Brakes

[reb]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I can't believe how frequently some are having to replace brake pads and/or shoes. )</font>
Driving conditions and habits probably account for most of the difference. Our '89 Mutsubishi Mirage (5 spd) went almost 100,000 mi on the original brakes. It was replaced by a '95 Saturn (5 spd) that still had the original brakes when we sold it at 92,000. My '94 T100 (auto) has almost 130,000 on the original brakes with lots more to go. We do very little driving in heavy city traffic and use engine braking where reasonable.

 

[Junkman]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( .............. use engine braking where reasonable. )</font>

I have always felt that brakes were less expensive to replace than transmissions and clutches. The only time that I would use engine braking is on steep inclines where I would worry about brake fade from induced heat. Just my opinion based upon experience in the hills and mountains of the Northeast....

Bird..... the Corvair cars had the ideal weight distribution. 50% on the front axle and 50% on the rear. One of the things that lead to most of the bad press about the Corvair is that the factory recommendation for air pressure was about a 15 or 18 psi differential between the front and the rear tires. The front tires were supposed to be much softer for proper handling. Many people didn't understand this and would pump up the front tires. When I had new tires installed on my Corvair a few years ago, the tire store did this to my car, even though I gave them the proper tire pressures. I drove out the bay and down the highway about 1 mile trying to keep the car going in a straight line. I returned to the tire store and they immediately let the air out of the front tires when I told them what it was handling like. The car resembled a squirrel trying to dodge oncoming traffic. Knowing about the tire pressure issue, I had never experience poor handling of the car before. It sure was a wake up call seeing what others must have experience back in the 1960's when this was a common mistake...

 

[bgott]

My '98 Dodge diesel is ran primarily short hop around the barrio. I slapped pads at 40,000, the pads I pulled could have went to 50,000. I had to slap another set around 72,000, I had a caliper stick and wear out one of the pads on the right front prematurely. I think I had a rock stuck in the caliper, when I pulled the pads the sliders were working fine. The brakes were squeaking a lot on that side but I was dealing with my mom's brain cancer at the time and didn't have time to find out what the problem was. No pull, just noisy. I have yet to cut the rotors. If you don't have pulsation you can feel through the pedal there is no sense in cutting the rotors, why cut metal out you can wear out instead? The rotor is a heat sink, when you cut them thin you don't have the mass to hold and dissipate the heat and you stand a chance of giving yourself problems you wouldn't have had otherwise. The problems can include brake fade and warped rotors. Now, as an auto tech with 25 years experience and ASE certs, including brakes, if I was to do a brake job in a shop on someone else's car the rotors would get cut. I can stand a little wear -in noise but I don't like comebacks for stuff like that. I have also had customers pull the wheels and check the job when they got home and came back and raised cane because I didn't use goop on the back of the pads. I really wouldn't want to hear the static if they found unturned rotors. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif Another thing, I don't have access to MOD or Alldata here tonight to get the exact bullitin but GM didn't recommend turning the rotors unless there is a problem making it necessary, the last I heard.

 

[MicroPilot]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ....Your front brakes do more of the braking than the rear ones...)</font>

Isn't it usually something like %60-%70 front, %30-%40 rear?


</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ...If the front wheels lock up, in most cases, the vehicle will continue sliding straight, in the direction it was headed at the time they locked...)</font>

This is why I reasoned that ABS should be on the front, to maintain directional control of the vehicle.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( But if the rear wheels lock up, the back end will invariably slide to one side or the other. However, if the back wheels keep turning, they will follow the front end.)</font>

Makes sense.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ...I've not only done a lot of reading, and experimenting with vehicles myself, and used to be in charge of the safety section for the police department, but I also once had the opportunity to visit the GM proving grounds in Michigan while they were training some Indiana State Troopers....)</font>

My father used to be a police officer and when ABS was first introduced I remember reading in one of his "trade" magazines that ABS was being blamed for some officer injuries and vehicle accidents because of the different handling characteristics of cars equipped with anti-lock brakes.

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ABS was being blamed for some officer injuries and vehicle accidents because of the different handling characteristics of cars equipped with anti-lock brakes )</font>

Yes, I remember when officers blamed the ABS for some accidents, but I don't know whether it really was the fault of the ABS or not. You know on the early ABS, when you slammed on the brakes, you could feel the pedal pulsating, in some cases, some very unusual/unfamiliar sounds, etc. and the manufacturers of the ABS systems were claiming the real cause of the accidents was the officers' unfamiliarity and lack of understanding of the ABS; that they panicked and let off the brake when something happened that they didn't understand. At least in my department, that happened about the time I was retiring and I don't know what the eventual outcome was.

 

[bgott]

Around here all the cops yanked the connector off the brake light switch to disable the ABS. Easy for them, who's gonna write them a ticket for no brake lights? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[reb]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( brakes were less expensive to replace than transmissions and clutches )</font>
You make a valid point. However, The only time I have needed any transmission or clutch repair was about 35 or 40 years ago, and that was on a used Ford I bought.

 

[Bird]

Recently or a long time ago, Brad? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif I'd be surprised if they got away with that for very long. When I first started on the police department, a little over 40 years ago, the squad cars had a toggle switch under the dash that we could use to turn off the brake lights when we were prowling alleys and hoping to sneak up on burglars at night, but not long after I started, they quit putting those switches on the cars because some officers would forget to turn them back on when they got back on the streets and there was a real concern about the liklihood that it could cause an accident, not to mention citizen complaints.

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I have always felt that brakes were less expensive to replace than transmissions and clutches. The only time that I would use engine braking is on steep inclines where I would worry about brake fade from induced heat. Just my opinion based upon experience in the hills and mountains of the Northeast )</font>

Can't disagree with the theory; have my doubts about the reality, but no proof, so I can't say which is best, but I was just the opposite; always used the gears and engine braking on manual transmission vehicles and the only clutch I ever had to replace on one of my vehicles was the '93 Escort when it developed a little clutch shudder while it was still new and the dealer said someone left some bolts out when the car was assembled. I did have to have a little transmission work done at about 80k miles because it would hang in 5th gear if you stopped with it in that gear, and I can't say what caused that.

 

[bgott]

'91 and up, I haven't paid attention to whether or not they still do it. I don't have *any* problem staying off the back of anything with a bubblegum machine on top. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[bgott]

"I have always felt that brakes were less expensive to replace than transmissions and clutches. "

One of the reasons for downshifting is to keep the engine in the powerband and to keep, as much as possible, the drive train engaged. It's not engaged at the shift point, of course. If you are coasting to a stop it's a little hard to A) accelerate if you need to all of a sudden and B) get it in the right gear to try to stop if your brakes suddenly go south. When I was learning to drive big rigs I tried to coast and brake to a stop from about 25 MPH, once. The guy teaching me to drive like to tore my head off and he wasn't listening to any of that "save the trans and clutch" stuff at all. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Junkman]

It is only an opinion, and like all opinions, you are entitled to yours as well as I am entitled to mine.... If I were driving a 18 wheeler, I would also use the engine for braking. That is what the Jake Brake was made for. We are talking about a pick up here, not a Peterbuilt. This taking my every comment out of context is getting to me, and at this rate, I am about to stop posting. Yes..... I am getting a little pee - od about it. At first, it was funny, but now it has gotten old........ /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

[Egon]

Many thanks for all the replies.

The truck goes in at noon today to repair the rusted out rear main brake line. There is a rear wheel seal also getting replaced. Other lines etc will be checked for rust and delt with as needed.

The repair shop will be giving me more information on the front upgrade. Looking at the drivers manual I noted that both the 2500 and 3500 series use a Dana 60 front axle.

First time the camper has been off in two years. Think I'll leave it off for awhile as there are things like sand and paving blocks to haul.

Thanks again to all.

Just for interest sake on all the town auto lots there may be one new diesel but no used ones. Quite a bit different than the dealer lot where I purchased the truck at in Alberta. Must have been a min. of 25 new ones on the lot there.

Egon /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Egon]

The upgrade question has been answered. The shop I take the truck too consulted Chrysler and Goodyear and with a one ton load came up with a one and a half foot shorted stopping distance. Shop advised me to forget the upgrade which I will do.

Egon

 

[bgott]

I can't see where I took what you said out of context. Yes, we have a difference of opinion on this subject but I don't think I've ever consciously took anything else you've said out of context, or contradicted you. As a matter of fact, I respect your opinion and most of the time I agree with you even if I don't jump right in and say it. Maybe I need to search the archives and see if I have inadvertently and accidentally made a habit of jacking with you. If I have, please accept my most humble apology. With that said, maybe you could meet me half way and quit being so touchy!!!

 

[JerryG]

<font color="blue"> JerryG........Could you comment further on the Carbon Metallic pads. I am not familiar with them and would like to know more about them...... </font>
Here is a site that sells and tell about them. Brake Warehouse