Jeep Wrangler Forum

Jeep Wrangler Forum (http://www.wranglerforum.com/)
-   JK General Discussion Forum (http://www.wranglerforum.com/f274/)
-   -   New rear rotors already - really? (http://www.wranglerforum.com/f274/new-rear-rotors-already-really-199808.html)

mwunder 11-16-2012 12:04 PM

New rear rotors already - really?
 
I know there have been discussions about brakes. However, I really don't believe it.

At 24K miles I guess I understand needing new rear pads but rotors too? Don't drive hard at all and I am very surprised based on my experience with my other vehicles. Are they made out of cardboard?

Anyways...just curious if this is really normal for an 09 JK. Surprised that the fronts are still Ok.

Thanks for any feedback.

pluke the 2 11-16-2012 12:10 PM

i got a 10' that has 24k miles and needs rotors replaced or turned. but i wheel it and it has 37" tall tires.

salmonshark 11-16-2012 12:18 PM

I have to replace all my rotors and pads. And I think the front calipers as well. They seem to be burning through the pads pretty quick and I think they are sticking some. But I also have over 40k on it.

SS

Blastek 11-16-2012 12:22 PM

that seems crazy. we should be getting 60-100k out of rotors...

pluke the 2 11-16-2012 12:28 PM

yeah. in some peoples cases, you would have to replace something 10 times faster than the average mall crawler does.

44Blues 11-16-2012 12:30 PM

Maybe pads but not rotors!! I have 32k and still have a some life left in the rear pads. Rotors should be good for many many more miles.

enjerhoo 11-16-2012 12:33 PM

Personally, I have not turned a rotor since about 1998 & have done plenty of brake jobs in the interim. Rotors are a lot cheaper than they used to be. Not like you have bearings & seals integrated into them anymore.I usually order a complete set of pads & rotors & change them out at the same time. No chatter on the surfaces either.

You can get slotted rotors in the process (drilled too if you like & are not worried about cracking).

Then again I live 20 miles from the closest parts shop. My 2 cents.

daggo66 11-16-2012 01:15 PM

Are you saying you need new rotors, or is your mechanic saying you need new rotors? Big difference. :)

Matador 11-16-2012 01:35 PM

brake wear is often based on driving style and driving conditions. If your Jeep is a daily driver and your sitting in traffic, riding your brakes most of the time then they are going to wear quickly. 25k - 35k for a Jeep in that type of condition seems reasonable to me.

In regards to replacing brakes, whenever I have changed the brakes on my vehicles I usually just replace the rotors at the same time. like enjerhoo mentioned rotors have come down in price quite a bit. NAPA AUTO PARTS has front rotors for $32


So, for peace of mind I always opt to replace everything and run with a complete new setup, rather than going the cheaper route and just replacing pads and using them on a used rotor.

panthermark 11-16-2012 01:40 PM

Welcome to the world of traction control. It wears through the brakes faster.

3JKs1H1 11-16-2012 01:50 PM

Pads and rotors are real easy to replace on this vehicle.

JEEPDON 11-16-2012 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panthermark (Post 3003108)
Welcome to the world of traction control. It wears through the brakes faster.

What he said-- Traction control works by applying brake pressure at random points where ever the sensors detect loss of traction. Brakes wear much faster that way.

vincejeep1 11-16-2012 05:32 PM

My 2010 has 55000 on it I had to put rear brakes and rotors on it . The left rear brake was completely worn out.

DJL2 11-16-2012 05:45 PM

Brakes are so easy to check there is really no reason to take anyone's word on it. Get out your mic/caliper set and measure the rotor and the lip. Compare your measurement to the spec, make your own decision.

Then, do yourself a favor, and upgrade the pads and rotors when they need to be replaced. On almost every vehicle made it is too easy to beat the spec on the factory components. It's a good idea too, if you're heavier and rocking bigger meats.

Bottom line: brakes are essential safety equipment and a shitty place to save money. It sucks if they wear out before they're supposed to, but look on the bright side: you get the opportunity to make you, your rig and anyone inside it safer.

wallyjar 11-16-2012 05:48 PM

my 2008 JK unlimited. needed pads and rotors at 27000. daily driver with no city driving. front has original pads/rotors at 80000.

mwunder 11-17-2012 01:56 PM

Thanks a ton for the replys.

I have purchased new pads and rotors but will check rotor condition before. I believe min thickness is 10.4 and the dealer said they are at 11. I will measure myself. However, Yes they area lot cheaper these days.

I had the Jeep in because the lock actuator in one of my doors was shorting out. From research seemed like a big pain to replace myself so brought to dealer because I thought I was still in warranty. However, I have had the car three years already. Oops. Luckily i have mech breakdown from Geico and it only cost me $250 rather than 500. So they wanted almost $1k for rear brakes and diff oil change. I laughed and said no thanks.

Anyways, it is a daily driver just surprised at the quick wear compared to my heavy Toyota Sequioa which has 90k and one brake job.

Thanks for a GREAT community!

SilverSport 11-17-2012 02:38 PM

I have heard but not confirmed that the front pads are ceramic and the rear are semi-metallic.

mwunder 11-29-2012 05:56 PM

Just a quick update...sorry for the delay. Since I had the wheels off anyways I just put the new rotors on too.

All seems to be fine, but I still can't believe it.

Thanks for all the input.

MaskMan 11-29-2012 06:40 PM

Never knew that brakes wore out that fast on simple cars until I bought my Honda Fit.

Dealer told me at 22k that the fronts were gone. I didn't believe them and checked myself, well I got another 13k out of them, bad for the dealer, but bad wear too. The boards on that car seem to echo under 40k as normal, many under 30k and they are replacing rotors too, dang, seems cheap materials to me to up the bottom line.

My last easy driver Honda, 91 Accord, went 80k before pad replacement. My ZR2 Blazer went 100k front and 113k rears and I beat the crap out of that rig. Never replace rotors on those, didn't need too, well over the wear mark.

Of course my race Hondas and other sports cars go well under 20k before changing. The 400hp race Elise I had needed new pads after every weekend.

I have a feeling that this is due to cheaper materials and cars lasting longer and the dealer needing to make money of simple folk who don't know better or have tools and get charged $1000 for disk brake changes. Really? 2 hour job (if you suck at working on cars) and $200 or less in parts? Come on...

eeagle 11-29-2012 07:00 PM

I think the unusual thing about mwunder's issue is the rear rotors need changing, not the front rotors. My understanding is that virtually every 4 wheeled vehicle will wear out the front pads and rotors before the rear given that the vehicle's mass shifts forward upon breaking (unless one is in driving reverse).

I put 85K miles on a corvette Z06 over the last five years in Los Angeles area traffic and the rotors are still in spec. Could be heftier rotors, of course, but I've never heard of rotors wearing out in 24K miles on anything other than a race car.

Bigger tires will certainly wear out the pads and ultimately the rotors sooner the stock tires, but the fronts would still wear first.

Something is not right...

ohioviper 11-29-2012 07:25 PM

They are making the OE rotors out of the cheapest crap they can get by with. My wife had a 08 Avenger RT that ate a set of pads and rotors in 20k miles. Replaced with a good set of aftermarket rotors/pads and never had anymore problems when we traded it off at 80k.

JKWrangler2012 11-29-2012 07:46 PM

and another benefit to a manual transmission.. less break wear. i reckon a 4-door weights more to causing more breaking force and wear.

pmen14u 11-29-2012 08:33 PM

Mopar Brakes = crap, both my wifes 2010 caravan and my 2010 wrangler replacement at 24000 miles

SilverSport 11-29-2012 10:41 PM

I don't recall the OP getting confirmation that his rear rotors were worn past their limits.
If I read his posts correctly, he changed the rotors just because.......

Blastek 11-29-2012 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eeagle (Post 3048606)
I think the unusual thing about mwunder's issue is the rear rotors need changing, not the front rotors. My understanding is that virtually every 4 wheeled vehicle will wear out the front pads and rotors before the rear given that the vehicle's mass shifts forward upon breaking (unless one is in driving reverse).

I put 85K miles on a corvette Z06 over the last five years in Los Angeles area traffic and the rotors are still in spec. Could be heftier rotors, of course, but I've never heard of rotors wearing out in 24K miles on anything other than a race car.

Bigger tires will certainly wear out the pads and ultimately the rotors sooner the stock tires, but the fronts would still wear first.

Something is not right...

this is partly due to the traction control. The rear axle is the drive axle 99% of the time, so brakes are being applied without your knowledge all the time if it thinks you're getting a bit heavy footed. Computers are dumb like that. The other reason may be due to the cheaper components on the rear, like silversport mentioned.

there's a huge amount of engine braking with the 6 speed. in traffic, i pretty much only use the brake pedal so i don't get rear-ended. i don't mind changing pads and rotors as it's cheap and easy, but they should last at least 50k.

weege 11-30-2012 01:56 PM

I had a similar issue on my '07, had nothing to do with traction control. Apparently, the rear calipers were not well-greased from the factory, and the pads were sticking and dragging until they were eventually shot at about 30k miles. Meanwhile, I'm up to 67k miles now, and the original front pads are still fine.

The lesson I learned is to never pass up the "free brake inspection" when it's offered during an oil change/tire rotation and such. Had I caught this and had a little extra grease applied, this never would have happened.

MikeK46 11-30-2012 03:18 PM

There's so much engine braking with the 3.6 I don't anticipate needing brake pads until at least 50k, much less rotors. I just let off the gas and the thing comes to a stop.

JKWrangler2012 11-30-2012 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmen14u (Post 3049061)
Mopar Brakes = crap, both my wifes 2010 caravan and my 2010 wrangler replacement at 24000 miles

you think mopars' bad.. compared to most GM front power-axle buggies, my JK stops strong. no shake, little fade. nothing annoys me more than said.

currently @ 17k worry free miles. thanks for the pointer, hopefully another 50k worry free miles! :dance:

SilverSport 11-30-2012 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKWrangler2012 (Post 3052720)
......my JK stops strong. no shake, little fade......

Same here. I am pleased with the OEM brakes on my Jeep.

WatchThis! 11-30-2012 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverSport (Post 3052747)
Same here. I am pleased with the OEM brakes on my Jeep.

+1 The only way my brakes are going to get upgraded is when I upgrade axles. I have drove my share of vehicles with large tires, and my stock brakes with the heavy wheels I have and 37's are the best yet.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 AM.