Rear brakes wearing faster than fronts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
211
Location
TX
Has anyone ever had their rear brake pads wear out faster than the front ones? For the (CPO) Volvo in my signature line, my wife took it to the dealership for its free 10K service, which is basically an oil change and a bunch of inspections, and they measured the rear pads at 5mm and front ones at 7mm. In every car I have ever owned, the front pads usually make it about 40K miles and rear ones around double that or more. I've never heard of needing to replace the rear pads prior to the front ones. Less than 3mm is the recommended replacement measurement according to their checklist. Just curious. Thank you.
 
Interesting, my old BMW does the same thing but I always attributed it to the DSC wearing them out. I don't know why it would happen on a FWD car unless the pad material is different or there is some sort of mechanical issue.
 
Maybe they had less friction material to start with. Is there more brake dust on the rear wheels? I've seen some late model cars with dirtier back wheels than front.
 
The only time this happens, in my experience, is when the adjustment is wrong! By the nature of dynamics the weight gets transferred forward thereby putting more load on the front brakes so these were out faster.
 
I have never had a 4 wheel disc setup that didn't wear the rears first. Maybe pre 1980 it was different but since then, this is the way it's been for me. Only on F: Disc/R: Drum setups do the front wear out faster.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. Thanks for the quick and thoughtful responses. With the exception of a Jaguar XJ6 I owned for about a year in the 90's, we've typically owned American and Japanese cars, and the fronts always needed replacing prior to the rear ones. This is our first "European" car (although my family had an Volvo 740 and my brother a Porsche 928 when I was a teenager), but it sounds like it isn't that uncommon. Being a GDI turbo, I plan to change the oil at 5K miles OCIs instead of the recommended 10K, so I'll keep an eye on it. The car drives and stops perfectly without producing an inordinate amount of brake dust on either axle.
 
Last edited:
It's TCS on modern vehicles. There was a recent thread where the OP claimed that his rears wore faster than the fronts on his Hyundai, to the point where he had to swap his rears before his fronts.

I think the days of running junk pads on the rear because they don't matter are over!
 
Originally Posted by LazyDog
Is the car all wheel drive, can this caused that describe?


No, it is FWD.
 
The only time I have ever had the rears wear out before the front was with a stuck caliper. Make sure the sliders are lubed properly.
 
Several possible reasons:
1. AWD car and DSC is set up aggressively.
2. (more probable) in order for company to save money, they use same pad on various models. VW does that a lot where rear pads on my Tiguan are same as rear pads on 1988 Golf GTI. However, difference is some 1500lbs between two vehicles. It could be that Volvo is using same pads on S60 and some smaller models or models that are out of production.
3. Check pistons on calipers.
 
Rears on our Mazda wear out quicker than the front. In following a Mazda specific board, this seems quite common with the CX-5.
 
Its more normal, esp on luxury vehicles. It used to be more common to use the front with just a little rear braking. This was due to cars not having ABS/stability control systems. Now that cars have all that tech they are less likely to spin out if the rear brakes grab sooner. Thats done so the car stops more flatter instead of nose diving. Plus rear brakes are usually thinner than front so even working the same the rear will not last as long.

So its mostly a comfort thing that can be taken advantage of due to newer technology.


I already replaced the rear brakes in my SiLs Lexus but her front still look good.
 
Originally Posted by Jimzz
Its more normal, esp on luxury vehicles. It used to be more common to use the front with just a little rear braking. This was due to cars not having ABS/stability control systems. Now that cars have all that tech they are less likely to spin out if the rear brakes grab sooner. Thats done so the car stops more flatter instead of nose diving. Plus rear brakes are usually thinner than front so even working the same the rear will not last as long.

So its mostly a comfort thing that can be taken advantage of due to newer technology.


I already replaced the rear brakes in my SiLs Lexus but her front still look good.
I never thought about the nose diving aspect. In addition to that, more rear brake bias balances the tire wear between the front and rear. I learned that from Gran Turismo Sport! I'm sure there are plenty of cars running all seasons that never get their tires rotated.
 
Originally Posted by Jimzz
Its more normal, esp on luxury vehicles. It used to be more common to use the front with just a little rear braking. This was due to cars not having ABS/stability control systems. Now that cars have all that tech they are less likely to spin out if the rear brakes grab sooner. Thats done so the car stops more flatter instead of nose diving. Plus rear brakes are usually thinner than front so even working the same the rear will not last as long.

So its mostly a comfort thing that can be taken advantage of due to newer technology.


I already replaced the rear brakes in my SiLs Lexus but her front still look good.

In order for ESP to be contributing factor it needs to be activated. That means that you have to drive always at the limit or on snow and ice all the time.
Now, there is only so much force that can go to the back. If you have a lot of force in the back, there is probability that rear end will pass front end in slippery conditions. Usually brake force if 70/30 and there is reason for that, and that is simple dynamic. Considering that Volvo is nose heavy car, more brake force has to be in front. BMW for example will have more equal force as most of their cars are 50/50 weight distribution.
So nose diving is there for a reason. If rear brakes are too strong, that could be exceptionally dangerous in slippery conditions. Hence smaller pads in back.
 
I was always taught that rear brakes may wear out more with around town driving, as the rear pads are applied first to slow the shift forward. My sisters car always kills rears, shes always ripping around town stop to stop, while my moms last much longer in the rear as opposed to front with her mostly highway driving.
 
I just replaced the original drum brakes on my Gen 1 Toyota Tundra at more than 150,000 miles.
 
Last edited:
I believe rear brakes start out thinner than the fronts on many vehicles so i wouldnt worry about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top