Consumer Complaint Detail
BRAKE PARTS / DISC BRAKE ROTOR / 9999
0 Injured
0 Death
No Fire
| Components - Details | |
|---|---|
| NHTSA Complaint Number: 003243762 | Incident Date: Oct, 27 2003 |
| Consumer's City: SUTTER CREEK | Consumer's State: CA |
| Vehicle Transmission Type: | Manufacturers Name: Brake Parts Inc. |
| Model Name: DISC BRAKE ROTOR | Model Year: 9999 |
| Vehicle Involved in a Crash: No | Component's Description: Service brakes, hydraulic:foundation components:disc:rotor |
| Vehicle Involved in a Fire: No | Persons Injured: 0 |
| Vehicle's VIN#: | Date added to File: May, 25 2021 |
| Date Complaint Received: Oct, 29 2003 | Complaint Type: IVOQ |
| Incident Reported To Police: No | Purchase Date: - |
| Was Original Owner: No | Anti-lock Brakes: No |
| Number of Cylinders: 0 | Date of Manufacturer: - |
| Was Vehicle Towed: - | Description of the Complaints: Day before yesterday, something happened that really bothers me. i went with a friend of mine to buy parts to repair the brakes on his 1990 jeep wrangler. he needed new brake rotors, pads, etc.. we went to the local kragen's store in jackson, california. they had all the parts in stock, but after my friend looked at the new brake rotors to make sure they were the correct ones that he needed, he spotted a chipped spot on the inside of the machined surface. there was a chip out of the machined surface and a small crack running toward the center of the rotor. he called it to the salesperson's attention (jose), who said it wasn't really a problem, and that he could just turn the rotor and remove the defect. he didn't understand the significance of the crack at all, dismissing it as just a cosmetic defect. my friend asked for and got another unit, upon which jose said he would just turn the rotor in question and return it to stock. this satisfied my friend, for his needs, of course. but it really bothered me. this was clearly a manufacturing defect, and with potential disastrous consequences if the rotor were to disintegrate due to the crack. cracks like this bring down airplanes, e.g., the united airlines plane that lost its engine over nebraska because of a crack in the rotor of a jet engine. it seems to be that jose was particularly cavalier in his attitude toward the defect. clearly, the piece should be returned to the manufacturer (raybestos) as a defective product and should never be placed in use. even if it were perfectly safe, as jose contended, the turning of the rotor would have decreased its useful life to its new owner; i'm sure kragen's isn't going to tell the ultimate purchaser that the rotor was found to have a defect and material removed to correct the problem. kragen's should never question an item of this nature that has a defect in it. i think their attitude toward this is entirely negligent. *la |