Brakes need replacing 2 days after buying car from dealership

poppasmurf_bewdley

Weird_Nev wrote: »

So lets not scare monger and feel all self important, eh?

QUOTE]

Before you go throwing accusations about, I suggest you read what I posted in Post #2:

"In the first instance, take it to a garage you know has a decent reputation and get a second opinion (preferably in writing).

Kwik Fit would tell you a brand new car with five miles on the clock needed new brakes if they thought they could get away with it. I'm surprised they didn't tell you it needed new tyres and shock absorbers as well!

If they confirm the first diagnosis, then go straight back to the selling dealership with the report and tell them they have sold you a car which is not road worthy/fit for purpose, which is illegal. A decent dealership will know what to do next. A shyster will try and fob you off (which it sounds like you may have)."

Hardly scare mongering or making myself seem self important.

You also said about what I had to say:

"This is true, and if the car did indeed have no fluid visible in the reservior I'd be checking calipers and hoses carefully for any signs of fluid leakage. But generally, if it's losing fluid in that manner it's abundantly apparent, the pedal goes to the floor and you have almost no braking effect".

So you agree with me and then say what I said isn't 'generally' correct. Make up your mind.

Hammyman

bjblackmore wrote: »

I booked it in at Kwik Fit for one of their free brake checks, and they have come back and said that it needs new brake disks on the front wheels, the front and rear pads are on an advisory, and the brake fluid was too low to measure. All in all, Kwik Fit have quoted around £400 to replace everything.

They say that to everyone. You could take a brand new car into Kwik Fit and it'd need a full set of shocks and a complete brake overhaul :rotfl::rotfl:

Take it somewhere else and get a proper opinion. Just looking under the bonnet at the brake fluid level should tell you all you need to know about the value of the Kwik-Fit inspection. Either there is brake fluid or there isn't. The reservoir is clear plastic so you can see it.

Hammyman

!!!!!! wrote: »

If they were dangerous why only an advisory? Brakes can be worn with making the car unroadworthy. If the pad material is close to the legal minimum then they are worn and not illegal!

There is no legal limit for brake pads. Tyres yes, pads no.

Weird_Nev

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Weird_Nev wrote: »

So lets not scare monger and feel all self important, eh?

Before you go throwing accusations about, I suggest you read what I posted in Post #2:

"In the first instance, take it to a garage you know has a decent reputation and get a second opinion (preferably in writing).

Kwik Fit would tell you a brand new car with five miles on the clock needed new brakes if they thought they could get away with it. I'm surprised they didn't tell you it needed new tyres and shock absorbers as well!

If they confirm the first diagnosis, then go straight back to the selling dealership with the report and tell them they have sold you a car which is not road worthy/fit for purpose, which is illegal. A decent dealership will know what to do next. A shyster will try and fob you off (which it sounds like you may have)."

Hardly scare mongering or making myself seem self important.

You also said about what I had to say:

"This is true, and if the car did indeed have no fluid visible in the reservior I'd be checking calipers and hoses carefully for any signs of fluid leakage. But generally, if it's losing fluid in that manner it's abundantly apparent, the pedal goes to the floor and you have almost no braking effect".

So you agree with me and then say what I said isn't 'generally' correct. Make up your mind.

I hadn't intended to direct the bit about scaremongering towards you, I apologise if you got that impression. I wasn't making accusations, merely observations.

And it is possible to agree with one statement that someone makes, but disagree wit hanother statement you know;)

I was stating that Kwik fit, as we all know, make their money by saying "Your brakes are worn". You re-itereated that statement, and said that you would not drive a car with worn brakes or scored discs as found by kwik fit. Well, I suggest you stop driving your car now, because I guarantee you, your brakes are worn and the discs are scored! So I find it annoying when people come on moneysaving expert asking for impartial advice and are met with a bunch of people effectively saying "You drove your car with worn brakes?! You mad man!"

The low fluid bit is the ONLY bit of concern, and combined with the OP's observation that the brakes felt a bit spongey I'd suggest that needs investigation. Some cars have heavily servo'd brakes that can feel a bit spongey if you're not used to them, but if the brake pedal drops over time, goes right to the floor or the car is unable to perform an emergency stop, then that is, I agree of great concern and the OP should get it investigated by a competent mechanic, not kwik fit, ASAP.

But even kwik fit know what a leaking caliper piston or a split hose looks like, and would not let the OP drive away with such a fault.

motorguy

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

The Op says Kwik Fit found the brakes were worn, it needs new brake discs, and brake fluid could not be measured. Those three faults denote an unroadworthy car - would you drive it on the road with those faults? I wouldn't.

Low brake fluid can lead to complete brake failure if it's losing fluid because of a leak or split in a pipe or a worn seal.

The one thing you do not leave to chance on a car are the brakes, and any garage worth its salt knows that.

How do you think KwikFit make their money???

Also, worn disks and pads would cause the fluid level to drop - that does not necessarily mean the car is unroadworthy.

have a read at this from the BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2010/09/kwik_fit.html

Heres an extract for you - sound familiar?

BBC_Watchdog wrote:

Mr Henderson told us, "After three quarters of an hour I enquired about what the delay was for a simple oil change and filter change and they said they were obliged to do a complete check which I accepted for safety reasons".
Kwik Fit then claimed their 'complete check' had revealed the need for more work which included new front brakes. Mr Henderson declined having the work done and was told that, "if you take the car away as it is, it is dangerous, if you want to do that that is down to you." Len drove away and kept hold of his money. Three months later, having had no problems with the car, he booked an MOT at his local garage. He told them what Kwik Fit had said and gave them the interim service sheet Kwik Fit had given him with their recommendations and asked them to check the things listed on there.



The garage told him there was nothing wrong with his vehicle. We sent in our expert car engineer John Dabek to examine Len's car, to find out who was right. We asked John about Len's front brakes and he said:



"I discovered that the front brakes on his car were absolutely, perfectly functional, no problems at all". So Kwik Fit had quoted for work that wasn't necessary....



Sadly, Len Henderson's case wasn't a one off.

poppasmurf_bewdley

To the two above Posters, please note what I said in my very first line of my first post:

"In the first instance, take it to a garage you know has a decent reputation and get a second opinion (preferably in writing)."

Only if that second garage confirmed what Kwik Fit said would I then say the car had defective brakes. I would never accept the word of Kwik Fit alone.

property.advert

The OP says Kwik Fit are crap so why bother going there ?

If he didn't trust the garage he bought the car from, why buy it ?

bjblackmore

Thanks for the replies.

To answer some of the questions:

Cannot quite work out why the OP took the car to Kwik Fit when they had only had the car two days, as there was a twelve month warranty why not go straight back to the dealer and give them a chance to sort it out.

OP - why didn't you take the car back to the dealer with your concerns?

I didn't go straight back to the dealership as I wanted to go back with something other than 'the brakes feel spongy'. I thought it best to go in with some evidence, otherwise they could have just said there was nothing wrong. Most garages, even reputable ones aren't eager to admit there is something wrong, and have to pay to fix it.

The OP says Kwik Fit are crap so why bother going there ?

If he didn't trust the garage he bought the car from, why buy it ?

I didn't say they were crap, just slow & expensive. I thought the free brake health check would be useful.
Also I never said I didn't trust the dealership when I brought the car, they appear to be a reputable dealership. But as I said, they aren't going to be in a hurry to pay out to fix it, or admit they missed it.

Get a proper garage to report on the condition of the brakes. You want a %age worn and a disc thickness compared to minimum allowable (i.e. 22mm (min 20mm)). If they are absolutely on their last legs, so much so that a garage would have been negligent to miss it, then I think you'd be entitled to some goodwill if the seller claimed to have inpected and serviced it.

Kwik Fit did supply a report with the manufactures minimum specification, and what the current measurements are, I don't have it on me, but it's something like: manufactures minimum on the disks 9mm, current mesaurement 8mm - replacement required, minimum on the pads 6mm current measurement 6.8 replacement recommended. Brake fluid - too low to measure.

Hammyman

bjblackmore wrote: »

minimum on the pads 6mm current measurement 6.8 replacement recommended.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

so basically they're telling people to replace pads when they are less than 40% worn. Jesus effin Christ. Most brake pads when new are only around 8-9mm.

When I was a mechanic at main dealers and also in my CGLI course the general rule of thumb was that if the brake pad material was down to around 3mm TO ADVISE that the brake pads would need changing before the next service. That is ADVISE and not replace because at 3mm there is enough material to last several thousand more miles without going down to metal unless you're a driver who drives down the road with your foot on the brake.

And that is a proper qualified mechanic telling you this, not some gimp who has been through Kwik Fits own in house "brake specialist" course and got a certificate from Kwik Fit to say he knows how to mis-sell brakes.

Now bearing that in mind, how worthy do you think that the advice on the thickness of the discs is? Here is a clue: completely worthless. Your car has vented discs - that is basically two discs held together by little metal stubs. For them to be 8mm wide there would be nothing left of them as the air gap between the discs is half of that. There would be a monumental lip on them that you would not fail to notice. It certainly would not pass an MOT.

Now on to the brake fluid. Have you actually lifted the bonnet and checked it yourself?