C5 front brake discs

nevillej · Post by **nevillej** » 30 Nov 2004, 15:38

I have a C5 2.2HDi Exclusive. It has done 23k miles, and has just been in for a 25k service. I asked for an annoying brake squeal to be dealt with and have been told that the front brake pads are 75% worn, and that the discs are very thin. I can live with the pad wear, as I tow a caravan, but does anyone know if it is normal for the discs to be worn after only 23k. Incidentally the car was bought 2 years ago as a demonstrator when it had done 8k.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 30 Nov 2004, 15:45

Brake discs on modern cars don't last as well as they did on older cars because brake pads contain no asbestos and are more wearing on the discs. Discs now only last as long as 2 pairs of brake pads if that.
The discs can't really wear any more quickly than the pads, if the brakes were dragging you would expect both to wear away rather than just the discs. I don't think you have anything abnormal to worry about really, as long as the pads are all wearing evenly.

nevillej · Post by **nevillej** » 30 Nov 2004, 16:10

Thanks for the info. Nice to get a 2nd opinion.

NiSk · Post by **NiSk** » 30 Nov 2004, 17:38

Ask them to give you a disc thickness measurement - "very thin" is rather subjective! The discs on my XM are 26 mm thick when new, but the wear limit is 24 mm i.e. only 1mm each side of the disc. In fact if you look at the disc, there's plenty of meat left on it even at 23 mm. The biggest problem is when the disc gets scored due to worn out pads or rubbish getting trapped between the pads and disc.
//NiSk

David W · Post by **David W** » 30 Nov 2004, 18:34

Nev,
I'm with NiSk on this, get them to give to the current thickness and the minimum advised. It is correct that brake discs wear quickly these days and they will often only last two sets of pads...but that is when the pads are lasting 30K or so a set.
In my experience 23K is very early for discs to be needed under normal wear conditions. Sadly it is not unknown for dealers to advise discs while they are doing pads as it raises their charge by a substantial amount but the extra work isn't that much.
According to my data you should have 288mm dia vented discs with an advised min thickness of 26mm, I'm sure you could double check this with Jon/GSF.
David

JohnD · Post by **JohnD** » 30 Nov 2004, 23:29

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nevillej</i>

have been told that the front brake pads are 75% worn, and that the discs are very thin.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I would get a second opinion. The mileage is ridiculously low. My Xantia 2.1 estate from new, required new pads at 30K and a second set with new discs at 62K. My daughter put her new Xsara in for its 12000 service. Cit dealer told her to bring it back in four months as it would need new pads. She didn't, but recently, I took off a wheel to inspect them. They are 50% worn.

nick · Post by **nick** » 01 Dec 2004, 00:08

Looking at the service records I got with my Xantia it appears that the original dealer replaced the front disks roughly every 25k! It was an HSBC bank company car then, and it looks like they practically gave the dealer a blank cheque for anything they claimed needed doing.
Funny that, because the last set of disks they fitted in 2000 lasted 55k under my ownership, and weren't excessively worn when I finally replaced them last year. I do a lot of stop-start driving, and I'm not particularly gentle with the brakes either.

David W · Post by **David W** » 02 Dec 2004, 13:39

Spoke to a couple of Citroen dealer contacts yesterday who perhaps explained what is going on here.
They reminded me that Citroen only advise a 2mm wear allowance between the new disc thickness and the minimum. This compares with, for example, a Ford Galaxy people carrier with near identical sized discs that has a 4mm wear allowance.
Then they said that their policy is to advise replacement if the pads/discs are likely to wear below stated minimums before the next due service.
With current long service intervals it means the end result is them guestimating a long way in the future with only a small wear allowance to play with. Add to this erring on the side of caution (or profit motives!) and you get the dealer induced change intervals we are seeing above.
This is another area where the sensible independent or DIYer can make better judgements based of the particular car /driver rather than going "by the book".
David

nick · Post by **nick** » 02 Dec 2004, 14:13

I can perhaps understand them doing this on current models with the long service intervals, but it seems a little excessive on an old generation diesel like mine that needs an oil change every 6k.
With the amount of mileage that HSBC were putting on it in the early days, it was visiting the dealer roughly every 6 weeks for an oil change anyway.

David W · Post by **David W** » 02 Dec 2004, 14:49

Nick,
It is excessive really, not defending just reporting.
I ran lease cars for a major company a few years back and was horrified at times just how easily stuff would be approved. Remember one going in for a head skim and gasket before there was any proof it was essential, took six days over a long weekend and I had a nice hire car for that period.
Yet at other times they refused to pay a tenner for this or that!
David

nick · Post by **nick** » 02 Dec 2004, 15:06

I'm not complaining really, it wasn't me that had to pay for it! The printouts I received when I bought the car show that HSBC spent £3736 (excluding VAT) on routine servicing over the three years they owned the car, then sold it to me in mid 2000 for £3800 - roughly what it had cost to service!