Breaks

[markwhite01]

We are considering getting a 2500 4whd lb automatic. I am concerned about the breaks after hearing from the managers of an auto repair firm I highly respect tell me that the break pads on the 01 and 02 wear out in 12,000 miles. They also mentioned that the breaks pulsed.



I am really wanting the Cummins diesel, but do not want to make a mistake on something as important as breaks.



I hear that the 03 breaks are much improved. Has anyone had durabilty problems or performance issues with the breaks?

 

[JohndeereG]

Originally posted by markwhite01

We are considering getting a 2500 4whd lb automatic. I am concerned about the breaks after hearing from the managers of an auto repair firm I highly respect tell me that the break pads on the 01 and 02 wear out in 12,000 miles. They also mentioned that the breaks pulsed.

There are to many variables (driving style, flat country/hilly country, highway/city driving) to say how many miles you will get out of a set of brake pads. I changed my first set on our car at 72K miles and I went 46K on my 00 CTD.



I think I drove behind that person who only got 12K miles on their brake pads. I thought it was the Lord of the Dance practicing on their brake pedal

 

[boonsur]

The '03's have bigger rotors/brakes than previous years. They also all come with 4 wheel-disk brakes. Previous Rams cam standard with drums in the rear, which aren't as effective, causing the fronts to do more work. These factors should help extend brake wear in the new trucks.



That being said, Dodge typically uses softer brake pad material. This yields much better performance, at the price of somewhat shorter life expectancy. Also, keep in mind, that you are stopping a lot of weight. Our trucks are twice the weight of an average car, and quite a bit heavier (duty) than the Fords/Chevys.



On my '99 QC/SB, I got about 25K miles per set (of pads). My new one should do better yet. I know, and accept this. For me, this means I will have to change the pads every year, or so. Very easy to change (only takes an hour or so), and costs less than you would pay for an oil change from the s. . s. . s. . dealer.

 

[ImagesThatSing]

We are mild mannered drivers, go "camping" each and every weekend pulling our #7,800 travel trailer up and down the mountains, and had an exhaust brake on our 99. The front brakes wore out at about 23K. The 99 brakes worked very very poorly when compared to our 03 for reasons mentioned above regarding the different configuration.

 

[HBrink]

I have a 2001 with 36,000 miles and have the original brakes on it. I've had it in for service once when I noticed that they didn't seem to be as effective as in the past. The mechanic located lubricated the floating thingamajjig on the front disks, cleaned the dust, and removed a little glazing from the rear drum brakes.



I am a pretty conservative driver but tow a trailer that weighs 12,000# when empty!!

 

[MMeier]

Had 102k on my '97 when I got rid of it and still had 50% on my fronts and the backs still looked new!!! Lots of trailer pulling in that 102k too! Thank heavens for exhaust brakes!!Oo.

 

[boonsur]

Another concern you raised was pulsation. I think this may be more true on the half-tons. The heavy-dutys use thicker rotors which are less prone. One thing to avoid, most technicians want to turn the rotors with every brake-job. This will cause the rotors to warp quicker, because they are thinner.



An interesting concept I've heard, is to to avoid holding the brakes against the rotors after a hard/long stop. This will concentrate the heat in one area of the rotor, causing it to expand unevenly. I (manual trans) like to take my foot off the brake, once stopped. With my auto, I would stop short, and slowly creep while waiting for the light, so the heat was distributed all around.

 

[Boonieman]

I had a 2001 CTD auto, and I had 56000 on it when I traded it. I didn't like the way it stopped when pulling a load, but it still had the original brakes all the way around. This new 2003 is very much improved stopping-wise. Durability, etc will be judged by the test of time.

 

[Wolfgang]

My 01. 5 has disc all the way around. (DC started this mid 01). I am at 45,000 now and I just had it checked the other day and the front brakes are at 30% and the rears are at 60%. No pilsing whatsoever

 

[Dean Upson]

The effectiveness of the brakes on the '03's is so much better than on previous models that you notice that as much as the increase in power. There is no pulsing, they just stop you.



Dean

 

[Fireman]

My brother and I both had identical 2nd Gen trucks, he wore his pads out and scored his rotors in 7K mi, mine lasted 40K. He drives like an idoot I don't.



Fireman

 

[DPKetchum]

DRIVERS!seen some go 100k and some folks every 10/12/15/Usually brake wear/tire wear/clutch wear go hand in hand.

 

[Casey Balvert]

Originally posted by Fireman

My brother and I both had identical 2nd Gen trucks, he wore his pads out and scored his rotors in 7K mi, mine lasted 40K. He drives like an idoot I don't.



Fireman

So are you saying the brake wear is NOT genetically predetermined? My Brother in Law drives the same way but I always blamed my sister for poor taste. When he starts talking about his lousy brakes I run the other way. I pull twice the weight and get four times the miles out of a set of brakes (without exhaust brake). And he can't figure out why. So I told him.



Casey

 

[DPKetchum]

99% of time its DRIVERS. Lots of auto trans failures same way. Drive it like you stole it and pay the price. Drive it like it yours and save you some grief.

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

The original unserviced brakes on my 2001 are still doing great and have a fair amount of pad left at 86,700 miles



No exhaust brake, lots of city driving, not a lot of towing though, but I have hauled a 6000lb trailer without trailer brakes and still had good stopping power.



Vaughn

 

[Dean Upson]

I never replaced the brakes on my 94 (80K) or my 98. 5 (47K), nor have I ever replaced an engine, clutch or transmission in my life. I drive pretty conservatively and I am a believer in regular maintenance.



Dean

 

[Fireman]

Casey, What's your sisters name?

Could we be related?



Fireman

 

[ddutil]

Driver is everything? hummm...

The brakes on my 96 started pulsating at 12k miles. I finally solved the problem by replacing the front disks, what a difference it made (the original Chrysler disks really sucked... ). I am, too, the driver with the best mileage per pad, and per gallon, in town. My brake pads usually rust before wearing.



But the 2003 with the four ''mother of all disks'' is great. It stops on a dime, even on icy Montreal roads or when towing a rental trailer (seems their electric brakes never work, damn'it).



I love every minute in this truck . Buy it with confidence.



Dan

 

[Dean Upson]

Amen, Dan .



Dean

 

[Pit Bull]

Re: Brakes

Originally posted by markwhite01



I am concerned about the brakes after hearing from the managers of an auto repair firm I highly respect tell me that the brake pads on the 01 and 02 wear out in 12,000 miles. They also mentioned that the brakes pulsed.

I've owned a 2000 3500 4x4 automatic with 56K miles and now have a 2002 3500 4x4 ETH/DEE. I used cheap brake pads on the 2000 and got 25K miles out of the fronts the rears should be good for 100K miles. Automatics are harder on brakes then sticks. the 2000 was harder on front brakes then the rears since the rears were drum brakes and did not do that much of the work (hard to keep adjusted). The 2002 both front and rear are disk's and work well together. People I have spoken too get 50K miles our of their pads with a manual transmission and the correct driving technique. I would not let brakes be you deciding factor they are not a problem with Dodge CTD's. Good luck