have to replace by front rotors. any comments on getting the cheaper ones from autozone/napa or paying the higher price for the bendix/raybestos or napa to of the line ones. which are the ones you most use. also any comments on front pads as far as the ones you like and have the best stopping power with. thanks
I found the Raybestos ceramic pads glazed the rotors, causing a pulsating stop. The people that turned the rotors indicated that they were not warped. This happened after 5k miles.
interesting. did you change the pads or live with it...what did the people that turned the rotors say about these pads....good or bad... thanks for your help....
Below is a repeat of part of a recent post of mine (in the "Advice on
1999 Jeep Cherokee vs. 2001 Jeep Cherokee" thread) that may be a general solution for vehicles with marginal (always warping) brakes, as many of them are these days: For extra insurance against warping, especially on a problem vehicle, you can have a new set of rotors cryogenically treated - will cost $75 plus shipping for treatment of a pair of rotors (based on: $1.50/pound with min. job charge of $75 - a typical rotor would weigh in the neighborhood of 15 to 21 pounds - rears are almost certainly not the problem - only necessary to do the fronts). I recommend(FWIW, I have Hawk HPS pads - very popular with the 300M and Intrepid crowd. My cryo-treated rotors are NAPA=Dana=United Brake=Raybestos. The rotor style is PHP - drop-in replacement for non-PHP but with better venting/cooling.)
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
NAPA top of the line = Raybestos (reboxed as their in-house United Brake brand) - recommended. I don't know if they make Hawk HPS pads for Caravans, but they are popular with LH car owners.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Interesting as I saw an article some time ago about some testing done on cryo treated gun barrels that were supposed to suddenly gain magic powers also. A well designed set of experiments showed basically no difference before and after treatment. Do you know of any real studies on cryo treated rotors beyond your anecdote? No offense, but a sample size of one is pretty much as insignificant as you can get statistically speaking...
Matt
I certainly understand your snotty attitude - err - I mean, your skepticism, Matt. 8^)
Seriously - yes - I realize that my experience is purely anecdotal - a sample of one. There are some downloadable videos on the 300below.com site on the alleged science and applications of cryotreating, including that of gun barrels for competition.
I can't remember if they name names or not as far as competition shooters, but they discuss that application as if it's common knowledge in the top echelons of competition shooting that cryo-treating works and improves scores in rapid-fire competition. Their explanation says that the very uniform grain structure resulting from the treatment and lack of residual internal stresses means close to zero distortion as the gun barrel heats up during rapid-fire competition and so a tight pattern is more closely maintained for a good shooter. If they give names and references, then that's where your answer lies - otherwise, I agree - it's suspect information.
They also claim that it is used to greatly increase strength and fatigue resistance of hi-stress automotive racing parts (connecting rods, blocks, pistons, drivetrain components, etc.), and, again, you're given the distinct impression that it is a known real advantage in some racing circles (quotes from a customer that they get something like 4 or 5 races out of a single engine before rebuild or self-destruction rather than the usual one or two races. Again, I don't recall if they name names or give verifiable references. I will say that the local speed shop thru which I ordered their service told me that, while they did not have racing customers who used treated rotors, they definitely have customers who swear by it for treating engine parts.
I do remember that they link a magazine article (some trade magazine, IIRC - hopefully not an internal "publication") about a company that is saving a bunch of money on replacing a certain type of welding tip in a production environment by having the tips cyro-treated - something like ten times the life of the untreated tip - I believe they do give the name of that customer.
To be honest, I do know of one other person on a 300M forum that had his rotors done, and his warped - **but** he had the rotors cross-drilled and slotted before the treatment (mine were treated right out of the box, no other mods), and a different company did the treatment, so I don't think it is an apples-to-apples comparison; plus his experience is no more nor no less anecdotal than my experience.
What magazine was the article you read in?
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
I can't remember and it has been some years ago that I read this, shortly after the cryo rage hit the shooting world. I suspect it was either Shooting Times or American Rifleman as they are the only two that I have received over a long period of time. I'm not able to find a reference though.
This article may give the best reason of all ... psychology. If you think something helps, then that helps in and of itself.
Matt
Yes, but the point is that many things can change the way a barrel shoots or the way that rotors warp or not. Simply removing and replacing the barrel for the cryo treatment could change the headspace, which could change the accuracy. Also, the seating of the action and barrel in the stock could change, etc. I'm not saying anyone is lying, just possibly making incorrect cause and effect attributions.
For example, let's say the wheel lug nuts were grossly overtorqued and the rotors warped. The owner takes them off, has them cryo treated and then turned on a lathe. They are now reinstalled and this time the lug nuts are hand torqued to the proper value. The rotors don't warp again. It was the cryo, right? :-) Maybe, maybe not, but I'll bet you a steak dinner that the owner credits the cryo in any event.
I'm not saying it isn't helpful, I'm just saying I've not seen credible evidence. The above sounds like an Amsoil advertisement. :-) After using Amsoil in my motorcycle and one car many years ago, I don't believe all of their claims either.
Some things above just don't make logical sense. I can see treating the rotors potentially making the rotors last longer, but I don't see it making the pads last longer. Unless the short pad life was from rusted and pitted rotors and the cryo somehow prevents rust, which I doubt. Even if cryo serves an annealing function, which is what most claim from what I've read, that wouldn't increase pad life.
If Amsoil as a good as it claimed back in the 70s, everyone would be using it now. Same for cryo. I use synthetic oil and have for 25 years, but my cars don't get magically quieter, I've never seen a measurable fuel mileage improvement (and I keep a log book and calculate every tankful), etc. I use it for one reason only, it is less viscous at low temperatures and my cars crank better in the winter. This is a very noticeable effect. I believe it also gives better high-temp protection, but that isn't a major consideration in PA.
Matt
Correct. They do have micrographs on their site showing 'before' and 'after' grain structure. And you are also correct in that they are not exactly a disinterested independent third party presenting the "proof".
Agreed - you would have to know the integrity (honesty, method of "proving", and objectivity so that, as has been pointed out, they don't fool themselves into believing their own false hopes - that pesky placebo effect) of the person (company) being quoted and that of the person (company) doing the quoting.
Fair enough - I wasn't expecting it to prove anything - just some of the stuff seems convincing combined with my own experience (not that I would expect that to convince anyone else). I may dig a little deeper into some of the magazine articles though with the hopes of stumbling across something a little scientific and independent like what you point out would be needed.
I sure am enjoying driving my car while I fool myself into thinking that the brakes don't pulsate any more - ignorance is bliss! (I know - still no proof - I'm just being an a**-hole) 8^)
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Actually, this is a very old wives tale and science says no such thing. I'm surprised someone who claims to be an engineer would propogate this old saw...
That's good. I'll keep my eye on it. As I said before, I'm not saying it doesn't have merit. I've just not yet personally seen convincing evidence that it does (3rd party data, etc.) and the one reasonably controlled experiment I read with regard to gun barrels suggested that it did not have any measurable affect.
If it is shown to work, I'll use it!
Matt
I suspect that that was a true saying some years ago, and that over time, with computer analysis and simulation, eventually science did crack that nut (don't know for sure - just speculating). Even though it may be a little outdated, it illustrates a valid point, and I will keep using it. Certainly science is explaining the unkowns one by one, but there will always be plenty of things that it can't explain but that work in spite of man's ignorance.
No problem. I just think it's peculiar that you see people complaiing about constant brake problems on Chysler and other forums, and so far, I know of only two poeple (including myself) within that sizeable but limited population that have tried cryo as a last resort. I'll bet neither you nor I put 1% of the products we use in our home or car to the scrutiny to which you are putting this when there is a real need for a solution when there appears to be none due to marginal design.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
I have a 96 Town and Country. A few months ago I went on the Tire Rack site and found that they sell those Brembo Rotors for about what you would pay at NAPA for their part. I combined these with ceramic pads and have no complaints.
Richard.
But "science" never said this. Some scientist or engineer "may" have said it, but even that I doubt, but science never said it.
Actually, I do for things that cost more than about $1.98. :-) I have a 1996 Grand Voyager and the brake rotors on it were warped when I bought the van used with about 34K on it. I had them replaced at around 60K when the pads wore out. The van now has 136K and the rotors are fine with no signficant warping. I can feel a very slight pulsing in the pedal when braking very lightly, but nothing even close to objectionable. So, for me getting my rotors cryo treated would be fixing a problem that doesn't, for me, exist. I don't consider nearly
80K to be bad life for a brake rotor, and I fully expect these rotors to last the remaining life of the vehicle (I expect to put 200K on it).Personally, I believe the biggest cause by far of warped rotors is improperly torqued lug nuts. I rotate my own tires and torque my own lug nuts. I've never, ever had a set of rotors warp in the nearly 30 years I've owned cars and trucks. The only warped rotors I've had have been on used cars I bought. And every one had the lug nuts on so tight I had to use a pipe on my 1/2" breaker bar to loosen them.
I prefer to address what I consider to be the fundamental problem. But I certainly don't object to people cryo treating their parts. If it keeps a few more Americans employed, it is alright by me!
And in PA, the rotors typically succumb to rust long before they warp! :-(
Matt
300 Below charges $1.50/lb. with a minimum per 'job' of $75. My front rotors weighted about 18 pounds each, so I was a good bit under the 50 pounds that would have maxed out the $75 minimum. It would have been more economical per pound or per rotor to have gotten rear rotors too to throw in with the same order - that would have put my total for the treatment around $90 to $100, but rears are not a problem (from wear or warpage) on most vehicles, certainly on my car (IOW the extra cost of the new rear rotors would have been a waste of money).
The rotors themselves for my car from NAPA were $47 each.
300 below will allow you to ship them your new rotors (they understandably will not treat used rotors because they already could have warpage and/or microcracks), or you tell them what rotors you want and they'll supply them and add that to the bill, which would save you the shipping cost one way (IIRC around $12 each way from/to the east coast).So my total out of pocket for two new treated front rotors was $47 x 2 (rotors) + $75 = $169 (not including sales tax on the rotors). Shipping added $24 ($12 if I had let them procure the rotors). So about twice what the rotors alone cost.
*IF* it solves the annoying warping problem and *IF* you get significantly longer pad and rotor wear life out of it, then it's well worth it. These days, people replace rotors almost like it was changing oil. 8^)Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread.
It spread at first as a joke in European universities, at Sainte-Lague's & Magnan's expense. But later it became a "fact" among the gullible or the uneducated not smart enough to get the joke.
Ted
Bill,
Thanks. The total price seems to make this process uneconomical. As I indicated previously, I generally have experienced warpage/pulsing around
20K miles. I usually live with this till about 25-30K miles which is about 3-4 years old. When doing the discs, I replace the rotors with Raybestos or Napa US made and don't get any noticeable warpage till I do the brakes again at about 60K miles. I can usually resurface these at that time and get another 30 or more miles from them. In my case, even if this treatment worked very well, it just wouldn't make sense financial since the rotors are easy to replace when you have the calipers off to do the discs anyway.Bob
This "test" has flaws I could drive a truck through. First, as I mentioned earlier, unless they are treating the action and barrel as an assembled unit, the barrel has to be unscrewed from the action and re-installed. It is fairly well known that this operation can have a significant affect on accuracy. Second, most barrels tend to shoot worse when brand new, better as they "wear in" and then worse again as they wear out. Wouldn't be unusual at all for the second 500 rounds through a barrel to shoot better than the first 500 as the first 100 to
200 are the break-in rounds and in all likelihood dramatically skew the group sizes of the first 500 rounds.Since there is not just one variable here, the cryo treatment, it is laughable to make the statement "there had been a tremendous increase in the accuracy of the barrel brought about by the deep freeze alone."
Which raises an interesting question: why are only the barrels treated? I've never heard of an entire rifle being treated (barrel, action, trigger, etc.), but it seems to me that if the benefits of stress relief and better wear resistance are true, all of these items would benefit. Yet I've only read about barrels being treated. Any idea why? Or have you read about complete rifles being treated?
I'm not a metallurgist, but it sounds logical.
Sorry, but I can't place much credence in a link from the company peddling a product or service.
Matt
You're welcome. Since you can figure on $30-$40 for resurfaceing a pair of rotors and then buy another set a little later, I'm not sure I agree that it is not economical in the long run - but that's just my opinion. I guess I'm looking for extra margin of safety against a single event or trip (like thru the mountains of West Virginia like I just took cutting short the life of a regular rotor - maybe right after getting the new pair). For me it just totally relieves pressure about using the brakes heavily if warranted for a long downhill or whatever (whether having just replaced them or 2 or 3 years down the road (literally). 8^)
NAPA (non-off-shore version) = Raybestos reboxed as NAPA's in-house United Brake brand (and made in Canada - cast prominently into the rotor). 8^)
I wouldn't call that a bad decision - it's a plan based on some logic.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.