Did I really need front brakes that Toyota recommended?

Good information to know that I didn’t .thanks

 

That is ridiculous.

Hiding behind the safety curtain to make an extra buck. Classy!

 

Inner and outer pads have similar wear?
If so, you got taken.

 

Let me propose it to you this way.
Scenario 1:

Mr. Blow comes in and his brakes are 50%. With the current oil change intervals on new cars ranging from 10k-20k miles, we may not see that customer again before their brakes are at the minimum. I tell Mr. Blow at 50% that he is on his way to needing new brakes and may or may not make it to his next service. He thanks me, decides to plan on doing it at the next service. He gets some time to save money for the job and everyone is fat and happy.

Scenario 2:
Mr. Blow comes in and his brakes are at 50%. I dont say anything to him because they have life left. His next service is in 20k miles. He comes in 16k miles with a grinding noise because the pads are now metal to metal. At this point we confirm he needs brakes and now, guess what, he needs rotors as well that he didnt need 16k miles ago. Now hes pissed because we didnt say anything last time and he's "suddenly" needing a full brake job. He throws a 2 year old hissy fit and threatens to ream us on surveys and yelp/google/etc... So now we're heavily discounting or paying for Mr. Blows brakes to attempt to satisfy a customer. He fries us on a survey anyways and bombs an advisors CSI score who in turn loses their bonus and/or their job. The dealership then loses their CSI bonus. Meanwhile Mr. Blow gets on the enthusiast forum and tells everyone he can to steer clear of said dealership.




If you think im blowing #2 out of proportion, you've probably never worked in an auto dealership.

 

You wait till your brakes throw sparks before you replace them?

 

They looked the same on both side of pads and on both driver and passenger sides .

 

I run brake pads until they're just off the rivets...done it with many vehicles and never had degradation in performance or failure. What they did to you OP is just plain wrong...

 

I should have posted the picture of the brakes while I was doing the job and it would’ve motivated me to return all of the supplies I bought. Damn...

 

At least you dont have to worry about putting brakes on it for a good while. Lol

 

Your number one is not what the dealer did. Dealer told customer he needed brakes. Not that he could go another 70k miles. Which is what 50% would be on a 76k truck.
Number one is how to handle it though. Tell customer how much left. Customer has can work out math on how much that 50% has already gotten them. And I have also seen scenario number two happen. So I get it, but not giving customer full story is still wrong. But on the flip side, I have also seen techs diagnose an A/C leak, then tell the service rep a whole new system is needed because it was slow that week.

 

Obviously no. But I have had to commandeer customer cars before. As in not let them have it back unless they get brakes, or it leaves on a tow truck. But those where so bad, the rotors had been cut all the way through and the disk was hanging loose. So I understand where you're coming from. Its just shitty for any service shop to say you have to have this now. Tell them how much left and left them decide. Simple, your liability is covered.

 

On that particular quote, I wasnt speaking about exactly what the dealer did. I was offering a flipside of insight. I had already said the advisor had failed to properly consult the customer. It was a general statement regarding my dealers 50% rule. For the record, my wife's Jaguar has a brake pad expectancy of maybe 40k miles.

 

Thats literally what I was saying was the way it should have been done.

 

Sorry, I get so worked up on dishonest service shops. All I saw was "50%, you need brakes" and I went off. We're on same page now.

 

If cars were what they were 20 years ago, and people took care of them like they did 20 years ago. We wouldnt be having this conversation. Ive been in the auto industry since 2004 and seen a TON of changes in both clients and cars.

 

"Due to liability reasons". Yep, unfortunately, this is true, as is the practice of denial of the existence of a problem. Should they attempt to make a correction which doesn't resolve a reported problem, they are open to litigation for that failure. Best (for them) to deny knowledge of an issue until Corporate is forced by circumstances to own the problem.

 

Since about 1991 for me. Ugh.

 

How does that have anything to do with worn brakes? Lol.

 

That isn't what he said and you know it.

 

I asked for clarification and you know it.