Here's why our 2009 Ford Flex started emitting brake-grindy noises. You're looking at the inside pad from the right-rear disc brake. Sure, there's some material left, but these pads run into the rivets that hold the friction material in place before they go into full metal-to-metal mode.
Thing is, these rivets are the only pad-wear indicator. The Flex's rear brakes don't have the usual scratchy clip that's designed to emit an obvious high-pitched squeal while doing no harm to the rotor. OK, these rivets make a sound, but it's a subtle grinding, and the grinding is the rotor crying out for help as it's being torn to shreds by the rivet heads. By the time you hear it, it's probably going to be too late. Pads that look like this mean bad news for the rotor.
Regular visual inspections can of course avoid this, but you have to remove a wheel because you can't see the inside pad (this one) through the spokes. And on this car the inside rear pads wear much quicker than the outside ones. We've learned that it's something that Ford Freestyle owners often complained about, and since the Flex is more or less riding on the Freestyle's chassis, it shares this quirk. Furthermore, when the rotor gets trashed as ours was, the hidden inner face will be the one that suffers the damage. The visible outer face doesn't show it.
Why does the inside wear out quicker? Probably has something to do with the self-adjusting parking brake that's built into the rear calipers. It's designed to keep the piston face close so the foot-operated parking brake pedal always grabs early, within a few clicks. But this may keep the inner pad too close, where it can rub ever so slightly all the time. On top of this, the caliper has a bulky and semi-rigid parking brake cable attached to it, which may impede the free sliding action of the caliper. That's my theory, anyway.
But enough of that. Let's see how I got this pad out and restored the rear brakes to fighting shape.
Here's what it looked like before work started. The white arrow indicates the solid rear rotor. Yellow indicates the steel backing plates of the pads. The single green arrow shows the friction material that remains on the outer pad. The absent green arrow on the other side is our decimated inner pad, too thin to make out.
Like the front, the lower slider bolt is the first thing that comes out. A 13mm socket does the trick.
Once again, the caliper body easily pivots on the upper slider, which we left untouched in the last step. There's a little more resistance because of the parking brake cable, which we also left attached.
But this one won't pivot over center and stay put by itself, so it has to be held up with our free hand for the next couple of steps.
With the caliper body out of the way, the pads come easily out of their grooves with a little wiggling.
Close the caliper once more and loosely reinstall the lower slider bolt. (Sorry for the focus fail, but it's my only shot!)
It's time to remove the entire caliper so we can get at the rotor. These two bolts have to come out. A 15mm socket and a breaking bar does the trick.
With the two mounting bolts out, the caliper comes off easily. We don't have to hang it from tie wraps like we did in front because the attached parking brake cable acts like a leash and steadies it while it sits on the lower control arm. Gravity is working with us in this case.
A single T-40 Torx-head bolt is the only thing holding the old rotor in place. Like the front, our T-40 bit is a snug fit -- the bolt head seems like a T-39, which doesn't actually exist. A rubber mallet settles this dispute and rams the bit into the bolt head. A 3/8-drive ratchet does the rest.
Bolt out, rotor off. Done and done.
Now we can see the scored inner face of the rotor. Can it be turned? Maybe, but as I said last time, I like to spend some of the money I save by doing it myself on new parts. The grooves are deeper than they look here, and the front isn't exactly smooth either. I'd lose 2 or 3mm by turning this one. The minimum recommended thickness for this part is 10 mm.
The new rotor looks like it's wrapped in simple brown paper, but it's not. Cortec makes a treated paper that acts like those little desiccant packets that come with cameras. It doesn't work quite the same way, though. Instead of absorbing moisture directly, this paper emits vapors that attract a thin molecular layer of protective ions to the metal surface within.
We often hear about auto factories trying to "go green" all the time. This effort extends to the parts that come from outside suppliers for final assembly. This product prevents rust without the need for an oil-based rust inhibitor or the brake-clean solvent needed to wash it off later. The part can go straight onto the vehicle.
All of this applies equally to DIY and service mechanics, too. There's no need to spray chemicals around and make more oily shop rags. Bolt it on and go. This greener anti-rust strategy is by no means universal, but it is gaining ground. Sometimes brown paper isn't just brown paper.
The dark hue of our new rotor is most likely a sign of an iron phosphate coating, a complimentary rust-inhibiting treatment. Between this and the treated paper, our new rotor was oil-free and completely dry. There's no need to spray and inhale brake-clean solvent fumes with this one.
This new rotor has a place for that Torx retaining bolt, so we'll reinstall it. This step is optional, but we tend to hate having extra parts laying around.
The front rotors we installed in our last episode didn't have this hole, primarily because we bought the less-expensive of two Ford Motorcraft options, saving $40 per front rotor in the process. The absence of the hole was one reason why it was cheaper. The fact that it was made in China was another.
There are two replacement rotor choices in the rear, too, but for some odd reason they're both priced at $83.30 each. With no savings to be had, I went with the "genuine" rotor instead of the "preferred value" one. This Mexican-made rear rotor looks very much like the factory part.
If you look close you'll notice the use of the Torx bolt does keep the lug studs from contacting the inside edges of the rotor's holes. That was true of the old rotor before it was removed.
Next, the caliper bolts to go back in and get tightened. We'll torque them later.
Now we can re-open the caliper, retract the piston and load those new pads.
Here's our piston, but it looks a bit strange. That's because these rear calipers have a cable-operated mechanism that applies the piston via the parking brake pedal. The self-adjusting ratcheting mechanism within prevents the piston from retracting too far in order to keep the pads close enough to apply the parking brake within 3 or 4 clicks.
In normal braking situations, however, it's still a hydraulically-actuated piston like any other.
What this means is that this piston cannot simply be pushed in like we did at the front. This type has to be screwed in as it's pushed, and that's why those notches are there. A special tool engages them and makes the job easy -- if you have the tool.
Fortunately, the tool that's needed is cheap at Harbor Freight Tools. This set cost just $9.87, and it has an assortment of adaptors to fit a variety of rear calipers.
The tool expands between the piston and the fingers of the caliper. As the screw is turned by a T-handle, the tool simultaneously spreads and screws the face of the piston clockwise. With this tool, it's all over in a few minutes. As we showed in the front pad change, we have to monitor the brake fluid level's rise in the reservoir as we go and remove some if it goes much beyond the "MAX" mark. But these smallish single pistons don't move nearly as much fluid as the large dual pistons in the front calipers, so the fluid level didn't rise above "MAX".
In this photo, the piston has to be turned a little bit more because it's important to stop when one of the two notches points straight up and is centered in the caliper "window". We'll see why a few steps later on.
Eight new clips (four per caliper) came with the new pads. They're symmetrically shaped top-to-bottom and inside-to-outside. Match the shapes like-for-like and remove and replace each one, one at a time. Short springy fingers hold them in place, so make sure they snap-in and seat properly. Apply a little high-temp graphite grease to the fresh grooves. These pads didn't come with any, but it's sold in single-serving packets at auto-parts stores.
Here's one of our new pads. Yeah, the old ones show some wear.
Once again, Ford sells two replacement rear pads. Ford genuine pads cost $96.63 for a rear axle set, while the "Preferred Value" ones cost $66.63. Our Ford contact didn't respond to our "what's the difference" question, but the guy behind the parts counter told us the cheaper ones aren't as quiet. That's usually where the cost is in a brake pad, so we went with the pricier ones.
The box says the pads were "Made in Italy", by the way. How chic.
This is probably where the noise-reducing money was spent: our new Italian pads have riveted-on shims with a rubberized outer surface. What's more, there's an adhesive backing that seems intended to keep the pads from moving around. This must be some heat-resistant goo.
Pre-installed shims and a peel-and-stick backing reduce this pad's prep time to near zero. We like that.
The pads slip easily into place. We're trying to stay clear of the sticky backing as much as possible, but we don't have to be fanatical about it.
As we close the caliper, the need to center the piston grooves in the "window" becomes clear. The pads feature a small protruding pin. On the identical outer pad, this serves no purpose, but the pin on the inner one (opposite the one we can see) must engage with the slot in the piston face (opposite the one we can see) so the piston can't rotate as the parking brake is applied. This is what makes the self-adjusting parking brake mechanism work.
With the caliper fully closed, it's time to reinstall and tighten the caliper slider bolt.
Finally, the two main caliper mounting bolts get re-torqued.
All done. Well, almost.
Press the brake pedal a few times to bring the pads fully up to the rotors before driving off. Same goes for that parking brake pedal -- press it on and off a couple of times to bring the parking brake into adjustment.
Think this takes a lot of tools? Think again. Aside from the obligatory floor jack and jack stands, this is all it takes. The black contraption above the hammer is our new $10 Harbor Freight caliper spreader, the one that can screw-in a piston with a self-adjusting parking brake mechanism as it presses it home.
Total time: less than 30 minutes per side.
Total parts cost: $263.23, plus tax. Yeah, you're remembering that right: the front brake parts were cheaper. In back, lower-priced rotors were not in the catalog, and we made a decision to go with slightly more-expensive rear pads. Still, this is cheaper than paying someone else to do it. And it's infinitely more satisfying.
Dan Edmunds, Director of Vehicle Testing @ 66,193 miles
breadwagon says:
12:28 PM, 08/18/10
Since that TORX bolt prevents the rotor from touching the studs, does that mean it takes most of the braking load that isn't covered by the friction clamping force between the rotor and the rim? That's a pretty small bolt for that load. Does it look like it was sheering at all?
jonmc says:
12:59 PM, 08/18/10
The TORX bolt is there for safety reasons. It does not take any of the braking load. You have to remember that the wheel is bolted to the face of the rotor at 80-90 lb-ft. It is this pressure which holds the rotor in place and allowing the brakes to act on the wheels/tires and stop the car.
wobbly_ears says:
01:10 PM, 08/18/10
Excellent post Dan!
travelingman79 says:
01:11 PM, 08/18/10
IMHO, all cars should have brake wear sensors that indicate when the time has come for new linings with an instrument panel lamp, not an audible sound, high-pitched, grinding, or otherwise.
hank39 says:
01:38 PM, 08/18/10
Great write-up!
throwback says:
01:56 PM, 08/18/10
Good job Dan, my front brakes are starting to squeak. Will Saturday around 10am work for you?
actualsize says:
02:25 PM, 08/18/10
@johnmc is correct. But the Torx bolt does hold the rotor in this position relative to the studs while the wheels are being torqued. And no, @breadwagon, the Torx bolt does not shows any evidence of shearing.
wobbly_ears says:
02:31 PM, 08/18/10
I bet a lot of Ford techs would use this post as a go-by than the official Ford literature.
Dan should write a book for n00bs like me who want to work on their cars.
ptcdawg says:
03:06 PM, 08/18/10
I agree, wear sensors are a must....how much could they cost?
ed124c says:
03:18 PM, 08/18/10
I'm tired now. I think I will take a nap.
Great job, Dan. And now I think you need another vacation. But wait until you get the new Jeep Grand Cherokee and/or the new Ford Explorer.
mptlptr says:
03:42 PM, 08/18/10
Actually there is a way to check your brake pads without taking the wheel off. Buy one of those tools that dentists use (with the small circular mirror on the end). Insert it through the wheel and you can see the pads.
s197gt says:
04:48 PM, 08/18/10
how much effort did it take to retract the rear pistons?
when i replaced my mustang's rear pads i had the same harbor freight tool and i thought i was doing something wrong. got back on the forums and they talked about really having to man-handle it. it killed my (admittedly unsubstantial) wrists but i finally got the piston to start turning. thought i was gonna destroy my calipers but it all worked out...
kevinlch says:
04:56 PM, 08/18/10
that's some hella expensive rear pads!!
actualsize says:
08:54 PM, 08/18/10
@s197gt: It wasn't hard at all. It took a little effort, but it was an easy one handed job with the T-handle mostly in the middle, and I didn't even have to think about using a "cheater" bar for extra leverage. Painless.
And no, I did NOT open the bleed screw to relieve "the pressure" (don't ever crack open the hydraulics -- you're doing it wrong) as I saw advocated by an un-named knucklehead on one particular Ford forum. That there is wrong-headed advice, that is.
cz_75 says:
12:44 AM, 08/19/10
Why go with the same kind of pads that ruined your rotors? Hawk, Satisfied or PFC should all make something at least as good as OEM and I would expect they would all use a wear indicator clip.
ms3fun says:
03:53 AM, 08/19/10
@ s197gt:
Sometimes it helps a lot to open the lid of the brake fluid reservoir if you have problems pushing in the pistons.
I had that problem with an older Ford years ago. It took an extreme amount of force to move the pistons, but as soon as I removed the lid of the reservoir, it didn't even take half as much force.
ms3fun says:
04:18 AM, 08/19/10
A question for Dan (actualsize) about the brakes on the Speed 3:
If you would have to change the brakes on the MS3, would you also buy the factory Mazda pads or go with ceramic after market ones?
I really hate the OE pads on my 2010 MS3. It's not about the performance but about the dust they create. The front wheels get pitch black in probably less then 300 miles. I can't believe that Mazda put such extreme dust emitting pads on the Speed 3 (I think they're even ceramic).
I just wondered what your buying preference in a situation like this would be.
msh1 says:
04:31 AM, 08/19/10
@ throwback: squeaking / squealing brakes do NOT necessarily mean worn brakes, despite what the rip-off artists at most quick-service locations will tell you.
@ ms3fun: would never recommend opening the lid of the brake fluid reservoir. You should not have to do that in order to retract the caliper bolts, and there's too much potential to make a huge mess if you do that. With some steady force and patience, I've never done brakes on a car where I could not retract the caliper with the reservoir cap on.
jaguar36 says:
05:18 AM, 08/19/10
This is a great writeup, can't wait to see more like it.
I'm particualrly impressed with the pictures, what sort of camera/lens/lighting are you using there?
yellowmiata says:
07:33 AM, 08/19/10
Dan,
Excellent writeup. These DIY's are wonderful for n00b's and gear-heads alike. The caliper spreader is an excellent tool. After watching someone destroy their caliper by levering it with a screw driver, I picked up the same model you have.
I, too, derive satisfaction from working on my vehicle - something I'll pass on if I have the chance.
Kevin
ttopjohn says:
07:51 AM, 08/19/10
These pads, as well as the ones you installed on the front of the Flex in the earlier writeup, do come with certain anti squeal items already installed.
I've always added the anti squeal goop (the red stuff made by CRC) to the backing plates and smeared high temp anti sieze on the ears of the pads (where they ride in the channels on the caliper bracket) regardless of whether or not the pads have anti squeal items built in already. My theory has been to throw the kitchen sink at squeal while I'm in there, as I know I'm not taking the brakes apart again until the next time the pads wear out. Is what I'm doing of any benefit if the pad itself has shims/a gooey surface/etc... preinstalled already?
actualsize says:
09:09 AM, 08/19/10
@cz_75: These pads didn't ruin the rotors by their friction material formulation, which is the main difference between these factory parts and the pads you cite.
We're partly to blame because we didn't monitor them enough and didn't catch them soon enough. But most civilians don't look at their brake pads, either, so partial credit goes to the lack of a pad-wear indicator. (The Flex's front pads don't have them either). But a pad-wear sensor on those aftermarket brands isn't a given, either. The caliper and rotor design may not allow for one in any case -- hard to know opening pad boxes and looking at the clips provided.
DIY is much easier to manage on one's own personal car -- you get to know it and you develop you own routine and checklist. This one is an LT fleet vehicle that isn't in my care all the time, and I forgot to check the rears while I was changing the front pads.
cz_75 says:
10:04 AM, 08/19/10
I meant their poor design, using rivets as wear indicators. Better formulation would be a bonus.
makakio says:
11:05 AM, 08/19/10
$40k car and no rear pad sensor? Huh...
ms3fun says:
12:39 PM, 08/19/10
@ msh1:
Maybe it's because it was an older car. But it worked much better with the lid loosened.
To be more clear: I agree that taking the lid off completely will make a mess. I should have said open the lid, but leave it on the reservoir and keep a good watch over the reservoir that it doesn't overflow.
6sptl says:
01:57 PM, 08/19/10
Using a ratchet for the rotor setting screw is a surefire path to a stripped screw head. I strongly recommend using a manual impact driver, 15 buck as home depot.
actualsize says:
03:34 PM, 08/19/10
@6sptl: I have one of those. It's hammer-driven and 1/2-inch drive. I've used it a lot in cases where the rotor hold-down screws have a "plus-shaped" Phillips head. But this one has a Torx head, and the straight-sided Torx head was designed precisely to avoid the "torque-out" reaction that the Phillips-head is susceptible to because of its tapered sides. We've all been there.
ms3fun says:
04:21 PM, 08/19/10
@ actualsize (Dan)
A question about the brakes on the Speed 3:
If you would have to change the brakes on the MS3, would you also buy the factory Mazda pads or go with ceramic after market ones?
I really hate the OE pads on my 2010 MS3. It's not about the performance but about the dust they create. The front wheels get pitch black in probably less then 300 miles. I can't believe that Mazda put such extreme dust emitting pads on the Speed 3 (I think they're even ceramic).
I just wondered what your buying preference in a situation like this would be.
actualsize says:
05:07 PM, 08/19/10
@ms3fun: I tried to answer you twice, but I'd been logged out in the background and lost all 'me words.
Short answer: If dust is your beef, stay with the factory pads and buy a nice wheel brush, some soap and a pail. Factory pads are designed to balance the oft-conflicting requirements of stopping power, noise, pad life, rotor life, fade, dust and a host of other factors.
Among the things on this list, I care least about dust performance. I value the stopping performance aspect highest. Noise sits in the middle. Mazdaspeed is a performance-oriented product, so they may have the same priorities. The fact that you like everything about your brakes except brake dust is a good place for a performance-oriented product to be. Ever seen the front wheels of a BMW? Most get blacker sooner than our own MS3. If they burned a lot of calories improving dust levels, something else would have to give.
To your specific question, the word "ceramic" gives me pause. Ceramics are hard. Harder than steel. I've used ceramic cutters in a lathe, and they cut ribbons of steel with ease without losing their edge. I've never tried a set of ceramic brake pads myself, but my Spidey Sense tells me that they'll punish your rotors. (I'm willing to hear from satisfied users that say otherwise). Are these pads trading brake dust for metal shavings? If so, that's bass-ackwards. The rotors are not supposed to be the wear items - the pads are. High-end sports cars use carbon ceramic ROTORS for supreme fade and heat resistance during heavy track use. That's where you want your ceramics, but those brakes cost thousands extra.
Also remember this: factory brake systems must go through a rigorous set of FMVSS certification tests, and most carmakers run prototypes through the torturous LA City Traffic (LACT) test loop to measure brake durability and noise performance in the real world. (This loop, BTW, goes right by our offices). Few, if any, aftermarket products do any of that stuff.
Unless you have a specific performance-oriented reason to upgrade (track use, racing, etc.) stick with the factory pads if dust is your only beef. Going after low dust may leave you with decreased pad and/or rotor life, and you might start hearing noises you're not hearing now. That's a generalization.
There may be exceptions in specific cases. Any readers out there with specific MS3 aftermarket pad success stories should pipe up.
ms3fun says:
09:54 PM, 08/19/10
Thanks Dan for your answer. Sorry about posting it twice. I thought you didn't see the first one.
About the ceramic pad issue:
As far as I know, most new cars, aside from the real econo boxes, use ceramic brake pads nowadays. At least for the front pads.
On the Akebono website, it states:
Akebono's OEM customers include: General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi Motors, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru and Isuzu.
I looked up the parts for the MS3 and the Flex, and on both is says that the OE material is Ceramic.
http://www.showmetheparts.com/akebono/
I have used ceramic pads, OE or not, on all my cars for probably the last 10 years. The only real difference I noticed is that there is virtually no brake dust, aside from better brake performance when the OE stuff was organic or semi-metallic like on my 88 CRX Si.
The rotor life is at least the same when using ceramic, maybe even a little longer.
The only difference I have felt is on my CRX. When it's cold outside, or after a long drive on the freeway without using the brakes, the first stop takes a bit more pressure on the brake pedal. Once the pads/rotor get a little warm, they bite very good.
It's not a big difference between cold and warm, but it's noticeable.
I can see your logic Dan. I have worked many hours on a lathe. Ceramics are used to cut steel. But I don't think you can draw a parallel between a ceramic cutter and ceramic brake pads, that the pads are wearing down the steel rotors faster.
If Akebono makes OE pads for all these manufacturers, I don't think that their AM pads are not to the same standard. Maybe the OEM's set higher priority for low noise or just want to save money and wanna use a cheaper compound mix with the trade off that they produce a lot of dust.
http://www.akebonobrakes.com/oem/friction_materials/index.asp
cz_75 says:
01:26 AM, 08/20/10
Most "ceramics" are NAOs (non-asbestos organics) with ceramic and non-ferrous metallic fillers, such as my current favorite pad, Axxis (Bendix Australia) Ultimates. Low dust really isn't something I look for in a performance pad and many ceramics hide dust by using a formulation that results in light colored dust. I know my pads are working by the dust they create and the rears, using the same compound, have almost no dust on the rims.
Factory brakes undergo rigorous testing, but the priorities are often different than what an enthusiast might want, since they focus on things like pad life, dust and noise more than performance to reduce customer complaints (which affect things like warranty claims and their J.D. Power initial quality survey rankings, which take into account things like brake noise and dust). I'd just wax my front wheels and live with having to spray them off weekly if I cared about such things.
actualsize says:
03:03 PM, 08/20/10
When enthusiasts ask me about ceramic pads, I don't think of typical OE formulations which DO include a certain amount of so-called ceramic material. Usually, they're asking about aftermarket pads that have use a higher-than-usual percentage of ceramic material in their formulation, more expensive pads that are intended for motorsport or track-day use. I'm not sure I'm wrong about rotor wear with such high-ceramic pads, either, at least compared to regular OE pads rubbing on on identical OE rotors in each case.
Pete Wolf, the guy who wrote this for us, is a brake development engineer I used to work with while I was busy handling the tires and suspension aspects. He only touches on ceramic pads a little bit near the end, but here it is anyway.
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/130013/article.html
Your "morning sickness" observation in cold temps is certainly consistent with higher levels of ceramic material, though. I'm not sure how you compared rotor life over a span of, what, thousands of miles without doing it in parallel. And were the rotors the same P/N in both cases? I'm not disputing it, it's just that it's hard to do such a test outside a lab setting with real-life variables and so much time in play.
Higher OE rotor wear was certainly the case with the high-metallic race pads I used to use for racing. I would expect high-ceramic pads to act similarly. Either way, racers aren't trying to get 60,000 miles out of a set of rotors--they toss them all the time. The lower percentage of ceramic and metallic elements in OE pads may well be a nod to rotor life, among other things.
But pad material formulation is a very tricky thing. It's a science all to itself. It's very hard to generalize.
ms3fun says:
04:19 AM, 08/21/10
Your points may very well be true. I can base my statements only on the experiences I have made with my cars. I have to admit, since I'm not a fan of SUV's, my cars have been rather small and on the lighter side. What I have seen over the years with my cars may well not be true on large cars, SUVs and trucks.
I have owned this CRX for about 150'000 miles. The current setup has been on for about 30'000. Again, I have to admit I have never used OE rotors. Just because of the price.
I usually bought rotors and ceramic pads from the local parts store (Kragen, Autozone, Pep Boys, etc). Even with those rotors (not cross-drilled like the ones on now) I have not seen a lot of rotor wear. I base that on not having seen a tall ridge on the outside edge of the rotor.
I also owned a 98 Civic for about 100'000 miles and had about the same experience as with my current CRX.
I'm not claiming anything about this is scientific data. I agree that to make a real comparison it would need to be done in a controlled environment.
But just based on the fact that I never saw a high ridge on the outer edge of the face of the rotor, indicates that they didn't wear down by much. I have worked in a tire shop and have seen rotors with ridges several millimeter high.
But even if the rotors would wear down a bit faster, to me it would be worth the trade-off for not having this insane amount of brake dust all over the wheels.
craig248 says:
09:36 PM, 06/ 8/11
The rear outside pad doesn’t touch the rotor surface. This is on both rear wheels. Is this normal? If it is normal won’t this allow stones to get in between the pad and the rotor? I think this is happening to my vehicle. Also when I push on the brake pedal the outside pad does not engage the rotor. This is the third time I have had the rotor damaged on the outside surface and always on the rear passenger side. The rotor gets a groove in the center and makes a scrapping sound when braking.
gelene says:
09:31 AM, 07/23/11
after only having the car 1 1/2 yrs, @25K we needed brakes, rotors (which we were told by dealer were supposed to be lifetime rotors??)... and of course b/c the brakes were totally bad.. somehow the tires were too.. and need 2 new ones??? not sure how it all coorelates as i'm a teacher, not a mechanic... but it cost us $1200!!!!! we also soon needed a battery at 27K, which Ford paid us back for thankfully...
i know cars need this stuff after a while..
but NOT this early on... and now at 45K our a/c is going??? seriously??
we dont' drive rough and have it maintained as stated in user book.. but like my other fords, sorry to say.. under the hood it isn't up to snuff :(
our toyota scion has only needed 1 set of tires and brakes at 50K.. now at 100K.. it is still OK.. although will need new tires soon.. and NOTHING ELSE!! and it was literally 1/2 the price...
diy007 says:
10:36 PM, 10/11/11
Great post. What torque did you use on the caliper bolts? Thanks.