DealersEdge Professional Forums

Not long ago, one of the topics posted here refered to GM's brake repair\replacement policy changes.
Basically, dealers were only to turn rotors under certain conditions such as deep scoring etc. Rotors were NOT to be turned or replaced for brake squeal.
Anybody reading bulletin 99-05-23-001A will be shocked (as I was) to find the correction for brake squeal on 97-99 Malibu and Cutlass is to replace both front brake rotors with new "dampened iron" rotors. Also, the front brake pads should be replaced if insulators are not present on the backside of the pads.
I am confused because bulletin 23-50-05B clearly states (under the topic of Brake Noise) Rotors are not to be resurfaced in an attempt to correct noise\squeal." It further states: "performing 3-4 aggressive stops may temporarily reduce or eliminate most brake squeal."
If audited, what would GM's position be on replacing the rotors for brake squeal?


------------------
JC

[This message has been edited by jrcal (edited 08-27-99).]

JC,

I have not seen nor can I find 99-05-23-
001A. I have 001, but not 001A. I assume this
bulletin refers to the rotor replacement. When was this bulletin out??

Regarding GM's position on this subject, I would think that the later published bulletin would override the others.(I hope)

My question is how many of you are seeing alot of vehicles with rotor problems? We are seeing too many Malibus and Cutlass not so much brake squeal but the rotors are are scored and pulsate like there is no tomorrow. Cadillac's are no better and S-10 Platforms too, we just had a new 1999 Bravada with 1800 miles and the rotors were out of round, with no blue spots. The mileage on the others have been from 4,000-25,000 miles.
I don't remember seeing so many.

Sam

We are being invfested with brake rotor pulsation complaints. We have 5 sets of torque sticks, butr I know a lot of them could be relted to wheel nut torque issues from the outside. It is accross all of our GM franchises. Most common scenerio is a freeway slow down to a off ramp from 50 or so with light brake application. If the vehicle is past 12k, I ususally will handle it like a customer pay. I have mixed feelings what GM really thinks about it.
Mike White

GOOD QUESTION GUYS,
I AM CONFUSED ALSO WITH GM'S POLICY CONCERNING BRAKE ROTORS. I CONTACTED WARRANTY CENTER AND THEY COULD NOT GIVE ME A DEFINITE ANSWER EITHER. THEIR STATEMENT WAS (OF COURSE)IF IT IS DUE TO NORMAL WEAR IT IS NOT COVERED BUT IF IT IS A DEFECT THEN IS COVERED. IMAGINE THAT!!!!!!!

JC, resurfacing and replacing are two completely different issues. The reason for replacing the rotors per the TSB is not because of some "glaze" on the surface, but because the material the original rotors are made of has a greater tendency to be noisy than the "damped iron" rotors. I think the reason for the other TSB you mentioned is that the quality of resurfacing equipment and their maintenance varies WIDELY from dealer to dealer. I've worked in shops where replacement carbide bits were not kept in stock because they were requested so infrequently!! Strange, but true!! Also, the tendency by many techs is to resurface rotors for ANY noise condition when the fact of the matter is that all brake systems make some noise at some times. Turning rotors in most cases is at best a VERY temporary solution to what very well may be a properly operating brake system. As to your question about warranty coverage, only one person is the final authority on that issue (your ASM). If you are following a TSB that specifcally applies to your customer's vehicle and the warranty work was not "solicited", you should not have any trouble getting your claim paid. ASM's typically look at trends in warranty claims, and if you are statistically higher than other dealers your size and with your sales volume he or she may want to ask why. However, I cannot see how anyone could justify rejecting a claim such as this if you've applied the bulletin correctly.

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).]