49,000 miles - They say brakes are borderline

[Craig1960]

Depending on the age of the rv I might get them done just for piece of mind. I had a set of pads come apart going down a long steep hill on my old rv. They were at 50% when I left on that trip so I wasn't worried. That wasn't a fun ride.
The shop said they probably came apart because of the age. The rv was about 20 years old with well under 50,000 miles.

[schad]

If the mechanic is saying you need all new pads (including rears), have him show you or get a second opinion. It's rare to need rear pads unless the front are literally worn down to nothing.

If the mechanic is saying you need more than just pads, like new rotors or a rebuild or whatever... you would notice that the moment you stepped on the brakes. So unless you noticed something, get a second opinion.

If (or when) you replace the pads, consider heavy-duty aftermarket ones as another poster suggested. They cost slightly more up-front but usually pay off in longer life and better all-around performance. The disadvantage is that you usually have to deal with more brake noise and dust.

Brake wear happens gradually. That means you don't notice it. If you DO notice it, that means your brakes are SIGNIFICANTLY worn. Driving on very worn brakes is not only a safety hazard, but is likely to cause more-expensive problems as a result.

Pads are cheap. If they're worn, replace them. Even if you CAN get another 5-10k miles out of them, it's just not worth it. Your brakes are the most important safety system on your vehicle. That means they should also be one of the best-maintained parts.

Just my $0.02.

[Waiter21]

It's rare to need rear pads unless the front are literally worn down to nothing.

For cars, this is generally true, However, on my mh, its just the opposite, The rears wear a little faster than the fronts..

You are correct, If you are mechanically inclined, you should be able to change pads yourself..

[cwit]

I just changed my pads front and rear at 56,000 miles. 2004 f-53 20,500 lb. chassis. I could of probably went 2 years more put 3,300 miles interstate a year. Just good piece of mind.

[schad]

Originally Posted by Waiter21

For cars, this is generally true, However, on my mh, its just the opposite, The rears wear a little faster than the fronts..

Yeah, I've actually had a car that wore faster in the back too. It depends on how the system is biased. I was wrong to sound so definitive. What I should have said was that it's rare for all four pads to wear at the same rate. I imagine that on a MH, depending on the weight distribution, it's possible that one side or the other may wear faster too.

Not to threadjack, but... on my car where the brakes wore faster in the back, it's because the car was rear wheel drive and the traction/stability control needed to be able to stop the rear wheels from spinning even at wide open throttle. Thus the rear brakes were bigger, so they tended to wear faster. But why would they set up a MH like that? Weight transfer during deceleration should mean that you can always put more braking force on the front wheels than the back before locking them up. Even on something like a rear-engine DP where there's more weight on the rear axle(s), I'd still expect a significant front bias.

[Minnesota51]

UPDATE---

I took it to Ford truck shop outside Minneapolis and had them inspect the brakes, telling them I probably need pads because another Ford shop told me 3,000 miles ago they were getting thin.

After inspecting them they said, no, they are still fine, 70% on the front and 50% on the rear duals. The service manager said 70% on the front sounded like those pads must have been replaced once already. I said, no, I have been the owner since 1,000 miles on the unit.

I do use tow haul religiously on the hills and never ride the brakes, in fact I pride myself on going down a grade not touching the brakes much, and using the engine brake as much as possible, even if in means going slower.

He said I probably have another 20,000 miles to go.

I was all set to have new pads put on, and now I have to get used to the idea that they are OK when we hit the mountains out west this fall.

[twinboat]

Originally Posted by schad

Yeah, I've actually had a car that wore faster in the back too. It depends on how the system is biased. I was wrong to sound so definitive. What I should have said was that it's rare for all four pads to wear at the same rate. I imagine that on a MH, depending on the weight distribution, it's possible that one side or the other may wear faster too.

Not to threadjack, but... on my car where the brakes wore faster in the back, it's because the car was rear wheel drive and the traction/stability control needed to be able to stop the rear wheels from spinning even at wide open throttle. Thus the rear brakes were bigger, so they tended to wear faster. But why would they set up a MH like that? Weight transfer during deceleration should mean that you can always put more braking force on the front wheels than the back before locking them up. Even on something like a rear-engine DP where there's more weight on the rear axle(s), I'd still expect a significant front bias.

The axle carrying the most weight will wear out the brakes first. Would you want your 2 front tires stopping you or your 4 rear tires doing most of the work.

Take a look at any heavy truck, the rear brakes are 3 times the size as the front, and I can state that they wear out first.

Cars carry the most weight in the front, so the wear out the front brakes.

Its all about weight, not weight transfer.

[BCarp]

Originally Posted by BCarp

My 2007 F53 is getting all new brakes at 57k miles. The front are completely shot, the rear are marginal. I'm not the first owner, I've only put 300 miles on it. No telling how it was driven before me.

I just got mine back last week with a surprise. I needed new front rotors and on my 2007 year F53, the rotor is integrated into the wheel hub. Wheel hubs cost $775 each!

Here's a break down:
Wheel Hubs $1550
Axle seals. $100
Front pads $105
Rear pads $105
6 hours labor $660

Total cost $2520

Just wanted to share what it could cost. Included in that labor figure is turning the rear rotors. This was done at a Ford dealer.

[bamaboy473]

Originally Posted by schad

Pads are cheap. If they're worn, replace them.

Even if you CAN get another 5-10k miles out of them, it's just not worth it. Your brakes are the most important safety system on your vehicle. That means they should also be one of the best-maintained parts.

this. It's better to do planned PM than to learn that you need them while in the middle of a long down-hill 7% grade.

[Waiter21]

Thanks for reporting back.. Those numbers sound reasonable. Now that you know where they're at, you can plan ahead. Don't delay to long, if they get metal to metal, it gets expensive..

If you're mechanically inclined, replacing pads is reasonably easy. Most places that do brakes will also re-condition / replace rotors.. I understand why, this brings the system back to 100%, no questions asked..

When I do mine, unless there is damage to the rotors, I normally just replace the pads. If there's glazing on the rotors, I'll hit them with a fine DA to remove any glazing.

[grindstone01]

Originally Posted by Minnesota51

UPDATE---

I took it to Ford truck shop outside Minneapolis and had them inspect the brakes, telling them I probably need pads because another Ford shop told me 3,000 miles ago they were getting thin.

After inspecting them they said, no, they are still fine, 70% on the front and 50% on the rear duals. The service manager said 70% on the front sounded like those pads must have been replaced once already. I said, no, I have been the owner since 1,000 miles on the unit.

I do use tow haul religiously on the hills and never ride the brakes, in fact I pride myself on going down a grade not touching the brakes much, and using the engine brake as much as possible, even if in means going slower.

He said I probably have another 20,000 miles to go.

I was all set to have new pads put on, and now I have to get used to the idea that they are OK when we hit the mountains out west this fall.

It always pays to get a second opinion and/or cost estimate!

[G Schulz]

I’ve always changed my disk brakes when the lining equaled the backing plate thickness.

[bamaboy473]

Originally Posted by Waiter21

When I do mine, unless there is damage to the rotors, I normally just replace the pads. If there's glazing on the rotors, I'll hit them with a fine DA to remove any glazing.

Totally agree. Unless the pads wore into the rotors, they shouldn't need to be changed. Scoring on rotors doesn't alter stopping ability.

Too bad we don't have a photo of those rotor/hub parts that the Ford dealer replaced. I would bet that they are fine.

[BCarp]

I didn't take pictures, but I looked at the rotors before I took the coach in for service. What was left of the front pads wore about 2mm into the front rotors. I told the Ford dealer to replace them, I just didn't realize they were integrated into the hub. Many part lookup tools list front rotors for the F53 separately. Had I looked on Ford's part search, I would have seen the diagram and not been surprised.

I'm glad I took it in because I hate doing wheel bearings. I have a big enough press to do it, but getting the preload right when reassembling is frustrating.