[Carefree]

Maybe you should invest some of that money in a Dale Carnegie course.

[Joker96]

I did a quote online with Geico and it came out to $190 a month for M2 insurance. So either those agents I spoke to are full of shit or this online quote is.

I'll call a Geico agent tommrow and see for sure.

[BroDoze]

Originally Posted by Tag

Using a battery tender will extend the life of your battery and pay for itself.

Right. Because I really shouldv’e been using a battery tender on a vehicle I drove every day.

Makes sense.

[Tag]

Originally Posted by BroDoze

Right. Because I really shouldv’e been using a battery tender on a vehicle I drove every day.

Makes sense.

At only 5k miles a year those were short trips which don’t give the better enough time to charge. Was merely pointing out that putting it on a tender helps keep the battery healthy. But if you prefer buying new batteries every few years go right ahead.

[M_Power Rob]

Originally Posted by Joker96

I did a quote online with Geico and it came out to $190 a month for M2 insurance. So either those agents I spoke to are full of shit or this online quote is.

I'll call a Geico agent tommrow and see for sure.

Check with Amica, too.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by Tag

At only 5k miles a year those were short trips which don’t give the better enough time to charge. Was merely pointing out that putting it on a tender helps keep the battery healthy. But if you prefer buying new batteries every few years go right ahead.

Also, a daily driven car with such low mileage will have spent most of it’s time without the engine fully warmed up, having high oil dilution and higher engine wear than a weekend only driven car with the same mileage.

[robopp]

Originally Posted by Joker96

5k though?

OEM is probably $2.5k for all four wheels. I have 50k on my X3MC and there’s still life left on all four corners.

[robopp]

Originally Posted by M_Power Rob

That would be ME. I posted the link to Girodisc and you came back with not spending $5k. I woll adk again, where do you get $5k (link again below to refresh your memory)?

https://girodisc.com/finder/?pfresul...All&f_axle=All

Interesting that they’re more than OEM from BMW. I’d just go OEM - 50k on mine and still going.

[robopp]

Originally Posted by BroDoze

Right. Because I really shouldv’e been using a battery tender on a vehicle I drove every day.

Makes sense.

Porsche owners run into this issue a lot and LiPo’s are eye watering expensive to replace. If your daily drive was short, that’s worse on the battery than not driving it at all.

[Carefree]

Originally Posted by BroDoze

Right. Because I really shouldv’e been using a battery tender on a vehicle I drove every day.

Makes sense.

Not to every owner.

[BroDoze]

Originally Posted by Tag

At only 5k miles a year those were short trips which don’t give the better enough time to charge. Was merely pointing out that putting it on a tender helps keep the battery healthy. But if you prefer buying new batteries every few years go right ahead.

And yet, the 135i is the only car that’s ever had this issue. I don’t know how many cars I’ve had, but it’s a bunch. There’s some damn mean parasitic draw if you need a tender on a DD.

[Tag]

Originally Posted by BroDoze

And yet, the 135i is the only car that’s ever had this issue. I don’t know how many cars I’ve had, but it’s a bunch. There’s some damn mean parasitic draw if you need a tender on a DD.

Modern BMWs have a lot of tech, draw a lot of power and are very demanding on the battery. The car however does go to sleep after 10~15m of being turned off and locked, so if there were parasitic draw you would have had more issues than needing a new battery every couple of years. I had an E92 which after only three years needed a new battery. It too was my DD and I put on twice as many miles as you each year. My commute averaged ~45m each direction. I replaced and registered the battery myself (keeping with the theme of this thread ) and also got a CTEK to maintain it as cheap insurance. I'd use it every few weeks overnight or leave it connected when I was out of town. I had that car for another 4.5yrs and during that time never had another battery failure.

[KC87ZB]

Originally Posted by Tag

At only 5k miles a year those were short trips which don’t give the better enough time to charge. Was merely pointing out that putting it on a tender helps keep the battery healthy. But if you prefer buying new batteries every few years go right ahead.

I keep my motorcycle on a tender all the time when not riding it and my last battery (original to the bike) lasted 9 years. I likewise keep the M2 plugged in off and on when but certainly when parked for snow/cold days. Tenders are the bees knees especially if you aren’t putting that many miles on.

[JMcLellan]

Originally Posted by KC87ZB

I keep my motorcycle on a tender all the time when not riding it and my last battery (original to the bike) lasted 9 years. I likewise keep the M2 plugged in off and on when but certainly when parked for snow/cold days. Tenders are the bees knees especially if you aren’t putting that many miles on.

I believe my wife follows the same battery protocol with her toy collection...

But to be serious I also like using a battery tender on my cars when I'm not driving it too much, and when the weather is cold outside. I do the same with my riding lawnmower battery and boat battery in the offseasons. Haven't had to replace a battery in years.

[xtougher]

I've seen multiple places say they won't replace brake pads without replacing the rotors.

I know if you do the work yourself, you can do whatever, but is that the typical recipe for a brake change: to replace pads & rotors together?

[M_Power Rob]

Originally Posted by xtougher

I've seen multiple places say they won't replace brake pads without replacing the rotors.

I know if you do the work yourself, you can do whatever, but is that the typical recipe for a brake change: to replace pads & rotors together?

Some places dont like to or wont turn rotors. If the pads are truly worn, I sure wouldn't put new pads on rotors with 15k - 20k miles (or however miles the pads had on the rotors) on them so your option if not turning them, then replace them.

[RockCrusher]

Originally Posted by xtougher

I've seen multiple places say they won't replace brake pads without replacing the rotors.

I know if you do the work yourself, you can do whatever, but is that the typical recipe for a brake change: to replace pads & rotors together?

It depends. The factory repair manual covers this subject. It might be the factory calls for the replacement of not only worn pads but rotors too.

Or the factory might sanction reuse of the rotors as long as they meet the standards that allow for reuse and this *after* suitable resurfacing.

(See the attached PDF from the brake wear section of the factory manual for my 996 Turbo.)

The rotors might be salvageable with proper resurfacing but of course this is a judgement call. What can happen is -- if you even find an automotive machine shop willing to take on the job -- the rotors are resurfaced until they cleanup. This means extra time to sneak up on a suitable final result to take off only as much metal as is required to be bring the rotor into spec without taking the rotor under size.

What can happen is the tech may be unsuccessful. Now there's a problem. Who pays for the labor that proved to be for naught? If not you then the shop eats the labor cost with the very real possibility it can't make this up by selling you new rotors.

With new rotors with new pads this ensures both the pad and rotor surfaces are very conducive to proper and rather rapid brake bedding in.

And offer maximum service life along with desired braking performance. Not only being able to generate suitable braking but doing so while avoiding degradation due to heat and overheating which can lead to cracking.

I'll add since my first Porsche (Boxster) back in Jan 2002 every brake job I did, or had done, to the Boxster, 996 Turbo, and the only other car that required any brake work, my 2018 MINI JCW, I replaced or the tech replaced both pads and rotors and any other brake related hardware called for by the factory. For the Boxster this included brake caliper bolts, retainer, retainer pin, retainer pin clip, wear sensors, even the small flat head screws used to secure the rotor to the hub. These small screws of course just held the rotor to the hub when the wheel was removed.

Thus after the brake job the brakes were all original save the calipers.

[aerobod]

Floating rotors as fitted to the G87 generally can't be turned, so unless the surface is within run-out and flatness spec, they have to be replaced, even if the thickness is still well within spec.

[xtougher]

Originally Posted by M_Power Rob

Some places dont like to or wont turn rotors. If the pads are truly worn, I sure wouldn't put new pads on rotors with 15k - 20k miles (or however miles the pads had on the rotors) on them so your option if not turning them, then replace them.

Originally Posted by RockCrusher

It depends. The factory repair manual covers this subject. It might be the factory calls for the replacement of not only worn pads but rotors too.

Or the factory might sanction reuse of the rotors as long as they meet the standards that allow for reuse and this *after* suitable resurfacing.

(See the attached PDF from the brake wear section of the factory manual for my 996 Turbo.)

The rotors might be salvageable with proper resurfacing but of course this is a judgement call. What can happen is -- if you even find an automotive machine shop willing to take on the job -- the rotors are resurfaced until they cleanup. This means extra time to sneak up on a suitable final result to take off only as much metal as is required to be bring the rotor into spec without taking the rotor under size.

...

Thus after the brake job the brakes were all original save the calipers.

Originally Posted by aerobod

Floating rotors as fitted to the G87 generally can't be turned, so unless the surface is within run-out and flatness spec, they have to be replaced, even if the thickness is still well within spec.

This is in line with what I've seen and have been told. Essentially, it's almost become the norm to just go ahead and replace the rotors each time you're replacing the pads from wear.

Makes sense!

[Ronin76]

Originally Posted by xtougher

This is in line with what I've seen and have been told. Essentially, it's almost become the norm to just go ahead and replace the rotors each time you're replacing the pads from wear.

Makes sense!

But if changing break pads because you want to reduce break dust on a fairly new car, this would not apply, correct?

[xtougher]

Originally Posted by Ronin76

But if changing break pads because you want to reduce break dust on a fairly new car, this would not apply, correct?

I would assume so, if you're making the change before your original pads are used up.

[RockCrusher]

Originally Posted by Ronin76

But if changing break pads because you want to reduce break dust on a fairly new car, this would not apply, correct?

By changing/replacing perfectly good (albeit to some degree worn) pads with new pads you are doing something that is not a normal service operation.

With the brakes as they came from the factory the pads and rotors have worn as you have used the car. This wear started out with both the pads and rotors with flat friction surfaces and the rotors with not only flat friction surfaces but with surfaces that are smooth, have the proper finish, and are parallel.

One would measure the old (factory) pads, then the new pads, and determine how worn the old pads are.

Then one would measure the rotor thickness to determine how much rotor wear has occurred as the pads have worn.

Then a determination would have to be made that as the new pads wore down would there be a chance the rotors would wear under size before the new pads wore to the point the brake wear warning light was triggered.

Besides the above a determination would have to be made: Do the worn rotors have a sufficiently good surface (flat, free of grooves, etc.) that the new pads would bed in promptly and in doing so not suffer accelerated/uneven wear that would result in an abnormal wear pattern to the pads or rotors.

Yeah, I know roll your eyes. But the above is taking into account factors which could have the brakes wearing out of spec due to fitting new pads with the new thickness and pairing them with rotors that have lost some of their new thickness and have lost some of their flat/smooth/parallel friction surface attributes they had when the car rolled off the assembly line.

Brakes are a safety critical system. The factory pads/rotors are intended to deliver acceptable braking over their lifetime. From Day #1 to Last Day. As a responsible car owner whatever you decide to do to the brakes you must ensure you do not in any way compromise the brakes and their ability to provide acceptable braking. Under any conditions you might encounter.