Beware! EBC Red Box experience
 

This thread is specifically about 4.6/4.8 applications, but may have relevance to all X5 owners considering EBC products.

I'll start off by saying that I have no fiscal interest in any mentioned manufacturers or vendors, other than as a paying customer. I've been replacing factory pads with low-dust aftermarket alternatives for the last eight years, on two E39's (540i/6 and M5) and an E38 740i Sport (ALL the same pads as 3.0 and 4.4 X5's, by the way!). Previously, I've used both Mintex Red Box and Axxis Deluxe Plus with great satisfaction.

My particular issue is with EBC's product for the unique '920' pad shape for the E53 4.6/4.8is fronts. It is manufactured with a casting on the fixed-side pad backer that is different from stock, which I missed when I removed the factory originals and compared them to the new EBC's. As such, this design defect causes the pad to face the rotor at an angle and suboptimizes braking performance. In my case, the pads melted/disintegrated in one week's time...

The other thing of grave concern to me is the conditions of the friction material after a typical bedding procedure and relatively normal around-town use since install. For a high performance compound, these pads look worse than any pad I EVER used on my M5--even for heavy track use! Now I know that poor alignment with the rotor must lead to differential thermal loads, but these puppies look like they've been nuked!

I followed the EBC instructions for 'bedding' from 40 MPH. Not being satisfied with the feel, I stepped their conservative process up to a more typical 65-->10 MPH series of applications, as described by DaveZ on zeckhausen.com. While inital bite felt a bit better, it never resumed a stock-like feel. I noticed uneven deposition radially on the rotor, so I removed the pads today to investigate.

Here's what I found:

The conclusion...
 

You can see in the profile view how the pads wore (again, in a week's time!) at a slight angle. Not sure if you can see, however, how the steel backer actually bent into a concave shape as the pressure on those two cast nipples caused the caliper to exert uneven pressure on the pads.

Bottom line: these little darlings are going back to the seller or manufacturer. I still don't have an Axxis option due to the funky pad shape, but I may go the same route as f355b did: Porterfield R4-S fronts and Axxis Deluxe Plus in back.

Lesson learned: (1) stick with what works, or at least brands you know! (2) carefully inspect aftermarket pads prior to installation for ANY differences with factory equipment; do not assume that the aftermarket manufacturer has done this for you!!!

-Dave

Great stuff!Very informative post!
Those pads look like they caught fire!You could have warped your discs!
Interesting to see what EBC have to say about this?

If I was you,I would make them liable for new rotors as well !

Oh dear, I bet that comes as a shock!

A couple of questions, have you spoken to EBC's tech people?

Uneven pad wear (radial, longitudinal or in/out) such as what you have is usually the result of a poorly located (ie sticking) piston, or calipers that are not moving freely. It usually means failure of the pads due to exceeding the friction/temp curve by reducing the face (as if it was under spec'd).

Did you check/lubricate/clean these when you changed the pads?

Pushing a longitudinally or radially tapered brake pad against its rotor, a brake piston will "cock," moving off-centre in its bore in the caliper. Cocking creates a greater volume for fluid in the caliper which may explain your spongy pedal.

I have had my pads installed by an EBC supplier rather than DIY and have done significant miles without this sort of issue.....

I would be interested to hear their input when you return them.

WOW. I know people have differant views on what they like or dislike. I have used the Porterfield R4-S pads now on both the Ferrari and the 4.8 i have also used the stoptech s/s lines on both and love the set up. There are not many options for front 4.8 pads but my car feels really good and iam very happy so far.

(I arranged your questions together, LVR)

I've not as yet spoken to the EBC tech folks. I most certainly will update the board on what they say.

I indeed did check the pistons before and after install, and they were sliding smoothly. I cleaned the caliper pins as well.

This vehicle has less than 1500 miles on the clock, so all brake parts were quite clean.

I agree with everything you said, with one rather large exception. While uneven pad wear radially USUALLY means a sticking piston or stuck calipers, in this case it was purely and simply BECAUSE OF THE PAD BACKER DESIGN.

LVR, if you take another look at the very first photo you should see a difference between the stock pad backer and the EBC model. The stock has two cast 'nipples' that are not touched by the caliper when installed, and the EBC part has FOUR. The two outer cast nipples on the EBC pads DO CONTACT THE CALIPER, and thus alter its alignment to the rotor. You may also note the lack of paint on the top of those two outer, superflous castings. That is from contact with the caliper.

THIS IS A DESIGN FLAW. Perhaps your EBC installer ground those off prior to install, but without altering the pad backer first, there is NO WAY these pads, as sold by EBC, will function properly.

This ain't about a botched DIY job. This is about sh!tty replication of a factory pad backer design.

Update
 

Exchanged emails/voicemails with board sponsor and all-around-good-guy, Dave Zeckhausen, and the good news is that Axxis is finally coming out with a front pad for the 4.6/4.8 in the next few months. Yippee!

I put my factory original pads back on, and will wait for Axxis (PBR) Deluxe Plus to hit the market. I'll stick with what's worked for me; lesson learned.

Another observation: while the Red Stuff did dust less than stock, they dusted more than I experienced with Axxis D+ on prior cars. And one of those cars was a high mass, high HP M5 that I tended to operate at higher speeds, so I don't think the added heft of the X5 is necessarily the differentiator.

Still haven't spoken to EBC yet. I want to get my rears uninstalled before I make the call. Will update when I do.

I have had a look at the installation of my pads..... they are sitting flat against the moving caliper and do not appear to have had anything ground off them.

As I am not taking them off to check, perhaps you can tell me if the caliper contact face is solid or recessed (ie is there a space for the nipples to sit in?)

I will speak with my installer about them and get his feedback on what the differences are.

Clearly my pads are fitted differently.....

As I said in my original post when I found the pads, it takes a few weeks to settle down and the rears take longer. I would think you haven't had them on long enough because of your problems. Speed and mass on different cars don't produce the same results IMHO.

There is nothing in those photos that wouldn't happen on another pad brand fitted like that. They are bent out of shape because the load is over the nipples, rather than the whole face. Your pads are obviously warped either by incorrect installation, incorrect type or as you say incorrect manufacturing.

I am sure the apologies will be volumnous from EBC if either of the last two are true......

Well, LVR, I too am not going to remove the pads to double-check, but whether the caliper contact face is solid or recessed is IRRELEVANT. The factory pads had NO OUTER CASTINGS. The EBC OE replacements DID. The non-original castings are what caused this problem. End of story.

The pictures (once again, especially the first ones) tell the story.


Agreed. I cannot make any fair evaluation of the pad composition because of the misalignment problem. I agree that any pad likely would self-destruct given similar conditions. Point well taken.


You really are persistent in your defense of EBC--and by extension your indictment of my installation, aren't you, LVR?

We can eliminate your middle option, as both front and rear boxes are clearly marked. The fronts are labeled 'E53 X5 4.6/4.8 2003-2005' and the rears are labeled E38/E46 rears (which also fit all E39 and E53 applications).

Once again, that leaves us with (1) my installation or (2) the pad backer design. Given the EBC pad backer includes castings that did not appear on the factory part, and those nipples caused the deflection and uneven contact shown above, I'll leave it for others with eyes to determine where the fault lies.

Oh come on......

I asked you a couple of questions about how the installations may vary as I have done the miles without trouble. I went and looked at my car because we have the same pads but different results....

Figure it out for yourself then

Not sure how you're able to draw this conclusion from my questions..... but then in this country we don't immediately blame someone else and talk lawsuits/compensation either. Otherwise we tend to look like a real goose if we're wrong.......

Let me draw your attention to some statements I made

a) have you spoken to them,
b) gave THREE possible reasons,
c) I stated that their apologies should be profuse to you once you speak to them,
d) I stated that I was interested to hear their input once you'd spoken to EBC,
e) recognised that ANY pad would fail under those conditions and
f) my pads are the same and I haven't a problem.

Finally, get on the phone to them and get to the bottom of it. If EBC are the cause of it then slag the brand for all their worth......

Until then, all the righteousness in the world won't change the fact that my installation works.....

Initial response discouraging...
 

I'm still awaiting a response to my email from EBC USA. I chose to use email so I could attach the photos which you've seen. Picture's worth a thousand words, and all...

I did speak with the EBC/brake pad customer service specialist at the outfit where I purchased the pads. Unfortunately, they're telling me that "EBC doesn't offer a pad for the E53 X5 4.8is." He further stated that the pads for the 4.6is are different from the 4.8is. That was news to me.

If that's the case, then there's the "rub." Different pad backers for the 4.6 and 4.8. I own a 4.8, and I bought pads for a 4.6. "Sorry, we can't help you."

However, BMW part numbers are the SAME for both models, as shown on the online ETK. Please note item No. 11 on each diagram and table:

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...75&hg=34&fg=05

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...75&hg=34&fg=05

I can't resolve the conflict between what the vendor is saying and what my parts counter man is telling me. So..... I'll wait futher to hear from EBC directly on their perspective.

Will update then.

While this is nowhere near conclusive, I did have my stock E39 M5 front calipers sitting in the garage, so I decided to have a look.

On those calipers, the contact face is solid for the top 2/3 of the pad.

If the M5 pads had extraneous castings in the same locations as the D920 X5 pads, it would cause misalignment against the rotor face.

Given that I've already done twice as many brake jobs this month as planned, I'll wait until the Axxis pads arrive before I get an up-close look at the X5 4.8is caliper, sans pads. (At which time I will have performed THREE brake pad replacements at each corner...)

Incidentally, not only is the BMW part number the same for 4.6 and 4.8 front pads (34 11 6 761 282), but also for the calipers themselves! For both the 4.6 and 4.8, the left and right calipers are BMW p/n's 34 11 6 757 053 and '054, respectively. As a result, I ain't buying the vendor's response.

Porterfield Pads are the same number for the 4.6is and the 4.8is (fronts)

I understand EBC have replaced your pads?

So what is your connection to EBC, LVR? :confused: :)

I only ask because you knew this before I did....

Long story short: I just spoke with the US Auto manager for EBC, and he's shipping out new sets F&R. He suggested I try their SUV/Truck application for higher heat and lower dust properties, so I'm going to give them a try.

Full story: I did receive an email (finally!) from the Automotive Manager at EBC Brakes USA last week. In it, he said:
"Looking at the pictures, it is very likley that there was an assembly error at the factory.I have forwarded your information to our main offices in England and they are looking into this and will be back with you shortly."

After not hearing anything for seven more days, I fired off another email to this fellow yesterday. Nothing back. Your post this morning (US-time) prompted me to call the outfit where I'd purchased the pads to ask again for a Return Authorization.

Got the same line from them about me ordering the wrong part (I entered '04 4.6 into their website, as there's no listing for the 4.8...), but after I explained the common BMW part numbers and the email from EBC USA, he agreed to call the guy and get back to me.

He calls me back and gives me the contact info for the Auto Manager at EBC USA and asks me to call him directly. I call and he explains that the inside backer plate was assembled to the outside pad. Offers to replace my full set. I take him up on it.

So, after a protracted effort at getting a solution, I finally have one. I had been seeking a full refund for my purchase, but I'm willing to give them a second chance. Not too crazy about the two additional 4-wheel brake jobs that were required (remove & replace with originals, and now remove originals and replace with EBC replacements), but it allows me another opportunity to become one with my machine.

Had the Axxis Deluxe Plus parts been available now for the D920 pad shape, I would have insisted on the full refund. I don't like the idea of 'assembly errors,' but I hate the dust from the factory pads even more!

I do wonder how many other folks experienced the same assembly error.

-Dave

Just want to clarify, LVR. At no point in this entire thread did I ever talk or write about lawsuits or compensation. Or was this just a broad generalization about the US? All I wanted was a refund, and in the end I'm settling for a new set of pads.

FWIW, the apologies from EBC were not profuse. In fact, there was no apology--merely a "we'll take care of you" in reference to the replacement pads.

And you know what? That's all I needed.

no connection. I simply drew EBC's (UK) attention to the thread via an email of my own asking them to investigate it on your behalf as it appeared EBC USA has a care factor of NIL. This is what the forum is for.

They immediately replied to me that it had been incorrectly packed and should have been detected when opened as they were wrongly packed parts.

How you would know they were wrong is beyond me and I was not going to post their (biased) reply without giving you the chance to speaK FIRST. Had I done so you would probably have accused me of defending them and by extension condemning your installation again.

In relation to your question above.... chill out.

In relation to my comments about lawsuits, it was a generic spray aginst those who quickly start talking compensation etc without getting the whole story. You don't have to look far in this forum to see that sort of attitude.

And look, they can say you should have followed the instructions, but unless you were experienced and compared them with the originals how are you supposed to know? End of story.

Well thanks for acting on behalf of a fellow boardmember, LVR. I do appreciate it, as the response on my end was quite disappointing. Interesting that EBC UK would respond immediately to your email (by blaming the customer, it seems) and yet they never replied to me directly, or bothered posting to this thread after they read it. Hmmmm.....

I did know they were involved, as one of my emails from EBC USA--while it had edited out the previous correspondence--did include an electronic signature at the bottom from European Friction Industries Ltd out of Bristol, UK.

So you were not going to post their biased reply, but you will include it by implication?

If you recall, I described my level of experience at the outset. I believe my error was less a function of experience and more one of carelessness, but I must admit that after this experience, I will inspect MUCH more closely next time! ;)

I'm posting EBC's included instructions, as nowhere do they say to: "inspect these parts against their factory counterparts to ensure that we have not sent you the wrong part or incomplete assemblies in place of finished components." There's nothing about pre-installation inspection, actually.

In fact I did compare the parts, comparing pad shape to pad shape and backer shape to backer shape. I noticed, for example, that the EBC rears are chamfered at the leading and trailing edges (like the fronts), whereas the factory rears are not.

I admitted when I opened this thread that I missed the outer castings on what EBC sent as outboard pads. I even suggested as a lesson learned for others to "carefully inspect aftermarket pads prior to installation for ANY differences with factory equipment..."

And while I'm in mea culpa mode, I'll gladly admit that my initial description of a design defect was incorrect. This was a manufacturing defect (or more broadly, a product defect, if you prefer). EBC USA called it an assembly error.

It was NOT merely a packing error, which would imply that I received a finished part intended for another application. What I received was an incomplete assembly intended for the 4.6/4.8 application. That's pretty poor QC, and entitles me to "slag the brand for all they're worth," but I won't.

I'm glad you saw the error of your ways and deleted your original reply stating "Obviously the middle option was right because the packaging was wrong....."

If you do a search on EBC's online catalogs, you will find only ONE application with the FMSI D920 pad shape: the X5 4.6. If you use their internal product number of DP31472C, once again, only one application: the 4.6 (although the 2005 International catalog shows that part number applies to both the 4.6 and 4.8).

What appears to have happened, is that EBC shipped the incomplete assembly for the inboard pad, also marked DP31473C, (with the four castings, but without attaching the spring clips that align the pad with the pistons) instead of the actual outboard pad that has only two castings.

If you look at the actual inboard pad (with clips), you will see how the inner castings are hammered down to attach the two central spring clips. Those appear as small cube-shaped castings on the incomplete assemblies that were sent to me as outboard pads. What is clear is that customers should never receive EBC pad backers with those cube-shaped castings in tact; rather, the spring clips should appear installed on around them and they be used as inboard pads only.

Since such manufacturing processes operate on a continuous or at least large batch process, I'd be willing to bet that I am not, nor will not be, the only person to experience this product problem with Redstuff for the 4.6/4.8.

My only desire here was to make others aware of what to look for. Which is yet another good function of this forum.

Cheers!

You really have a chip on your shoulder don't you?

Here is their email. Look at the dates sent and replied.

You said yourself you hadn't compared them.... and if you read the whole sentence I also stated in your defence that you weren't to know.....is that biased? I don't think so...

For someone who has analysed and photographed so many pads, you sure have missed the point. It was two mistakes. One of theirs and one of yours. Big deal.

Actually no. If you read the email from EBC they say they are 4 inner pads (ie incorrect type), which refers to the middle option. Again, I chose not to post this as you would get all hurt and twisted again as what EBC USA and EBC UK were saying to both of us was different.

Were I to have posted this we then get into ANOTHER petty point.

I will finish this by saying I emailed EBC UK as (by your own admission) you were getting nowhere with EBC USA. I did this as a forum member trying to help out someone who could be perhaps a little less thin skinned.

I have no interest in EBC other than seeing forum members find a solution for their 4.8's.