Ya' but only last a few years...

 

Its nothing big but some thing I would like...on the SS they have a little decal that says GM performance Division...I would like to have a 100yrs one like that..I think it would be cool.

 

Actually, I can answer this one for you already, since it came up last night with my wife and I.

The basic answer to this question is that brake rotors are one of the first victims when auto manufacturers are told to lighten curb weights for fuel economy, as well as the rising costs of quality steel. The order of priority for an engineer when they design a vehicle is safety-power-ergonomics-fluff: the order of priority for a marketing executive is fluff-ergonomics-power-safety: the order of priority for a beancounter is cheapest-cheaper-cheap-pricey. If it were strictly up to the engineers you would have stainless-steel rotors, titanium chassis pieces and other items which would be highly difficult (if not impossible) to wear out or break, and pay for those materials by taking out the fluff crap that has no impact on operating the vehicle, such as the radio, cupholders, GPS trackers, OnStar, entertainment systems, and other such devices.

Unfortunately, for good or ill the manufacturer needs to keep those fluff items to prevent negative perceptions in the buying public about the quality of the vehicle. Then the government tells the manufacturers to reduce curb weight, but keep the fluff. So what happens then? The engineers have to look at the vehicle and decide where reducing weight can occur with a minimum of impact on everyday usage. Let's run down our checklist:

Engine - nope, can't take that out.
Seats - unless you like that sort of thing, nope.
Fluids - the HHR did this by going to electric power steering, but other more important fluids, such as oil, gasoline and coolant, are kind of a no-brainer. Brake fluid as well.
Chassis - there's discretion on what kind of metals we can afford to use, and we can get lightweight materials, even synthetics, which will hold up to normal usage (hence the reason why Ford experimented with nylon sway bar links in the '90s). Besides, this stuff gets changed under normal maintenance, anyway.
Brakes - not a lot of wiggle room for affordability on the calipers. Pads are kind of non-negotiable. Let's cut from the rotors, because they're going to be replaced with normal wear every 3 or 30, anyway, and we can find cheap alloys to make them out of that will still be hard enough to use.

So to answer your question: if you want to blame anyone for poor brake quality, blame the beancounters and your friendly neighborhood federal government, because in equal parts they have caused the issue by forcing manufacturers to switch to cheaper alloys and reduce the thickness of rotors to meet curb weight requirements: the engineers are basically making horse$#!t into fertilizer with their situation on this by taking the weight out of replaceable parts.

 

+ 1

 

The goverment does not tell the car companies how much the cars can weigh. They can tell them how many MPG and require 5 star crash standards. This indirectly effects the what cars have to weigh.

You have the right idea just the wrong order.

With the crash standards reaching 5 star it makes for cars to weigh a lot with the added support and metal. The rotors are where weight is cut as is cost. The heavier the car the less MPG.

The next trend will be smaller cars and more use of Carbon fiber and other composites.

Rotor problems are industry wide and have been bad on many models for years. My 95 T Bird could not keep them from warping in less than 8,000 miles.

Some cars today are still ok as in the last gen GP as I have 60,000 miles on the factory pads with city driving and they are now just starting to warp.

The best we can do is to look for a better aftermarket rotor to replace these with and use EBC pads. When I say better rotors keep away from the drilled as they have no effect on heat and only warp fater with less metal as a heat sink.

This is an issue that has been around and untill cars get smaller and lighter it will be a factor for alittle while longer.

GM is not going to recall this or do anything unless they come up with a tsb for a better rotor that would only be installed on demand. I would not hold my breath as we are far from the only ones with this problem.

 

We should at least thank God that we don't have the rotors Chrysler installed on their minivans in the 1995-2001 range. The metal was so cheap in these hunks of crap that they wouldn't warp - they would blister. Super-cheap Chinese alloys with high silica content were the culprit.

 

Too bad I saw this late.I'd like to know why the idiotic decision was made to put an automatic dimming inside mirror on a car with deep tint windows.

 

My T birds problem was it had Mustang brakes and the T Bird came in way over weight by the time they were done and they did not upgrade the brakes. This problem was on every year of that Gen in the 90's.

I know in the future we will see more in the way of compsites in rotors so I hope this will fix this issue. But there will be a added price to pay.

It could be worse the Space Shuttle had too small brakes till the Challanger blew up. They were over weight and did not redesign the brakes. It would land and had to tractor brake to steer. Once they over heated they would lock and blow the tires. Once they Challanger happened they resedigned the brakes and a steering nose wheel.

How would you like coming in at 17,000 MPH and have the lowest bidder stopping you?

 

I'm sorry but I don't buy the cut weight in the rotor idea as the only answer.
I have bought new 3 Chevrolet Venture Vans starting in 2000 to 2003 and now 2005. All equipted the same.

2000 ... warped rotors 8,000 and 16,000 miles. Sold van at 22,000.
2003 ... drove 33,000 miles. Rotors smooth as glass full time. Sold 33,000
2005 ... warped rotors twice in less then 36,000.

I am the only driver and have not changed my driving habits which are excellent on all three Vans. Drive legal and very easy on brakes.

Are you saying they lightened the materials on the 2000 and 2005 and not the 2003? I don't think so. All the same parts.
Probably different OEM venders each time.
Same EPA mileage rating on all three.
26mpg hiway, and it will do 30 plus mpg the way I drive.

It's said that other Mfgs. are having the same problems. That's true, but some are not. What do you expect if you undersize tires or brakes to do the proper job?
Why should any customer be forced to drive up to 40/50% of there total mileage with warped rotors and uneccessary large brake repair bills.
This is like building a home to code.......It is usually the "bear minimum" and not whats really best for a quality result.

 

You are correct as steel quality is very much a factor. In the past when the rotors were thicker and had more mass to absorb the heat the cheaper steel works fine. But when you make them thinner and the quality is poorer you will have more warpage. The truth is it all works together.

Much of what is on cars and most other products is good enough quality. Few things today are over built as few would pay for it.