Oy. Not just squeaky but screaming, shrieking horrible ear-piercing noise.
The back story: I’ve got a 2006 Dodge Ram pickup with about 47,000 miles. About a month ago, the brakes start squeaking. Figuring it was time for new pads, I installed new pads on all four wheels.
As it turned out, the original pads still had a good bit of thickness and were nowhere near the warning squeakers. But, since I had new pads in hand and everything was taken apart anyway, the new pads went in.
All was splendid for a couple of days. Then the shrieking began.
What I’ve done so far:
[ul]
[li]Left the original rotors alone. Chrysler recommends not turning rotors on this vehicle - if they’re thin or warped, they are to be replaced. [/li][li]Replaced the pads with Wagner ThermoQuiet"MX" series. Should be quiet as a library.[/li][li]Cleaned and greased all the bits that need cleaning and greasing. (caliper pins, pad ends, etc.)[/li][/ul]
So, how did I manage to install such bad noises? About the only thing I can think of is that there’s a dingus resembling an internal-tooth star washer on one of the wheel studs to apparently retain the rotors during assembly. Is it possible that this thing is not allowing the wheel to fully tighten down onto the studs and there’s just enough room for the rotors to vibrate?
The weird thing is that it’s fairly random. There’s no telling from one red light to another which stop will shriek and which stop will be silent.
Hmm…You can always check for a stone or other object between the lining and rotor/drum. Also many brakes come with anti noise parts. Maybe you should double check for proper installation?
I’d expect a stone or whatever to be making a scraping or grinding noise. As for the anti-noise shims or whatever parts, one of the selling claims for the MX pads is that they’re built into the pads for easier installation.
You’ve done just what I routinely do on my customers cars (with one possible exception). I don’t recall any comebacks for noise when using ThermoQuiets.
The possible exception is using the MX series, if that was not the normal recommendation for the vehicle but was chosen anyway. I just have my parts counterman send me what is recommended. If, for example, it came with organic or ceramic pads, but MX is different - e.g. metallic - then that might be a problem. I’d say it’s worth a phone call or visit to the parts store to check on that detail.
It’s possible some piece of sheet metal got bent during the work so that it sometimes touches the rotor. I’ve had that happen to me.
I don’t see how the rotor retainer dingus could cause the problem unless it somehow slipped off the wheel stud, which it could only do if it were broken.
You replaced the brake pads without either turning the rotors or replacing them. What Chrysler means by ‘do not turn the rotors’, is that you shouldn’t just change the pads without putting new rotors on too. They mean new pads and rotors at the same time.
The new pads probably do not hit quite the same spot on the old rotors as the old pads did. The new pads are going to need a little break in.
You should always change both rotors and pads at the same time. And since a brake job should last for 40-50k miles you should also replace the calipers with either new or rebuilt ones.
I imagine that you don’t want to redo all that, so take the truck out someplace and make a series of hard stops and see if the new pads set with the old rotors. And if not, take the wheels back off and see where the conflict is.
Agree with the changing of rotors and pads on a chrysler/dodge at the same time, but I’ve never heard of replacing the calipers. That’s overkill, unless they are damaged. But if you replace one, replace both.
No. Chrysler specifies to replace the rotors if they are (one or more of the following):
~ severely scored
~ tapered
~ infused with hard spots
~ cracked
~ below minimum thickness
They do not say to replace the rotors when replacing the pads, either under instructions for pad replacement or under instructions for rotors. And they don’t say “do not turn the rotors” – they specify to machine the rotors if the surface condition calls for it and minimum thickness can be maintained.
Double no, unless you’re in a climate where calipers are badly affected by corrosion.
I do a fair amount of brake jobs professionally. Nowadays, I use premium grade pads and only replace (or rarely, resurface) rotors that have actual problems, and the great majority of the time that means the rotors are reused as is. These vehicles go several years and tens of thousands of miles working perfectly well. There is no reason to replace rotors that are in good condition when replacing pads.
Including calipers with every brake job is something I associate with chain operations that teach their people to sell rather than to have good mechanical judgment. I find caliper replacement called for on less than 5% of the brake jobs I do. And again, the vehicles go for years and tens of thousands of miles, with a very few exceptions. I’m sure I could eliminate those few if I replaced calipers every time, but I don’t feel “there’s a 2% chance your calipers could act up 3 years from now” to be sufficient justification to do that.
Now, I know that in some areas calipers are prone to corrosion problems that aren’t common where I am. Caliper replacement with every brake job makes sense under those conditions, but it doesn’t apply everywhere.
For me a full brake job is always new pads and either new or turned rotors, and either new or reconditioned calipers. Anything else is a poor job. I am not letting you work on my car.
Once the pistons in the old calipers are compressed back to allow the new pads to fit, the pistons are now traveling on a surface that may be pitted or corroded due to exposure. Replace the pads only now and save some money, and then have caliper failure? Put new pads on an old rotor that will not meet the surface fully?
I over maintain my cars and do most of my own work. Maintanance prevents problems, trying to save money or cut corners will only make the problem occur at an inconvenient time.
The cost savings for something so important, that you are going to do only every 3-4 years maybe, is negligible.
By perfectionist standards, maybe. In the real world of customers paying to repair and maintain their cars, replacing everything whether it’s needed or not is often overkill, and overselling.
May be, yes. Likely to be, no. I may be hit by a bus next time I cross the street, but the risk is so low if I look before I cross that I cross streets anyway. Likewise, the risk of failure with properly inspected calipers is so low that there’s no compelling reason to replace them.
And again, with a properly inspected rotor, this is simply not an issue. Brakes are overdesigned. If there’s only 90% contact they’ll still stop the car quite vigorously, and they’ll seat in to 100% contact in short order.
Absolutely. However, there’s an element of judgment in evaluating the difference between cutting a corner and refraining from doing something that’s not called for.
Car manufacturers, who do not want customers to have bad experiences with their product, conclude they’re junk, and not buy that brand again, specifically recommend to reuse rotors that are in good condition. They do not recommend routine caliper replacement without a specific reason to fault the calipers. The great majority of dealers and high-quality independent shops do not automatically replace rotors and calipers when pads are needed. And yet there is not a rash of problems with these components. The experts seem to know what works.
What you do with your cars is great, and I have no qualms about such thorough procedures for those who want them. However, when it’s not needed it’s not cost effective, and that is a signifcant concern for most car owners.
A little insight for someone with your approach to overkill:
An example using tires. How would the ‘overkill guy’ resolve this?
You should lose sleep now knowing that tires aren’t as effective from the time they are new until the time they are approaching end of life. They aren’t perfect when new, and they aren’t perfect when they are 80% worn.
They stop better, and perform better in the wet vs. dry at different times during their life.
Sometimes, tires are their best in the rain when they are 90% new. Not 100%, but 90%. Good groove depth to run water away, but properly broken in to be good in dry/wet.
But when tires are 80% worn or more, they are going to handle better, stop better and perform generally better on dry surfaces that when new or newer. But at this point, wet performance suffers. Grooves just aren’t as deep. Tire edges are a bit worn (great for dry roads!)… and not ideal for wet pavement.
So, what would the overkill guy do? Fact is, we can’t have all components running at 100% optimization all the time, because we have budgets.