They want to turn my rotors

notbob wrote:
> On 2005-12-09, Milleron > wrote:
>
>> They found (and showed me) about 10% remaining on the RF and 40% on
>> the LF. Rears were fine. They suggested replacing the pads and
>> TURNING the ROTORS. They say that one ALWAYS wants the rotors
>> resurfaced and that they don't charge any more whether or not that's
>> done along with pad replacement.
>
> There may have been problems with your original pads/rotors (hi/lo
> spots, excessive gooving, etc). Did you ask for specific details?
> Since you pads were unevenly worn, it's likely your rotors are, also.

not necessarily, unless the rotors are being made out of aluminum these
days.

> You don't want to be putting new pads on unevenly worn rotors. Don't

never heard that one before.

> forget you're dealing with the brakes, your last line of defense
> between you and a hard place. Turning the rotors shouldn't cost that
> much. Do you really want to cut corners?

think about the chiiiiiiildren! you might hit a baby!
>
> nb

tubeguy wrote:
> because I think Honda makes great vehicles, but their dealers are out to
> take all the money they can get from the owners.

with proper preventive maintenance, the dealer should never see you again.

On 2005-12-10, SoCalMike > wrote:

> not necessarily

agreed

> unless the rotors are being made out of aluminum these
> days.

Are your brains made out of cotton balls?

> never heard that one before.

not my problem

> think about the chiiiiiiildren! you might hit a baby!

uhmm, yeah. You think that's funny?

nb

"notbob" > wrote
> On 2005-12-10, SoCalMike >
wrote:
re notbob's claim that failing to turn rotors at every pad
change is "cutting corners":
> > think about the chiiiiiiildren! you might hit a baby!
>
> uhmm, yeah. You think that's funny?

It's not funny, but it makes the point.

I too think it's extremely misleading to assert that a
failure to resurface rotors at every brake pad change is
"cutting corners."

The chances of a catastrophic failure /suddenly/ occuring
because the rotors weren't turned after 35k miles is, ISTM,
a heckuva lot less than something like driver inattention
causing an accident. It's so small, in my estimation, that
we may as well factor in the effects of turning the rotors
at every brake pad change and so making them so thin that
they don't dissipate heat correctly and warp prematurely.
That too increases the chances of an accident.

Elle
Original owner, 1991 Civic, 172k miles, never had the rotors
refinished. The thickness is well above spec. Runout and
evenness are probably off. Brakes work fine. One rotor has a
score on it. I brake a lot with the engine and otherwise see
the brakes as "workhorses."

dissenting opinion here --

Often on this NG, people vigorously defend Honda engineering and design
and admonish posters to read the manual and follow factory
recommendations for maintenance. When Honda manufactures a new car it
uses new freshly turned rotors and new brake pads. The perfect brake
job would be to replace everything to the way it was brand new, ie. new
rotors for the new pads. Second choice would be to resurface the rotors
so that they are as good as new.

If you place a new pad on a new or freshly turned rotor you will notice
that they will mate up with no preceivable gap (yes there will be a
microscopic gap which will be largely gone in the first 400 miles of
careful breakin time). By the time a pad is worn out the rotor will be
both glazed and may be worn slightly. There will often be a preceivable
gap between a new pad and a used rotor. The new pads have to wear
first to conform to the high spots on the irregular surface of the used
rotor. A new pad will slide easily over a glazed rotor but on a turned
rotor it will feel as though it is sticking - in other words you can
feel the friction (friction is a good thing when braking).

I have put new pads on without turning the rotors and have not had a
problem, but I am not fooling myself into thinking that this is a first
class brake job or that the new pads are likely to last as long as the
first ones did, or even that stopping power is fully 100% of what it was
designed to be.

It is unfair to call anyone a crook who is advising you to do a first
class job and keeping your car up to the specs the engineers set for it.
The cost of turning a rotor is not much, in fact the cost of a rotor
is not much. Try to be aware of the difference between "good enough"
and "perfect". Good shops want to stand behind their work - it's hard
to do "good enough" work and stand behind it.

In article >, says...
is fully 100% of what it was


> The cost of turning a rotor is not much, in fact the cost of a rotor
> is not much. Try to be aware of the difference between "good enough"
> and "perfect". Good shops want to stand behind their work - it's hard
> to do "good enough" work and stand behind it.

That's why when I have been told to turn the rotors, I have asked that
they be replaced instead. Many mechanics balk at this suggestion,
because it means more effort, though not much more time, from them, for
a pretty low-cost part (actually cheaper than the pads, per wheel).

--Gene

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:42:26 GMT, "Elle" >
wrote:

>"Milleron" > wrote
>> My '03 Accord EX has 35K mi., so I asked my local service
>center to
>> check the brake pads when they were changing oil.
>> They found (and showed me) about 10% remaining on the RF
>and 40% on
>> the LF. Rears were fine. They suggested replacing the
>pads and
>> TURNING the ROTORS. They say that one ALWAYS wants the
>rotors
>> resurfaced and that they don't charge any more whether or
>not that's
>> done along with pad replacement.
>
>I loathe this kind of reasoning. One does not "always" want
>the rotors resurfaced. Resurfacing reduces their thickness,
>which means heat dissipation is worse, and the life of the
>rotors is reduced. Seems like peopel have more problems, not
>less, after resurfacing rotors, as oppposed to leaving them
>be.
>
>One of the manual specifications for rotors is a certain
>minimum thickness. After reaching this thickness, the rotors
>have to be replaced. They're bringing rotors closer to this
>and so also shortening their lives.
>
>> I go to this place because they've
>> demonstrated their honesty to me on several occasions.
>
>> I know this question has been asked and answered before,
>but I'm
>> hoping for an up-to-the-minute opinion from you experts.
>>
>> 1 -- If the rotors do not appear scored, should they be
>resurfaced the
>> first time the brakes are redone?
>
>I don't know how much questioning you want to try to do of
>these guys, but if you think they'll talk honestly to you,
>ask them whether they checked the rotor thickness. If it's
>uneven, then that might be a reason to resurface the rotors.
>Similarly, if there are indications the rotors are warped,
>that might be a reason to resurface (or replace) as well.
>
>If they won't discuss something as simple as rotor
>thickness, go to another shop.
>
>You can google and I bet get a lot of good information from
>the internet on this as well.
>
>> 2 -- The car drives, handles, and brakes perfectly. Is
>there any
>> reason for concern about the uneven wear of the front
>pads?
>
>Could be a lot of things. A good brake system flush might
>solve it. It bears watching but I wouldn't fear for my
>safety in such a car at this point.
>
>Is the car steering okay? Are the tire pressures checked
>every two weeks, especially when the seasons change? Are the
>tires wearing evenly?
>
>Lots of little stuff to watch.

It steers perfectly. The wheels have been balanced and rotated per
the service manual. I don't check the pressures twice a month, but
I've never found a difference of more than 1-2 psi between the two
front tires. I think I do a pretty good job of keeping them about 2-3
psi over spec and equal to each other.


Ron

On 9 Dec 2005 14:32:23 -0800, "butch burton" >
wrote:

>Milleron said:
>"They say that one ALWAYS wants the rotors
>resurfaced and that they don't charge any more whether or not that's
>done along with pad replacement. I go to this place because they've
>demonstrated their honesty to me on several occasions."
>
>Years ago went with a friend to drop off his BMW - needed rear brake
>pads. The Hans und Fritz act behind the service counter said something
>similiar - I unloaded on these crooks. Ended up replacing the rotors
>for my friend.
>
>You never ever turn a rotor unless it is hopelessly warped or grooved.
>These crooks at the stealers are doing harm when they do this. I have
>maintained several accords for something approaching 700K now - never
>had to have any rotors turned - on one occasion had to retorque the lug
>nuts because the apes in a tire place overtorqued the lug bolts and
>warped the rotors - retorquing them properly took most of the braking
>shimmy out.
>
>If this dealer or stealer as I call people like this are willing to
>pull this trick - beware - one of the fav stealer tricks is to cut CV
>boots - that is a pricey repair. When walking through dealerships I
>always keep a very tight grip on my wallet - have got a couple of the
>sales sharks to bite - tell them I always hold on to my waller in high
>crime areas.
>
>Yeah there are good dealers - know a couple of small town ones that are
>good people but find someplace else to work on your honda - no telling
>what tricks this crowd will pull. Oh would I like to have it out with
>these clowns.

This isn't a Honda dealer. I didn't want to mention any specific
names, but it's a service center with the brand name of a tire over
the door.

Ron

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:33 -0600, notbob > wrote:

>On 2005-12-09, Milleron > wrote:
>
>> They found (and showed me) about 10% remaining on the RF and 40% on
>> the LF. Rears were fine. They suggested replacing the pads and
>> TURNING the ROTORS. They say that one ALWAYS wants the rotors
>> resurfaced and that they don't charge any more whether or not that's
>> done along with pad replacement.
>
>There may have been problems with your original pads/rotors (hi/lo
>spots, excessive gooving, etc). Did you ask for specific details?
>Since you pads were unevenly worn, it's likely your rotors are, also.
>You don't want to be putting new pads on unevenly worn rotors. Don't
>forget you're dealing with the brakes, your last line of defense
>between you and a hard place. Turning the rotors shouldn't cost that
>much. Do you really want to cut corners?
>
>nb

I certainly don't want to cut corners. As I said, this place doesn't
charge any more for including the rotor job, so it wasn't as though it
was going to cost me any more. I saw the rotors. They looked fine
to my untrained eye. I ask the question not because I wanted to save
money or cut a corner but because I thought I recalled experts here
advising against turning rotors just as a matter of course.

Ron

On 2005-12-10, Milleron > wrote:

> advising against turning rotors just as a matter of course.

Nonsense! Have 'em turned.

nb