Community Forums

blevtr · 09-20-2019, 07:03 PM

It used to be a truism that front brakes wore out twice for every rear brake. So you could expect to replace the fronts twice as often. Roughly. Generally.

With the advent of anti-lock brakes, is this still true? Inquiring minds want to know. My personal experience is too limited, but this site has an abundance of practical knowledge to tap. Any thoughts?

MotorPro · 09-20-2019, 07:15 PM

Anti lock brakes have no effect on it. Due to weight transfer the front brakes do at least 60% of the work. Under hard braking it is even more. In most vehicles the front brakes are substantial larger and proportioned to apply first and harder.

Bahamaniac · 09-20-2019, 08:08 PM

Motorpro has it right. Front brakes wear out due to performing most of the work because of weight transfer.

PSOUZA · 09-20-2019, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MotorPro

Anti lock brakes have no effect on it. .

True story, mostly, but the other nanny safety devices do operate the rear brakes during acceleration and "brisk" driving through corners. Jeep Wrangler drivers (JK, JL) frequently complain about this interference and as a result rear pad wear can be double or more. Particularly when driving in snow frequently.

Fortunately Jeep has a switch to disable the worst aspects of this "feature". ESC feature is described, incompletely, near the end of the Jeep user (owner) manual.

Phil

1st-tt2018 · 09-20-2019, 08:35 PM

With auto stability control, any wheel slip will use individual wheel brakes. On my last vehicle the passenger rear wore the fastest of the rear. I replaced all four corners every time since there was uneven wear on each axle. It was relatively inexpensive insurance though.

twinboat · 09-20-2019, 10:55 PM

The brakes on cars used to be that way but not on heavy vehicles.

If you look at the brakes on any heavy truck, even some pickups, the rear shoes are larger then the front but if running with a load, wear down sooner, often by 2 to 1.

The Ford F53 chassis uses the same size brakes front and rear and they wear evenly. That's because there is more weight towards the rear then front axle.

Most cars always have more weight in the front.

Waiter21 · 09-21-2019, 04:10 AM

Quote:

It used to be a truism that front brakes wore out twice for every rear brake.

On my cars, thats true, in fact, I'd say 3 to 1.

HOWEVER - On my 1999 (and my 2001) Ford F53 chassis, I find that the rears wear at about the same rate as the fronts, and maybe a tiny bit faster.

Dav L · 09-21-2019, 06:07 AM

Replace them when a regular inspection shows they need replacement. It's fun to generalize, but it's on an as needed basis.

NevadaNick · 09-21-2019, 07:53 AM

Our Mercedes uses the rear brakes to control downhill speed when on cruise control and for other stuff as well. Just had the rear brakes replaced at 46k mi and the fronts were still half life. But it is true the fronts provide the most braking power.

mhs4771 · 09-21-2019, 05:45 PM

I was still on the OEM Pads on my 2011 Silverado 3500 Dually with 115K on the odometer when traded last January. And most of that mileage was towing heavy 17K to 19K.

theboondork. · 09-21-2019, 06:24 PM

I just had the dealership replace the OEM rear disk pads on my 2007 GMC three-quarter ton, four-wheel-drive, Duramax at 176,000 miles It's pulled a couple of fifth wheels for most of its life and a lot of its life has been lived in the Colorado mountains and the last four years with me as a full-timer. The dealership said the front disk pads were okay. So you just never know.

Theboondork.com