Rusted Rotors

Here is a new one on me.....Rusted Rotors beyond salvage.
I was getting some pulsating in the right rear brake on the Buick. These are / were the original rotors that were never cut.
The rear rotors were heavily rusted on the innerside. I brought them in to a local shop to be cut. The pads had 30,000 on them and were still okay. Shop # 1 said they were to rusty to cut. Shop # 2 and 3 said the same thing.
Mechanics at Chevy told me to just buy new ones. Said to go with the cheap ones as they only last so long due to the cheap recycled metal being used in todays manufacturing.
One Goodwrench was surprised I got as many miles out of them before the pulsating occurred. He said he replaced all 4 rotors at 50,000 on a 2006 Silverado.
Thank You GM....
PS, the rotors on the Bonneville are 18 years old and are just fine.
harryface 91 Bonneville 320,001 05 Park Avenue 89,067
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Harry Face) wrote:

I have 180k on a 97 Blazer.. Drums rear, discs front. Rotors are OEM, never turned. I just replace pads. No pulsating, noise, etc, brakes work fine - abs works also. Rear drums never turned.
Have a lot of gripes about this GM product, but brakes have been OK. First set of pads "only" made it to 50k (90k is usual for me), so I used best Raybestos at the first and 2nd pad-change. Ditto for the brake shoes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'll guarantee ya that those rotors and drums are worn past minimum specs at that mileage. That means they are unsafe even if they aren't pulsing. Rotors and drums are a wear item along with linings. Lunch ain't free..........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's not necessarily true. Much of it depends on the driver's braking style. I replaced my FIRST set of brake pads at 135K on a Nissan Murano recently and the rotors still looked like new and didn't require grinding. I've got 40K on my current 09 Jetta and the brakes are hardly worn.
My wife's 07 Equinox however just had the REAR pads replaced and the rotors turned yesterday at 50K, even though the front pads (original) still have plenty of life remaining. No one could provide a logical explanation as to why the rear brakes needed replaced first, although 2 different mechanics suggested rust may have been a factor.
My point being, my wife drives differently than I do. Not that she's a heavy or late braker, but simply brakes MORE than I typically would.
The second issue being my brake replacement experiences have primarily been on non-GM models where it is very common that I go at least 80K before any form of brake service is required.
My Chevy's have all needed new pads a little sooner, but I've never had to replace the rotor.
Wes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Looking OK is not the yardstick. Measuring the thickness or diameter is the determining factor. As the original poster said at 187k miles IMA those parts are worn out. I routinely get 60k out of a set of linings on my vehicles and can get 2 sets of linings before rotor/drum repl. is needed if not warped/worn. It may be possible to got almost 200k if one only drives highway miles in Kansas (flatlands) but that's a rarity not the norm. When pads wear, the rotor wears also. The friction of one against the other wears both parts. Linings wear more but the metal wears also. The shop that turns rotors/drums measures the part before and after machining, if below minimum specs it's trash. That's why it's now federal law to mark those parts with a minimum dia. / thickness as back in the day drum failures due to over cutting happened. I've seen broken drums back in the late '60's. Average DIYer doesn't have a rotor mic. or drum tape to measure these vital parts so to imply that looking good, not warped, etc. means they are OK is wrong. I've had rotors worn to min. spec. and not be warped but that doesn't mean they are safe to reuse. Brakes are THE most important system on a vehicle, not a place to cheap out..........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Totally agree with you. I find it troublesome that so many individuals slap on a pair of pads without considering the REAL condition of their rotors. In fact I have a friend that just did that, and his car has nearly 150K... and it's almost all city driving, and on a Buick... and I'm thinking to myself, DUDE, "looking" at the rotors is NOT the answer!!!
Wes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I had that happen on the 89 Regal. Roads were salted, but rear disc brake configuration was also a part of the problem. It is just part of the price you pay to drive certain models.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.