'06 E-350
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
'06 E-350 Brake question
2006 E-350, Quigley 4x4, 30,000 miles, in at the dealer for a look-over, trans. fluid & filter change, tire rotation, etc.
Got a call from them that the rear (disc) brake pads were close, inside ones especially, were very thin
, told them to go ahead and change them. He said the front brakes were fine.
I don't have any experience with 4-wheel disc brakes on a truck. Does this sound normal? I'm used to the front pads wearing out first, so I'm wondering if there's a problem. Is there some kind of valve to balance front and rear pressures?
Just puzzling.
Got a call from them that the rear (disc) brake pads were close, inside ones especially, were very thin
, told them to go ahead and change them. He said the front brakes were fine.I don't have any experience with 4-wheel disc brakes on a truck. Does this sound normal? I'm used to the front pads wearing out first, so I'm wondering if there's a problem. Is there some kind of valve to balance front and rear pressures?
Just puzzling.
Frmr Ford Trans Engr
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 24,705
Likes: 2,626
From: SE Florida
On my '02 E350 I've gone through two sets of rear pads and one set of front pads in 103,000 miles. Each of the rear sets lasted less than 50,000 miles. The fronts lasted 95,000 miles.
New User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
I have a 2003 Quigley and have the same problem.
The rear brakes "suck" The problem seems to be the guide pins on the rear set restrict the centering of the calliper causing uneven wear on the pads.
I had one sieze and destroy a rotor in only 24000 miles. If all you do in hiway driving they "might" be, ok but I travel thru 3 miles of unimproved road in and out of my place every time we drive out. This time of year the mud gets at least a food deep and then there are the puddles.......
When I get to it an upgrade to some "real" superduty brakes is in order.
My 2005 F350 has had absolutly no problems with the 4 wheel disks driving thru the same roads. In fact the pads still look great at 38000 miles while the van has had 3 trips to the dealer for brake issues.
Regards,
Jim
The rear brakes "suck" The problem seems to be the guide pins on the rear set restrict the centering of the calliper causing uneven wear on the pads.
I had one sieze and destroy a rotor in only 24000 miles. If all you do in hiway driving they "might" be, ok but I travel thru 3 miles of unimproved road in and out of my place every time we drive out. This time of year the mud gets at least a food deep and then there are the puddles.......
When I get to it an upgrade to some "real" superduty brakes is in order.
My 2005 F350 has had absolutly no problems with the 4 wheel disks driving thru the same roads. In fact the pads still look great at 38000 miles while the van has had 3 trips to the dealer for brake issues.
Regards,
Jim
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Well, you know....
I thought the mechanic acted like there was more he wanted to say about the situation, because he specifically mentioned the inside pads were thin especially the driver's side. I guess I should have been a bit more on my toes.
Well, Jim, all I do is highway driving right now, but consider that this is Upstate New York where the State highway crews spread "super salt" for snow and ice control. This mixture, I have heard, is sodium, magnesium, and calcium chlorides and it likes to eat all types of metal...copper, aluminum, iron, you name it....if it ain't stainless, it will be corroded in time. So that is not helpful, much as your mud and water.
You mention an upgrade to some "real" superduty brakes. I am interested in what you have planned...not for right now, obviously, but maybe for next time.
I will be keeping a close eye on these back brakes from now on.
Thanks for the replies, both of you, Mark and Jim.
Well, Jim, all I do is highway driving right now, but consider that this is Upstate New York where the State highway crews spread "super salt" for snow and ice control. This mixture, I have heard, is sodium, magnesium, and calcium chlorides and it likes to eat all types of metal...copper, aluminum, iron, you name it....if it ain't stainless, it will be corroded in time. So that is not helpful, much as your mud and water.
You mention an upgrade to some "real" superduty brakes. I am interested in what you have planned...not for right now, obviously, but maybe for next time.
I will be keeping a close eye on these back brakes from now on.
Thanks for the replies, both of you, Mark and Jim.
New User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
They have started to salt the roads up here as well. I dont really see the need but they do it any way.
Havent looked into it yet but the F series truck line has redesigned and improved brakes starting in 2005. On my F350 the calipers are massive in comparison to the E350 and the rotor is larger. Like I said above the F350 has had no trouble driving in the same conditions as the E350 so I will probably use F350 components on the E350 at a future date. It will require a larger rim size to clear the rotors so I will go with the same 18" as the F350.
Regards,
JIm
Havent looked into it yet but the F series truck line has redesigned and improved brakes starting in 2005. On my F350 the calipers are massive in comparison to the E350 and the rotor is larger. Like I said above the F350 has had no trouble driving in the same conditions as the E350 so I will probably use F350 components on the E350 at a future date. It will require a larger rim size to clear the rotors so I will go with the same 18" as the F350.
Regards,
JIm
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
This is interesting...
....because the Quigley uses the same solid front axle as other F-style Ford trucks, or so I am led to believe. But the wheels are interchangeable front & back and they're 16" from the factory, so these axles must have an older style front hub/bolt pattern in order for all this to happen.
I am wondering what happened to braking systems to need such larger calipers/wheels (cars & trucks both)? Obviously, front discs have been around for what, 30-35 years? So I'm thinking the engineering was fairly mundane by the time rear discs came along. I know heat transfer/air flow was a problem since the sixties for those early rear disc pioneers, but I thought the ceramic pads took care of some of that problem (as did "split discs" with an airspace between the two disc faces).
Are our braking demands that much greater than they were 10-20-30 years ago? The vehicles that much heavier? Are modern materials not up to the task? What gives here?
I know I read an article some ten years ago about disc brakes for big rigs, which were fairly experimental then. One of the things they tried was a rotor made of a steel alloy containing copper to aid in heat transfer, and that seemed quite promising. What happened with that?
I'm still wondering if there isn't some simple mod that can be made, or high temp lube to aid in caliper adjustment, along with balancing the front to be a bit stronger. The only reason I mention that is that Quigley makes mention of brake balancing on their site in the engineering or specs. section and I wonder if they might have gone a little too much in favor of using more rear and less front? A 3-4% change might make all the difference in the world.
I may shoot them an e-mail to see if there is a service bulletin on that of if field adjustment of balance is even possible.
I am wondering what happened to braking systems to need such larger calipers/wheels (cars & trucks both)? Obviously, front discs have been around for what, 30-35 years? So I'm thinking the engineering was fairly mundane by the time rear discs came along. I know heat transfer/air flow was a problem since the sixties for those early rear disc pioneers, but I thought the ceramic pads took care of some of that problem (as did "split discs" with an airspace between the two disc faces).
Are our braking demands that much greater than they were 10-20-30 years ago? The vehicles that much heavier? Are modern materials not up to the task? What gives here?
I know I read an article some ten years ago about disc brakes for big rigs, which were fairly experimental then. One of the things they tried was a rotor made of a steel alloy containing copper to aid in heat transfer, and that seemed quite promising. What happened with that?
I'm still wondering if there isn't some simple mod that can be made, or high temp lube to aid in caliper adjustment, along with balancing the front to be a bit stronger. The only reason I mention that is that Quigley makes mention of brake balancing on their site in the engineering or specs. section and I wonder if they might have gone a little too much in favor of using more rear and less front? A 3-4% change might make all the difference in the world.
I may shoot them an e-mail to see if there is a service bulletin on that of if field adjustment of balance is even possible.
Trending Topics
New User
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Rear Brakes
Muddy, I have a 2004 E350 quigley that I ordered new. Had to have all rotors turned at 15K so I replaced factory pads with ceramic front and standard rear. (parts house did not have ceramic for rears) Had to have the front rotors turned again at 45K but thats because I am hard on brakes. I run close to 10K weight all the time (construction van). Just had the 60K service done and dealer said the rear pads were thin but not gone, so I had them replaced anyway, rotors on rear were getting a little jumpy anyway. Front pads were just fine but I know I will have to turn the front rotors in another 10k to 15k anyway.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
New User
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
It would be interesting to know if Quigley did anything with the front/rear brake bias when the larger front brakes from the pickup were used. I believe all Quigleys after 2005 have spacers on the rear axle to move the wheel out (to match the front track width) and convert it to the 8x170mm bolt pattern. My 2007 came with 17" wheels to clear the larger front brakes used.
My pads are wearing even as measured at the last service, but I'll definitely keep an eye on them in the future.
I was surprised to see how many differences there are between the 1-ton van and pickup: size of the brakes and u-joints, Dana 60 rear axle vs. Ford Sterling, no tow/haul trans, and tow ratings 10K lbs vs. 12.5K lbs). There are 1/2 ton trucks now rated to tow almost as much as our 1 ton vans. In these days of standardization, you'd think it would be cheaper/easier to use more of the same parts for the vans and pickups.
My pads are wearing even as measured at the last service, but I'll definitely keep an eye on them in the future.
I was surprised to see how many differences there are between the 1-ton van and pickup: size of the brakes and u-joints, Dana 60 rear axle vs. Ford Sterling, no tow/haul trans, and tow ratings 10K lbs vs. 12.5K lbs). There are 1/2 ton trucks now rated to tow almost as much as our 1 ton vans. In these days of standardization, you'd think it would be cheaper/easier to use more of the same parts for the vans and pickups.
Frmr Ford Trans Engr
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 24,705
Likes: 2,626
From: SE Florida
The trans is actually exactly the same. The software running it is different. It had to be different because of the different output of the engine, and someone decided that vans don't need tow/haul. That is unless they are gas engine vans. Those DO get tow/haul!
New User
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Thanks Mark. Shame Ford didn't include the tow/haul feature as I'd much rather that than an overdrive button. Solo, the diesel has enough torque to put all but the biggest hills without shifting too much.
As a former tranny expert, can the van PCM be "upgraded" to include the tow/haul programming?
As a former tranny expert, can the van PCM be "upgraded" to include the tow/haul programming?
Frmr Ford Trans Engr
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 24,705
Likes: 2,626
From: SE Florida
It can, but there will be other problems. You could put an F series trans cal in there, but it will have shifting problems because it's expecting the torque of the F series engine. If you put the Fseries engine cal in there, too, you'll probably overheat the van.
Senior User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
From: St. James Long Island
E-series V-10
Mark is this applicable to the higher output 3V V-10's only. Prior to that V-10 upgrade the E-Series is 305HP, 420Tq. While the F-Series is 310HP, 425Tq. Virtually the same set-up. 2V using the 4R100 while the 3V uses the Torque-shift. Just curious. Thanks
Frmr Ford Trans Engr
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 24,705
Likes: 2,626
From: SE Florida
I was thinking diesel, actually.
I didn't think the vans ever got the 3V engine. All gas engine vans since 2005 do have the TorqShift and tow/haul. The 4R100 ended with the 2004 model year.
I didn't think the vans ever got the 3V engine. All gas engine vans since 2005 do have the TorqShift and tow/haul. The 4R100 ended with the 2004 model year.
Senior User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
From: St. James Long Island
V-10
Thanks, I completely missed that and I think you're right about the 3V never making it into the E-series.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
boulderguy
1968-Present E-Series Van/Cutaway/Chassis
54
Jul 25, 2013 05:40 AM
WrenchHead84
1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
2
Jul 19, 2001 07:38 AM