Rear brakes wearing faster than fronts?

[CharBaby]

Originally Posted by Char Baby
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.

Originally Posted by LazyDog
Is the car all wheel drive, can this caused that describe?


Even the rears on my wife's AWD Lexus RX wore out faster than the fronts. And the rear on my Nissan Altima, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Mazda3 all wore out the rear, 2:1 compared to the front.

 

[HangFire]

Honda Pilots are well known to wear out rear brakes earlier than fronts. Mine has been true to form and both its rear brake jobs have come about 10K less than the comparable front brake jobs.

As Trav points out, the integrated rear drum brake sure puts a hurting on the size of the rear pads.

 

[john_pifer]

My 2016 WRX wore out the rear pads first. I inquired and was told by Subaru that this is normal for this car.

 

[DBMaster]

Look at the size of the rear brake pads compared to the fronts. Some vehicles just have tiny rear brake pads. So, even if the rear brakes don't generate as much heat or friction as the fronts there is less material to wear off in the first place. If the rear pads are half the size of the fronts, which I have seen on some cars, it's not hard to believe that they could potentially wear out sooner. We just did a brake job on my son's 2012 Hyundai Accent. The rear pads were worn to the wear indicators and the fronts still had almost half of their original thickness.

 

[Asterix]

My solution was to buy aggressively grippy front pads and the cheapest rear pads I could find. As a bonus the car feels correct while braking now. I hate the rear bias, as it also ate up my rear tires much too quickly.