I understand that,in most cases, an ASM would not charge back a repair in which the dealer followed the bulletin as it applies to a certain vehicle. (For example the 97-99 Malibu from bulletin 99-05-23-001A) Replacing the rotors with the "dampened iron" rotors from the bulletin is clearly following the bulletin to the letter. My problem (and many other service managers) comes in trying to decide the best repair for other warranty brake problems we see in our dealerships. Using bulletin 23-50-05B as a guide only confuses us more.
Take for example a 99 Grand Am with a brake pulsation concern. Following the bulletin 23-50-05B, if the rotor thickness variation is in excess of 1.5 mm we can turn the rotors. But as you probably know, the best repair is to replace the front rotors. As you stated, resurfacing the rotors is a "temporary solution". The removing of material from the rotor only takes away from the ability of the rotor to absorb and disperse the heat. The less material the more likely the rotor will warp again. Pontiac used to have a bulletin that stated dealers are NOT to resurface rotors for pulsation concerns but are to replace the rotors instead. The new GM is more concerned with cost of repair than quality of repair so we are no longer able to replace warped rotors on Pontiac.
The problem with replacing the rotors is any good auditor can use bulletin 23-50-05B to charge back the repairs because the bulletin doesn't state "replacement" of the rotors. Only resurfacing is described. Most service managers know they will lose the arguement of best repair vs cost of resurfacing.
Concerns with brake squeal are similar. Some bulletins are published that have new updated replacement pads for addressing brake squeal. But, if you replace the pads for brake squeal on a vehicle that does not apply to any bulletin, you can be charged back for the repair even if it made the customer happy.
Can you understand why we are confused now?
------------------
JC
[This message has been edited by jrcal (edited 09-03-99).]