Normal for rear brakes to wear faster than front onfwd ?

[underphil]

some cars are just set up to use the rear brakes during light braking - I'm not sure why though

maybe the intent is that by their calculations of 'normal' driving the fronts and rears will wear out at the same time, but if you generally only do light braking the rears will go first

[Haltamer]

Al U said:

My 2016 Civic has had it's rear pads done, the fronts are coming up soon.

Similar story; My civic has used more rear than front; I imagine it's to do with the electronic assistance systems:- The service manager did mention a penchant for working through rear pads first, and quite a few Type R Owners have reported issues with the rear brakes with heavy track use. (Heat, mullering pads etc)

[Ares]

I say this again....

No mystery.

Ares said:

Rear brakes almost never wear faster, front does the most braking (most cars have far bigger brakes up front)...

....however, rear pads are almost always thinner, so they last less time.

[vikingaero]

Rear pads on MINI R55/56's wear fast.

[Sheepshanks]

Haltamer said:

Al U said:

My 2016 Civic has had it's rear pads done, the fronts are coming up soon.

Similar story; My civic has used more rear than front; I imagine it's to do with the electronic assistance systems:- The service manager did mention a penchant for working through rear pads first, and quite a few Type R Owners have reported issues with the rear brakes with heavy track use. (Heat, mullering pads etc)

Hmmmm...daughter's Jazz had to have the rear pads and discs replaced very early due to one of the pads (or the caliper slider) sticking. Bit of Googling shows it common on various Honda models. Dealer told us we should get behind the wheel and jet-wash the calipers!

[Ares]

vikingaero said:

Rear pads on MINI R55/56's wear fast.

[Pericoloso]

My rear discs are a dreadful rusty mess ,yet the pads aren't worn ,so they will all be going in the bin soon.

Fronts aren't worn either but at least the discs look okay.

60,000 miles on all of them ,so far.

[vikingaero]

Ares said:

vikingaero said:

Rear pads on MINI R55/56's wear fast.

[Ares]

Pericoloso said:

My rear discs are a dreadful rusty mess ,yet the pads aren't worn ,so they will all be going in the bin soon.

Fronts aren't worn either but at least the discs look okay.

60,000 miles on all of them ,so far.

60,000 miles? Do you live at one end of a motorway and commute to work at the other end...?

[Pericoloso]

Ares said:

Pericoloso said:

My rear discs are a dreadful rusty mess ,yet the pads aren't worn ,so they will all be going in the bin soon.

Fronts aren't worn either but at least the discs look okay.

60,000 miles on all of them ,so far.

60,000 miles? Do you live at one end of a motorway and commute to work at the other end...?

No ,I have no explanation except the pads must be good quality.

Fronts probably have 40% still on them.

[roverspeed]

I'd be curious to see if the rear calipers are sticking.

I help a few of my mates out doing their brake services etc and almost all of the ones that don't drive in a spirited fashion or all commuting/motorway miles have some degree of seizing of the rear calipers because they hardly ever get used! And quite often the rear discs are corroded/pitted.

I have never have any problems with mine, but then my fronts discs never last longer than 30k and pads never longer than 15k

Add 25% to those distances for the rears.

I think for commuting, car brakes are too effective for their own good these days

[donkmeister]

roverspeed said:

I'd be curious to see if the rear calipers are sticking.

I help a few of my mates out doing their brake services etc and almost all of the ones that don't drive in a spirited fashion or all commuting/motorway miles have some degree of seizing of the rear calipers because they hardly ever get used! And quite often the rear discs are corroded/pitted.

I have never have any problems with mine, but then my fronts discs never last longer than 30k and pads never longer than 15k

Add 25% to those distances for the rears.

I think for commuting, car brakes are too effective for their own good these days

That was a common problem with the MG TFs that had the AP Racing "big brakes", but less so with the standard brakes (rear brakes were common between the two, so we're used less on the big brake cars in normal road driving)

[underphil]

Ares said:

vikingaero said:

Rear pads on MINI R55/56's wear fast.

I (/wife) have had a couple of cars where the brakes were all perfectly functional, yet the brake dusk accumulation on the rear wheels was always significantly higher than on the fronts (it's possible that the compound used for the rear pads is softer than the front, but not likely)

[Krikkit]

roverspeed said:

I'd be curious to see if the rear calipers are sticking.

I help a few of my mates out doing their brake services etc and almost all of the ones that don't drive in a spirited fashion or all commuting/motorway miles have some degree of seizing of the rear calipers because they hardly ever get used! And quite often the rear discs are corroded/pitted.

I have never have any problems with mine, but then my fronts discs never last longer than 30k and pads never longer than 15k

Add 25% to those distances for the rears.

I think for commuting, car brakes are too effective for their own good these days

Some cars/alloy wheel designs are also more susceptible to it as well.

On my old 172 it was fine with some aftermarket alloys for rear seizing, within 2 months of the standard ones going back on they had seized on one side and the other was well on its way - cleaned them up and they only lasted another 3 months again. Put the TD's back on and they were cherry for another year.

[Ares]

underphil said:

Ares said:

vikingaero said:

Rear pads on MINI R55/56's wear fast.

I (/wife) have had a couple of cars where the brakes were all perfectly functional, yet the brake dusk accumulation on the rear wheels was always significantly higher than on the fronts (it's possible that the compound used for the rear pads is softer than the front, but not likely)

Front brakes ALWAYS do more braking than the rears, like 60-80% of the braking. Cars usually have bigger brake callipers/discs etc at the front (older cars have discs front, drums rear). My car has 6-piston callipers from, just 4 at the rear.

I've also always had significantly more brake dust on front than rear wheels. Extra things at play if you're getting more dust from the rears - different compound or issues with the brakes.

[esuuv]

Ares said:

Front brakes ALWAYS do more braking than the rears, like 60-80% of the braking. Cars usually have bigger brake callipers/discs etc at the front (older cars have discs front, drums rear). My car has 6-piston callipers from, just 4 at the rear.

I've also always had significantly more brake dust on front than rear wheels. Extra things at play if you're getting more dust from the rears - different compound or issues with the brakes.

MINIs have an option called something like "Cruise control with brake function" have the cruise set to 40 and go down a steep hill the car will brake to hold the speed, you can feel it - it uses the rear brakes for this, so they eat rear pads if you use the cruise a lot.

[rallycross]

esuuv said:

MINIs have an option called something like "Cruise control with brake function" have the cruise set to 40 and go down a steep hill the car will brake to hold the speed, you can feel it - it uses the rear brakes for this, so they eat rear pads if you use the cruise a lot.

I hope someone does not read that and believe it, rear brake disks on front wheel drive hatches do very little work, its the front disks that are doing the majority of the work. And you'd have to be doing 10's of thousands of miles on cruise control down long hills to even notice any difference on brake wear as per the above.

[Ares]

esuuv said:

MINIs have an option called something like "Cruise control with brake function" have the cruise set to 40 and go down a steep hill the car will brake to hold the speed, you can feel it - it uses the rear brakes for this, so they eat rear pads if you use the cruise a lot.

A lot of cars have that.....but the impact on pads is minuscule. The odd 5 secs touch to bring 43mph to 40, or 75 to 70 is insignificant compared to frequent 70 -> 30 etc that the front brakes do every time you hit a dual carriageway roundabout

[underphil]

Ares said:

underphil said:

Ares said:

vikingaero said:

Rear pads on MINI R55/56's wear fast.

I (/wife) have had a couple of cars where the brakes were all perfectly functional, yet the brake dusk accumulation on the rear wheels was always significantly higher than on the fronts (it's possible that the compound used for the rear pads is softer than the front, but not likely)

Front brakes ALWAYS do more braking than the rears, like 60-80% of the braking. Cars usually have bigger brake callipers/discs etc at the front (older cars have discs front, drums rear). My car has 6-piston callipers from, just 4 at the rear.

I've also always had significantly more brake dust on front than rear wheels. Extra things at play if you're getting more dust from the rears - different compound or issues with the brakes.

Have a read before you start declaring gospel:

https://www.knowyourparts.com/technical-resources/...

[billshoreham]

underphil said:

Have a read before you start declaring gospel:

https://www.knowyourparts.com/technical-resources/...

Great link,saved it. Thanks.