pads last longer, hardly a reason not to honor the
warranty on the pads. It's just another excuse the shops use to avoid
doing inexpensive work.
Obviously spoken by a non-mechanic.

Nope. Years of experience on my own cars. Apparently you don't
bother reading the genuine repair manuals put out by the automakers.
Did it for a living for over 20 years. Have bought the manual for
every vehicle I've owned in the last 30.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:25:14 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:37:08 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:17:59 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:55:17 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:31Â*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:09:19 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? Â*I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down
to the rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still
had some life left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I
was in for an inspection, and they told me that they routinely
replaced the rotors at the same time

It seems to be coming more routine. Â*Rotor are made thinner and cheaper than
in the past. Â* If a rotor was Â*getting grooved, it could be turned down.
Today, there is barely enough to turn and they can be replaced for $25 on
some cars.

If your rotors were in decent condition, you did right in leaving them
alone. Â*Some brake shops won't just replace pads. Â*They insist on going a
complete change of pads, rebuilding the calipers, etc. Â*The reasoning is
that they can then give a warranty on the entire job knowing that faulty
parts were not missed and cause a problem in a few weeks. Â*Far more
expensive that just popping in a set of pads though.

There reasoning is that they make a hell of a Â*lot more money. Most
people need nothing more then pads replaced on the first brake job.
I'm had many cars with the original calipers still going strong past
125,000 miles. Â*Most brake work is a scam to move money from your
pocket to the shops pocket.

True, you might only need pads, but if the don't turn the rotors (if
they are thick enough) the pads will not seat and the brakes will not
work like they are supposed to, therefore they will not give you a
warranty.

Most car makers do NOT recommend routine turning of the rotors when
pads are replaced. And the worst that would happen if you don't turn
them is that the pads last longer, hardly a reason not to honor the
warranty on the pads. It's just another excuse the shops use to avoid
doing inexpensive work.
Obviously spoken by a non-mechanic.

Nope. Years of experience on my own cars. Apparently you don't
bother reading the genuine repair manuals put out by the automakers.
Group 06- Section 00, pages 17 to 19 of the Ford PG2040 manual for
the 1996 Mystique /Contour states "each time the brakes are serviced,
the front and rear disk rotors should be checked for scoring, runout,
parallelism and thickness"
Runout of over 0.006" is unacceptable, and parallelism (variation in
thickness) must not excede 0.0006" and there is half a page dedicated
to how to refinish a rotor. They also stipululate that you NEVER
machine to miinimum thickness spec. Front rotor discard thickness is
22.2mm, or 0.87". Original spec is 25MM (0.984").
That leaves 0.114" MAXIMUM cut/wear to scrap - aprox 0.040" per side
to the service limit - and .057" to scrap.
So it is OBVIOUS they intend/expect that the rotors will often
require refinishing or replacement.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:28:08 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:41:23 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:36:19 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:26:01 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:35:21 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:15:55 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:29:45 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:59:25 -0500, RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear down? I
understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the pads wore down to the
rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at least turned. I still had some life
left in the pads, but elected to replace them while I was in for an
inspection, and they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

If it works, don't fix it.
Right - but when you fix it, fix it RIGHT.

Worthless cliche. If it is brake replacement time, it is just the pads
that need to be replaced unless the car has symptoms of warped rotors.
If the rotors are good, leave them the **** alone. Replacing good
components is insanity.
I agree with you IF the rotors are good. If there is wear you can see,
feel, OR measure, they MAY NOT be "good componentsa"

Bad rotors aren't subtle. If they're bad, you'll feel the vibration.
Not always, by a long shot. Rotors can be worn so rough (grooved}
that new pads would not have a 5% contact and you would not feel
ANYTHING on the pedal to indicate there was anything wrong..

They can asl be so badly corroded that you only have a ring 1/2 inch
wide where the pads are doing anything - with the OLD pads, and not
have ANY vibration..

Brake pu;sation is not the ONLY reason brakes need replacing - and
rotors too.

When you replacing pads, you'll see the grooves. If there's
no vibration and no visible grooving, then the rotors are fine.
Correct - or at least very close. - but what percentage of brake
rotors, at service, have no visible grooving or pitting, and do not
pulste or thump?????
From my experience, which covers THOUSANDS of vehicles, the percentage
is VERY low. I'd say on vehicles where the brakes have NOT worn to
metal to metal, around here the numbers would definitely be 15% or
less.
Better than 30% have touched metal to metal on at least one wheel,
which means BOTH sides need to be either refinished or replaced - so
only 15% of 70%, or 10% of brake services would NOT have visible
grooving or pitting, or be causing a thump by the time they came in
for brake service.

In areas with no salt, the numbers would be higher.

I had experience with Pep Boys many years ago
First time was with tires I got new set of tiers and after
about 10k. miles rubber separated from still belt on couple
that I was force to get new set and they was giving me hard
time to honor warrantee, they got so pist that I grab the tire and
slammed on middle of show room Flore while dozen people standing by
and looking what in world is going on that they change their mind
and replace two under warrantee.
Second time was over water pump on my 69, 98 Olds.
everything was ok until they master mechanic went to put
thermostat back in its place, that dumb idiot use power wrench
on housing of thermostat and strip treaded treads if I was dummy that
have socket to me for new manifold however that did not work
I made them go and get larger tap and retread holes myself in they shop
put larger bolts use it for three years after that fiasco,
and after 210k. miles in five years I sold the car for 500.00

"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:

Red Green wrote:

Personal experience and not 2nd hand.

I had pads and rotors put on my car by a 20yr friend and PROFESSIONAL
fleet mechanic of 30+ years. He was the only person besides the
dealer I would trust with my 3000GT. I relocated to NC since. About a
year later I needed tires. Front brakes started squeaking a few weeks
earlier like 90% of the time.

Did a little shopping around here and Pep Boys (auto parts and
service center) had the best bottom line out the door price after a
rebate. I tell them the brakes have been squeaking 90% of stops like
it's the squeaker warning and while it's on the rack to take a peek
and let me know if anything abnormal.


There is a lesson to be learned from your story. First, the lowest
price is not the best value.

Most know that by now. I was fortunate I didn't get caught up in this
proctology exercise. But those damn loose lugs is what got me. So damn
busy trying to screw me they didn't screw the lugs.


You'd do far better by finding a good small shop, one that comes from
recommendations, one that proves trustworthy over time, and stop
shopping. Trust him, give him all your business, pay him promptly.

Absolutely. But where I am now that is a difficult thing. It's like an
accepted, expected practice to be a scumbucket. Responsibility of buyer
to beware. Totally backwards.
.

The big chains are hit or miss. Some are good, others are on the
sleazy side, all tend to be high priced and have a "replace
everything" attitude.

wrote in
:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:25:14 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:37:08 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:17:59 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:55:17 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:31Â*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:09:19 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear
down? Â*I understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the
pads wore down to the rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at
least turned. I still had some life left in the pads, but
elected to replace them while I was in for an inspection, and
they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

It seems to be coming more routine. Â*Rotor are made thinner and
cheaper than in the past. Â* If a rotor was Â*getting grooved,
it could be turned down. Today, there is barely enough to turn
and they can be replaced for $25 on some cars.

If your rotors were in decent condition, you did right in
leaving them alone. Â*Some brake shops won't just replace pads.
Â*They insist on going a complete change of pads, rebuilding the
calipers, etc. Â*The reasoning is that they can then give a
warranty on the entire job knowing that faulty parts were not
missed and cause a problem in a few weeks. Â*Far more expensive
that just popping in a set of pads though.

There reasoning is that they make a hell of a Â*lot more money.
Most people need nothing more then pads replaced on the first
brake job. I'm had many cars with the original calipers still
going strong past 125,000 miles. Â*Most brake work is a scam to
move money from your pocket to the shops pocket.

True, you might only need pads, but if the don't turn the rotors
(if they are thick enough) the pads will not seat and the brakes
will not work like they are supposed to, therefore they will not
give you a warranty.

Most car makers do NOT recommend routine turning of the rotors when
pads are replaced. And the worst that would happen if you don't
turn them is that the pads last longer, hardly a reason not to honor
the warranty on the pads. It's just another excuse the shops use to
avoid doing inexpensive work.
Obviously spoken by a non-mechanic.

Nope. Years of experience on my own cars. Apparently you don't
bother reading the genuine repair manuals put out by the automakers.
Group 06- Section 00, pages 17 to 19 of the Ford PG2040 manual for
the 1996 Mystique /Contour states "each time the brakes are serviced,
the front and rear disk rotors should be checked for scoring, runout,
parallelism and thickness"
Runout of over 0.006" is unacceptable, and parallelism (variation in
thickness) must not excede 0.0006" and there is half a page dedicated
to how to refinish a rotor. They also stipululate that you NEVER
machine to miinimum thickness spec. Front rotor discard thickness is
22.2mm, or 0.87". Original spec is 25MM (0.984").
That leaves 0.114" MAXIMUM cut/wear to scrap - aprox 0.040" per side
to the service limit - and .057" to scrap.

..057 is a lot of material. 1/16" is .0625".

So it is OBVIOUS they intend/expect that the rotors will often
require refinishing or replacement.


"often"?? that's just your assumption.It's not so obvious to me.

I doubt many brake techs actually measure runout,parallelism,or rotor
thickness;they just quote new rotors,and add the cost to your bill.

How much rotor material wears off if the car's brought in before the pads
reach minimum thickness?
How much does a ordinary refinishing job remove?
(On a rotor that is not grooved.)

Any idea?
(I don't know.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:11:45 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

wrote in
:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:25:14 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:37:08 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:17:59 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:55:17 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:31ÂÂ*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:09:19 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



RBM wrote:
Is it customary to replace brake rotors when the pads wear
down? ÂÂ*I understand if the rotors have cracks in them, or the
pads wore down to the rivets, they'd need to be replaced or at
least turned. I still had some life left in the pads, but
elected to replace them while I was in for an inspection, and
they told me that they routinely replaced the rotors at the
same time

It seems to be coming more routine. ÂÂ*Rotor are made thinner and
cheaper than in the past. ÂÂ* If a rotor was ÂÂ*getting grooved,
it could be turned down. Today, there is barely enough to turn
and they can be replaced for $25 on some cars.

If your rotors were in decent condition, you did right in
leaving them alone. ÂÂ*Some brake shops won't just replace pads.
ÂÂ*They insist on going a complete change of pads, rebuilding the
calipers, etc. ÂÂ*The reasoning is that they can then give a
warranty on the entire job knowing that faulty parts were not
missed and cause a problem in a few weeks. ÂÂ*Far more expensive
that just popping in a set of pads though.

There reasoning is that they make a hell of a ÂÂ*lot more money.
Most people need nothing more then pads replaced on the first
brake job. I'm had many cars with the original calipers still
going strong past 125,000 miles. ÂÂ*Most brake work is a scam to
move money from your pocket to the shops pocket.

True, you might only need pads, but if the don't turn the rotors
(if they are thick enough) the pads will not seat and the brakes
will not work like they are supposed to, therefore they will not
give you a warranty.

Most car makers do NOT recommend routine turning of the rotors when
pads are replaced. And the worst that would happen if you don't
turn them is that the pads last longer, hardly a reason not to honor
the warranty on the pads. It's just another excuse the shops use to
avoid doing inexpensive work.
Obviously spoken by a non-mechanic.

Nope. Years of experience on my own cars. Apparently you don't
bother reading the genuine repair manuals put out by the automakers.
Group 06- Section 00, pages 17 to 19 of the Ford PG2040 manual for
the 1996 Mystique /Contour states "each time the brakes are serviced,
the front and rear disk rotors should be checked for scoring, runout,
parallelism and thickness"
Runout of over 0.006" is unacceptable, and parallelism (variation in
thickness) must not excede 0.0006" and there is half a page dedicated
to how to refinish a rotor. They also stipululate that you NEVER
machine to miinimum thickness spec. Front rotor discard thickness is
22.2mm, or 0.87". Original spec is 25MM (0.984").
That leaves 0.114" MAXIMUM cut/wear to scrap - aprox 0.040" per side
to the service limit - and .057" to scrap.

.057 is a lot of material. 1/16" is .0625".

So it is OBVIOUS they intend/expect that the rotors will often
require refinishing or replacement.


"often"?? that's just your assumption.It's not so obvious to me.

I doubt many brake techs actually measure runout,parallelism,or rotor
thickness;they just quote new rotors,and add the cost to your bill.

Brake techs, mabee - but mechanics DO.

How much rotor material wears off if the car's brought in before the pads
reach minimum thickness?
That depends on the pads, to a large extent - and also on the rotor
material
I've seen rotors worn to below the limit, with NO grooves, without
ever being machined.
I've seen rotors that were not machinable any more with half the
frictionnmaterial still left on the pads - after having pads and
rotors replaced at the same time less than a year before.
How much does a ordinary refinishing job remove?
That depends, but you won't get away with ten thou per side - almost
guaranteed. This is assuming there is a requirement to machine them in
the first place.
(On a rotor that is not grooved.)
If the rotor is dead smooth, but badly glazed, an abrasive disk will
do the job at about one thou per side. If a cut is required, (shop
doesn't have the "grinder pucks" generally closer to five thou per
side. Any less leaves a bad finish because the cutter needs to get
UNDER the glaze to remove it. It's too hard to cut the glaze itself.
Kinda like being case hardened.

Prep discs on a die grinder can take off the glaze without removing
much metal - spin the rotor up (car running in gear) and run the prep
disk on the grinder untill the glaze is gone - generally 80 grit does
the job, but 120 could also be used
Any idea?
(I don't know.)