My 2005 Accord had new rear rotors, calipers and pads at 35,000 miles 2.5 years ago. Now, at inspection (it passed), I’m told rear rotors are “really rotted” and need to be replaced - car has 57,000 miles. Car is driven daily, city/rural driving.
Does this sound legit??? I am taking it to another place I (think I) trust more tomorrow for a second opinion/quote. Thank you.
Potentially. Rotors are thinner on newer vehicles than in the past. So machining like before is not as prevalent.
Lastly many brake places do not want returns and it is far cheaper to charge for rotor/small labor during first repair than have a customer come back upset they need new rotors and had problems.
the metal in the rotors today is inferar compared to the metal used 10 years ago and Raj is on the ball new cars today our using thinner rotors to save weight . there our different quality of rotors out their. some times it pays to spent the extra money on better rotors if you our haveing problems with vibration
I have a Caravan that had bad rotors at 46k when I bought it. My grandson has an '11 Town & Country with 40K and the rotors are bad. I talked to a guy the other day with a Caravan who said the rotors were bad at 400 miles. I don’t know if it a Chrysler thing or a “rotor” thing.
You should talk with the place that did the work. Did they use OEM parts or aftermarket? Did they choose the best parts or did they use bargain priced parts to save you some money? Did they opt for higher dollar parts but use a pad material that might exhibit increased wear in favor of better stopping power?
I am surprised that the rears wore out twice before you needed fronts. The fronts usually take the brunt of the work and so need replacing more frequently than the rears. It’s possible there is some defect causing the rears to wear out so fast compared to the fronts (unless you left out the details on when the fronts were done) like the bias is wrong due to a stuck proportioning valve for example.
If the shop used the term “really rotted” then you should get another opinion. It would be difficult to put much faith into a mechanic who would phrase it so badly.
Wooden rotors? lol
Yeah I have been told that my rotors are rusted and needed to be replaced before. Its usually BS as rotors will rust on the surface no matter what. Have someone else look at them…
Why not resurface?? New rotors are so cheap now, it usually costs the same or less to replace the rotors as what it would to cut the rotors. Plus This way most shops dont need to pay for an expensive brake lave.
You drive less than 9000 miles per year. If you drive every day, my guess is that there is a lot of stop and go driving, and that uses the brakes more than highway driving. Still, I would get a second opinion.
BTW, rear rotors should last longer than front rotors. Most of the braking is done by the front brakes. Were front and back rotors replaced 22,000 miles ago? If so, I would be suspicious.
I got some rotors replaced under warranty st 12k, because they were pitted and causing problems, sure the warranty at the time was 8k, but these were so bad the dealer did the nice guy thing and put new ones on No charge, Not an improbable experience I would say.
Does the park brake use the rotors as does the foot brakes?
I had an interesting experience with rotors on a 1988 Taurus. I had my 1978 Oldsmobile at a brake shop that I trust for brake pads and told the manager/owner that I also had a 1988 Ford Taurus. He suggested that I bring the Taurus in and have him look at the pads. He said that the rotors on the Taurus were really thin and didn’t have enough metal to be turned. I had the pads changed on the Taurus. A week after I got new pads, I received a recall letter from Ford that they were replacing rotors on the Taurus because the rotors were too thin. The brake shop owner knew what he was talking about.
For regular brake jobs, I never have the rotors turned. I either replace just the pads if the rotors are reasonably good, or I replace both the pads and rotors.
In climates where there is a lot of snow and road salt rear rotors get destroyed more quickly than front rotors. This is due to the large amount of road spray (loaded with salt) that baths the rear wheels. I live in the snow belt and noticed this on every car I have owned with four wheel disc brakes. I do all my own brake work with premium quality parts. Rear drum brakes last forever in this area but rear disc brakes are a constant headache. I rarely get more than 40,000 miles from a set of rear rotors but routinely get 100,000 miles on front rotors.
This weekend I have to do brakes on my 2004 Sienna. You guessed it, rear pads and rotors.