I went in today to get rear parking brakes fixed... (at the dealership)
surprise not a recall item because I have a automatic transmission, not
manual. Exact same parking brakes, but since no one has died yet from
the parking brake failure on a automatic transmission its not covered!
Anyway the almost $300 repair job worked fine, I have better parking
brakes than new. Why do I care? I park on hills a lot and just somehow
can't bring myself to trust the parking pawl in the transmission.
So since the brakes are working so good, I thought I'd jack up the rear
tire to make sure they did not have them sooo tight they were
dragging. They were ok, but I did notice a BIG hole (maybe 1 x 2
inches) rusted in both rear brake backing plates... I could look in and
see something that looked like brake parts!!
I realize this is a 6 year old truck, but I've never seen so much rust
on everything underneath, brake, fuel lines and these brakes.
So should I just get some galvanized or stainless sheet metal and
patch up the hole, complain (to who?) or trade off the truck?
No not at this time.... but if you have a manual transmittion the
parking brake has a recall. When I get this fixed, I plan on
writting a nice letter to GM with some very clear photos of the rust
damage to the rear parking brake/rear brake backing plate.
There is no little adjustment hole, like a real drum brake. You have
to do a trial and error remove and reinstall the rear brake disk /
parking drum after every adustment. No the holes were down low and I'm
upset because it looks like dirt, water, snow, salt and whatever can
now get inside these holes. Ie: another $300 repair job a year or so
from now. I'm thinking I can silicone seal some stainless or galv.
steel over the holes??
Eugene Nine wrote:
Eugene this is the parking brake, the "real" rear brake is disk. The
parking brake drum is on the back of the rear disk brake rotor. The
cable operated parking brake shoes are on the back plate, like a real
drum brake would have. Not a good thing as the adjustment is as I have
described... that is why I took to dealership, so any recalls or claims
for payment for repairs would not be disputed by GM.
Eugene Nine wrote:
Yours is a newer model, and perhaps drum brakes? My son's new GMC
Sierra PU has drums in the rear. Anyway since the adjuster is at the
top of the parking brake (all one piece, two shoes assy) there is no
need for a hole at the bottom, unless is was intended to act as a
drain? In any event I've never had a car or pickup with so much
rust, even after 20 years.
My question was, how many other owners are having the same problem and
what did you do to correct?
I top post as I always have because if someone is following the post,
they have already read the messages before and have no need to scroll
down through needless quoted lines.
Eugene Nine wrote:
They didn't switch back to drum brakes until 05, mine still has the rear
discs. I haven't needed to adjust mine yet but see the oval hole at the
bottom like traditional drum brakes.
Just because you have always posted the wrong way doesn't mean you should
continue. Your or my preference doesn't matter unless we wish to re-write
the usenet standard, I switched to posting properly years ago when I
learned there was a standard.
Trust me its rusted! A 1 x 3 inch hole you can stick your fingers into
is not a adjustment slot. My suggestion to you and others is to
paint or coat in some way this plate, perhaps the new ones are from the
factory. My thought is the rust started with the slot. Does yours have
a rubber plug? Otherwise it would rust from inside and out, perhaps
explaining the parking brake problem, I and others are having.
Eugene Nine wrote:
Follow Up: Just got off the phone with the service manager of the
dealership, they will allow me labor credit for not calling me when
the whole thing was apart and given me the option of replacing the
back plates then. So since there is not a recall I get to pay another
$300 plus to R&R backplates... I will need to go to GM for any claims
for labor and materials.
Thanks Eugene and others for taking the time to reply.
RFC1855 is the guideline which says to not top post.
Yes all rfc's are just guidelines but when you don't follow those guidelines
communication breaks down. Just try to follow an old thread which has been
top posted and you will see. Thats why when I got on the internet years
ago I looked up the standard to see what it was.
This is clearly off topic, so I will limit myself to this final comment.
This is the reference to top or bottom posting in 1855.
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
Again, there are NO Standards.
Do as you please. If you decide to ignore any of my top posted messages
you may or may not miss something useful to you.
You makes your choice and takes your chances.
I have seen more "Net Nanny's" laughed off Usenet than
stick around trying to push a moot point.
BTW, The RFC's were written by a group of university affiliated
persons trying to create a controlling influence over all things internet.
Their postulations were largely ignored and relegated to the ashheap
when their intentions became obvious. In fact, many of the original
institutions have purged their archives to distance themselves from
the attempt of creating that "controlling influence".
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.