I have a 2005 Focus SVT with 44000 miles and got talked into a rear break job replacing pads and rotors. Doesn’t this sound a little too soon?
44,000 would be normal for a brake job, although I’d usually expect the front brakes to go first. Are there any extenuating circumstances?
No extenuating circumstances except that they were replacing worn tires in the rear. And I thought it was strange that it was the rear brakes and both pads and rotors.
Replacing rotors is more common because rotors these days are pretty thin and can wear below the min thickness pretty easily. Or at least wear to a point they can’t be machined without going below minimum thickness. The type of pad can have a big effect on how fast the rotor wears. Rear brakes going first is also becoming more commonplace. Newer cars have stability control and anti-dive built in to the braking systems. Those systems tend to actuate the rear more frequently than in older systems that were very front biased. That in combination with smaller pad/rotors in the back make them wear faster.
I don’t even ask today. If it needs pads, it gets rotors. Modern brake design gives you cheaper shorter life rotors. They are really designed for one set of pads. More often than not turning them would not leave enough on there to give you full life so it is cheaper to just replace them. Life long cost … I would guess it works out about the same.
Thanks for your help. I don’t feel like I was ripped off now.