Rear Brakes/Calipers/Rotors

[taj]

I do own a 2002 Ford Explorer, but this question has to do with a friend's 99 Crown Vic. She took it to the shop today for front brake pads. The brake inspection showed terrible rusting on her rear rotors and advised that the calipers didn't seem to be functioning. Recommended her car needs new rear rotors, pads, calipers, etc. to the tune of $680. Is this normal wear for a car that is almost 3 years old and has 27,000 miles? Thanks for reading!

 

[jobunn]

That is not normal wear...pads probably need replacing and maybe a rotor turning, but in most cases not new calipers, even if 3 year old. Rust is normal around the brake rotors and calipers especially depending where you drive. Was the car sitting idle for a very long time? That could be the reason too but I'd check with the dealer as that car should be under warranty.

 

[Robert]

As long as the car is less than 3 years old ('99 could be either way) the calipers would be covered under warranty if they are bad. The rotors possibly. The pads no. It is normal for rust to form on the rotors, especially where the pads don't make contact. Living in Cleveland will subject her rotors to more rust than most places. I would definately get a second opinion. If the only reason they say your friend needs new calipers is because there is rust on the rotors then all they are doing is guessing at your friends expense. Rust alone on rotors isn't necessarily an indication that the calipers are bad. An indication would be warped rotors and calipers that don't operate smoothly.

 

[410Fortune]

Just FYI:
I replaced my 97 rear disc calipers and pads for $150.
Takes about an hour and a half with a helper.

I also got a lifetime warranty on the calipers and pads from Autozone, and I bought the premium pads for $40.

Calipers were $32 ea with a $47 core charge.

The 2002 may be a little higher but shouldnt be $638.....