Mercedes-Benz GLA Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Returning from vegas Sunday, we noticed the brakes chatter with any foot pressure beyond just lighting the taillights at fwy speeds. Braking other than that is normal. This only occurs at fwy speeds. I took the car to MB this am and there test drive diagnosis is calipers and pads due to the wheel cleaner acid used at car wash. Anyone ever herd of such a thing? it’s been to the car wash twice, months ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
816 Posts
Sorry to hear about this brake issue BUT never allow application the very caustic (acidic) "wheel cleaner" used at car washes. Not only bad for the calipers/rotors/brake pad backing plates is very bad for Euro car alloys (BMW,MB Audi etc). This is why those manufacturers only recommend P21S products P21S Wheel Cleaner 1

I would avoid, if possible, car washes since they use very aggressive cleaning products.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Sorry to hear about the issue and thanks for the post. Never heard of this and use the car wash all the time for all cars (not for the GLA45 yet). I have to ask my car wash whether they use any acid for wheel cleaning. That must be some pretty strong acid if 2 car washes did that to the pads and rotors.

Chaaz900, how many miles do you have? Brake chatter is usually due to rotors warping. For example, if your brakes are hot (coming down the mountain) and you hit a puddle, that sudden temperature change could warp the brake rotors. This usually happens as the rotors are worn and get thinner though.

Which GLA? GLA 45 brakes are drilled and vented, so they don't heat up as much and they are less likely to get super hot during regular drives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
608 Posts
If MB could figure out how to make a front braking system that didn't generate so much gunk on the front wheels, we wouldn't need to worry about how to clean those wheels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Carbon ceramic.

EBC makes Ceramic brake pads (redstuff) that generate lower dust but as usual it's a trade off. EBC is a UK company that specializes in brake pads.

I have had these on one of my cars (Audi RS6 which has hyper brakes with 8 pistons upfront) and while the dust was much lower and the braking was better than OEMs, the pads worked the rotors harder. But all in all, use of these pads made the rotors and pad last much longer than the OEM set (like 30,000 miles plus instead of the usual max of 20,000 miles on the Audi RS6)

So, it is always a trade-off between quietness, dust, wear, etc.

I personally would use the redstuff EBC pads again depending on how the OEMs work on the GLA45. I only have 500 miles on the odometer though :)

I used the greenstuff EBC pads (non-ceramic) on my dad's Acura MDX and they generate a lot more dust. So, I wouldn't recommend those.

Redstuff Ceramic Brake Pads
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Just checked EBC's website and they only offer the yellowstuff for the GLA45. That may be too aggressive for my taste as yellowstuff is designed for track use. I am hoping in 3-4 years when I need new pads, the OEMS pads will behave or there will be other ceramic options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
Just checked EBC's website and they only offer the yellowstuff for the GLA45. That may be too aggressive for my taste as yellowstuff is designed for track use. I am hoping in 3-4 years when I need new pads, the OEMS pads will behave or there will be other ceramic options.
I feel you pain of breaking in the car haha.....

So far most aftermarket manufactures dont have pads for the 45s. The rear share pads with a more common car so they are easily available
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
608 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
816 Posts
Disc Italia (available in the US thru Brake World for one) manufactures two types of brake pads for the GLA45 AMG…Hyper Ceramic for street and occasional performance driving and Titanium Kevlar for more demanding performance driving. Both are rotor friendly and low dust. I plan to get them (Hyper C). Verified with manufacturer that the pads have the clip sites for the brake pad monitoring sensors.

I have been looking quite a while for aftermarket pads and these (Disc Italia) look to be the most promising… Hawk, Porterfield, EBC and StopTeck are all no goes
 
  • Like
Reactions: rayman

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Sorry to hear about this brake issue BUT never allow application the very caustic (acidic) "wheel cleaner" used at car washes. Not only bad for the calipers/rotors/brake pad backing plates is very bad for Euro car alloys (BMW,MB Audi etc). This is why those manufacturers only recommend P21S products P21S Wheel Cleaner.

I would avoid, if possible, car washes since they use very aggressive cleaning products.
While doing some research on car wash shampoos and waxes, I discovered that BIS Smartparts (p21s.com) used to be the exclusive U.S. distributor of P21S branded products (including the wheel cleaner referenced above.including the wheel cleaner) manufactured by Dr. O.K. Wack Chemie GmbH in Germany.

When a dispute arose between Wack and BIS, BIS found a new supplier of products and chemicals and continued to sell under the P21S name.

I recently emailed Wack and this is the response I received: "P21S products sold in the US are not produced by our company. These formulations are different from ours".

I am now reluctant to use P21S products because: A. I don't believe they are manufactured in Germany (as they claim), and B. they are not the same German auto manufacturer recommended/approved formulations that they were when Wack made them.

For more on the story, below is a copy and paste of a United States Court of Appeals judgement:


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellant Dr. O.K. Wack Chemie GmbH ("Wack"), a German corporation, appeals from a final judgment of the district court in favor of defendants-counter-plaintiffs-appellees Brookside Import Specialties, Inc. ("Brookside"), a Connecticut corporation, and Stephen ``` ("```"), Brookside`s president and sole shareholder (collectively "BIS"). The judgment was on various counterclaims brought by BIS. On BIS`s counterclaim seeking confirmation of BIS`s ownership of disputed trademarks, the district court granted summary judgment to BIS. On BIS`s breach of contract counterclaim, a jury trial was held and the jury found for BIS and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. Wack appeals from the grant of summary judgment and from the jury verdict and damage awards. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Wack is a German corporation that develops, manufactures, and sells automobile and motorcycle cleaning products and industrial chemicals. In 1983, BIS contacted Wack to inquire about distributing Wack`s products in the United States. The parties entered into an oral agreement whereby BIS became the exclusive U.S. distributor for Wack. Up to that point, Wack had never distributed its products in this country. Wack began shipping its P21S and S100 wheel cleaners to BIS in February 1984.

Wack allowed BIS to exercise total control of the U.S. marketing of P21S and S100 and consented to simply "supply[ing] the product." BIS discussed product names with Wack, but BIS made the final decision to use the P21S and S100 marks for U.S. distribution. In July 1984 ``` discussed registering the two marks in the United States. On August 6, 1984, Dr. Oskar K. Wack ("Dr. Wack"), managing director of Wack, sent BIS a letter authorizing the latter to "file P 21-S as your own brand name for the USA and Canada." In a similar letter sent on September 5, 1985, Dr. Wack authorized BIS to "file S-100 as your own brand name for the USA and Canada." Both trademarks were eventually registered -- with Wack`s full knowledge and agreement -- in BIS`s name. On October 22, 1990, BIS filed documents with the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to establish the incontestability of the P21S trademark, and on February 19, 1991 the PTO declared the mark incontestable. BIS filed similar papers covering the S100 trademark in 1991, which was declared incontestable by the PTO on March 9, 1992.

In July 1987, while the two parties were discussing the possibility of producing P21S and S100 products in the United States, a dispute arose between them concerning the ownership of the two trademarks. In a July 27, 1987 fax to ```, Dr. Wack stated that "you [```] assume that these [trademarks] belong to [BIS]." Despite this apparent disagreement concerning trademark ownership, Wack continued to do business with BIS under the 1983 oral agreement until June 25, 1991, when Dr. Wack faxed ``` a letter stating Wack`s intention to rescind the oral agreement on December 31, 1991 and to replace it with a written contract. At least in part because of an inability to agree over trademark rights, the parties failed to consummate a new contract by the December 31 deadline. Nevertheless, they continued to negotiate and to do business after the beginning of 1992. Finally, on April 8, 1992, Dr. Wack broke off negotiations (again, over the trademark issue) and refused to ship any further products.

BIS thereafter found a new supplier of cleaning products and chemicals, which it continued to sell under the P21S and S100 marks. Wack then filed suit seeking a declaration that it owned the trademarks (count one) and a cancellation of the registrations of the two trademarks pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b) (count two). In addition, Wack alleged false designation of origin, fraud, and unclean hands by BIS (count three), common law trademark infringement (count four), and state law unfair trade practices (count five). BIS counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment vesting title to the disputed trademarks in BIS (counterclaim one). BIS also alleged Lanham Act trademark infringement (counterclaim two), Lanham Act unfair competition (counterclaim three), common law trademark infringement (counterclaim four), tortious interference with contract (counterclaim five), state law unfair trade practices (counterclaim six), and breach of contract (counterclaim seven).

Cross-motions for summary judgment were referred to a magistrate judge. The magistrate recommended that the district court grant summary judgment in favor of BIS on all of Wack`s claims and grant summary judgment in favor of Wack on BIS`s counterclaims two (Lanham Act infringement), three (Lanham Act unfair competition), four (common law infringement) and six (state law unfair trade practices). Finally, the magistrate recommended that the district court grant summary judgment for BIS on counterclaim one (seeking a declaration vesting title in the trademarks in BIS) and deny Wack`s motion for summary judgment on counterclaims five (tortious interference with contract) and seven (breach of contract). The district court followed each of these recommendations.

A jury trial was held on BIS`s breach of contract counterclaim, 1 in which the primary issue was whether Wack had given BIS sufficient notice prior to terminating its contractual relationship in April 1992. The jury found in favor of BIS and awarded $100,460.90 in compensatory damages. It also found that BIS was entitled to punitive damages, which the district court subsequently set at $91,341.00. Wack now appeals. He argues, first, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for BIS on the issue of trademark ownership, second, that the jury trial on the breach of contract claim was unfairly tainted by the district court`s determination of the trademark ownership issue, third, that the jury`s award of compensatory damages was not supported by the evidence, and, finally, that the district court erred in allowing the jury to consider an award of punitive damages and in giving confusing punitive damages instructions.

We affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district court. To the extent that Wack seeks to argue issues not raised below (e.g., that it held common law rights in the marks and hence that their registration by BIS had not become incontestable, and that punitive damages are not available for breach of contract under Connecticut law or that the district court`s instructions on punitive damages were unduly confusing) we deem these contentions waived and express no view as to their merits.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Wack`s contentions and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

For the Court,

ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE

Court Clerk
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top