+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission (/showthread.php?tid=156510)
Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission - space-time - 08-18-2013
I drove only manual cars so far and my brakes will last 60-65k miles (front disk) or about 130-140k miles (rear drum). On both cars, both me and my wife. I guess we just downshift sometimes to slow down, don't rely only on brakes. This is mostly suburb driving with occasional long trips on highway.
I just bought a van, auto transmission, disk both front and rear. Looking at maintenance records, seems previous owner replaced brake pads about every 25-30k miles. I would like to know if this is due to driving style, or auto transmission, or just the fact the van is larger (heavier). Or probably all the above
BTW: do they still make minivans with manual transmission?
Re: Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission - Speedy - 08-18-2013
Include 'type of use' as a major reason. If the van never left the city it will have more wear than a vehicle used for intercity travel. In a big truck, hauling gravel can mean new brakes every three months while an over-the-road truck can easily go a decade without brake work.
But driving style is a big thing. I have 120k on my car and the brakes have never been touched. I have a light foot and plan each stop ahead by slowing appropriately.
Better pads will last longer.
Re: Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission - lost in space - 08-18-2013
I have never seen or heard of a standard transmission in a minivan since they went to front-wheel drive.
Re: Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission - space-time - 08-18-2013
lost in space wrote:
I have never seen or heard of a standard transmission in a minivan since they went to front-wheel drive.
they were RWD in the past?
Re: Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission - DRR - 08-18-2013
Probably all of the above. Most minivans nowadays clock in at nearly 4000 lbs. The manual transmission cars you're used to are probably much less than that.
Also, 25-30k is unusually frequent. Maybe they were suckered into brake jobs when they didn't need to, I don't know. Maybe they went to a grease monkey in-and-out joint and they use cheap pads. But a quality brake job with quality pads and rotors should last much longer than that, despite the factors above. If it appears that all four corners were replaced after 30k miles, all 4 at a time, then that would indicate to me the previous owner just did it as a preventative measure. Having rear pads worn to the point of replacement after 30k is highly unusual to me.
As for downshifting instead of braking, just know that that puts additional stress on the motor, the transmission, and increases fuel economy, versus braking. It's not a huge stress but as with anything on the car, it is cumulative. Brakes are easy to replace. Clutch - not so much. I'd rather have brakes wear faster than my clutch wear faster.
That's for daily driving where you know you're going to stop, if you know you're going to need the extra torque to exit a curve but you need to slow for example, then by all means downshift. I just wouldn't do it as a pseudo-replacement for braking.
Re: Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission - DRR - 08-18-2013
space-time wrote:
[quote=lost in space]
I have never seen or heard of a standard transmission in a minivan since they went to front-wheel drive.
they were RWD in the past?
Many older domestic minivans were RWD as they were built on existing car platforms. Once the japanese minivans started taking off in popularity they were almost exclusively FWD so the older Ford, GMC minivans RWD vans died out.
Re: Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission - yeoman - 08-18-2013
100k Toyota Highlander (a heavy vehicle) and still on original pads with plenty more remaining. A light foot, avoid tailgating to minimize harsh braking, and gentle stopping whenever possible.
Re: Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission - space-time - 08-18-2013
Brakes are easy to replace. Clutch - not so much. I'd rather have brakes wear faster than my clutch wear faster.
I agree, but if you know your car and match the RPM to the actual speed of the car when downshifting, there is very little wear on the clutch. I am not a car expert by any means, but I was told that clutch is worn out when you don't match the engine speed to the correct range when shifting and there is friction when shifting. I have 300k miles combined on 2 cars and so far we didn't replace any clutch, any tranny or any engine.
Re: Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission - Black - 08-18-2013
You are not going to find many Americans who understand the benefit of downshifting. It's almost universally considered abuse of the vehicle here.
Re: Brake usage on cars with auto vs manual transmission - DRR - 08-18-2013
Black wrote:
You are not going to find many Americans who understand the benefit of downshifting. It's almost universally considered abuse of the vehicle here.
There are many benefits from a driveability standpoint, but it also has costs from a fuel consumption and wear standpoint. You just have to fully understand the tradeoffs. For most daily drivers it's not worth it. But hey if it makes you happy it's your car.