Which brakes wear faster - front or rear?

bscmich · 02-07-2010, 08:58 AM

Recently bought an 06 SE with 34K. The brakes feel great, no issues. Being proactive, I would like to pick up pads, rotors, sensors, etc. so I have them when needed. I find very reasonable deals on these oem parts online. I am wondering if I should expect to be replacing the fronts or the rears first and at roughly what mileage? I know it depends alot on driving style and conditions. I am pretty easy on the brakes and typically get great miles out of the pads on all my vehicles. Thoughts and experiences would be appreciated. Thanks!

Houm_WA · 02-07-2010, 09:05 AM

My rears went out first...at about 55k. I don't think that that's typical in terms of mileage, and I'm not sure why the rears would go out before the fronts, but they did. The fronts were replaced around 65k I think.

roverman · 02-07-2010, 09:22 AM

I didn't expect it, but my rears went out first too. I replaced them when I bought my truck with 28k on it. The first owner must have braked more aggressively because 28k later and I have about half the pad left. Replaced the fronts with about 38000 on them.

Greg O · 02-07-2010, 10:10 AM

Mine just went in for its 60,000 mile service and same issue. What the service rep said that is because the rear brakes are smaller. My take on this is smaller brakes = more work = more wear. I could be wrong but it sounds real good.

morrisdl · 02-07-2010, 10:29 AM

I am sure they are 'engineered' to all go appox. the same distance...All 4 of mine were VERY near end of pad material 500 miles after the front sensor tripped.

Disco Mike · 02-07-2010, 11:31 AM

Run of thump, for the last 30 years or so, is that the fronts wear first due to the edditional hydralic pressure sent to the larger front brakes. Even one step more, the right front will always wear out a little sooner because of the roll of the road.
On nearly all vehicles, the rear rotor and caliper are small and normally get less braking pressure and last longer, usually about 2 to 1.

bscmich · 02-07-2010, 12:31 PM

Historically it did seem to be the case that the fronts always went first due to reasons cited. However, on my 07 Saab 9-3 Sport Combi and 02 VW Passat the rears definitely are designed to and did wear significantly sooner. In both cases, the rears at around 40k and the fronts more like 70k. On both of these vehicles the front components are way "beefier" than the rears. Haven't had the wheels off the LR3 yet so I wasn't sure how things looked.

thorgal · 02-08-2010, 07:50 AM

I replaced a pads and rotors from AB at 54.600 miles.Went with EBC performance green pads and now at 76.000 miles, front still have a 50% life left , whereas rear are almost gone,so in my case,rears are definitely wearing a LOT faster in the rear end IMO

Maddie · 02-08-2010, 03:17 PM

Rear pads and rotors should most generally last much longer as mike states. However lately I've seen newer "green" materials being used on rear pads probably made out of bamboo shoots or something. Additionally it seems the growing trend is to use these newer "green" materials for an engineered obsolesence .

bscmich · 02-08-2010, 04:00 PM

Maddie, damn that made me laugh, bamboo shoots! We just installed bamboo floors, I see bamboo in clothing and I just saw some commercial for lotion of some sort that had bamboo in it. Hilarious!

02-07-2010, 08:58 AM	#1
bscmich RoVerified Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 68	Which brakes wear faster - front or rear? Recently bought an 06 SE with 34K. The brakes feel great, no issues. Being proactive, I would like to pick up pads, rotors, sensors, etc. so I have them when needed. I find very reasonable deals on these oem parts online. I am wondering if I should expect to be replacing the fronts or the rears first and at roughly what mileage? I know it depends alot on driving style and conditions. I am pretty easy on the brakes and typically get great miles out of the pads on all my vehicles. Thoughts and experiences would be appreciated. Thanks!

02-07-2010, 11:31 AM	#6
Disco Mike Rover Guru Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 762	Run of thump, for the last 30 years or so, is that the fronts wear first due to the edditional hydralic pressure sent to the larger front brakes. Even one step more, the right front will always wear out a little sooner because of the roll of the road. On nearly all vehicles, the rear rotor and caliper are small and normally get less braking pressure and last longer, usually about 2 to 1. __________________ Mike I am a retired service manager of 30 years, currently driving a 99 D2 with the following mods. Custom made front and rear bumpers, Warn 9500 HSI with 3/8th's rope, sliders, QT diff. guards, electronic CDL, 4:11 gears, rear Detroit with HD axles, Front T.T., HID head light conversions and 3 extra bumper mounted HIDs. To download the RAVE manual, follow this link http://www.landroverresource.com/ Rover Radio issues or IPOD Adapters http://home.valornet.com/splacket/index.htm

02-07-2010, 12:31 PM	#7
bscmich RoVerified Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 68	Historically it did seem to be the case that the fronts always went first due to reasons cited. However, on my 07 Saab 9-3 Sport Combi and 02 VW Passat the rears definitely are designed to and did wear significantly sooner. In both cases, the rears at around 40k and the fronts more like 70k. On both of these vehicles the front components are way "beefier" than the rears. Haven't had the wheels off the LR3 yet so I wasn't sure how things looked. Last edited by bscmich : 02-07-2010 at 12:36 PM.

02-07-2010, 09:05 AM	#2
Houm_WA Rover Guru Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,509	My rears went out first...at about 55k. I don't think that that's typical in terms of mileage, and I'm not sure why the rears would go out before the fronts, but they did. The fronts were replaced around 65k I think.

02-07-2010, 09:22 AM	#3
roverman Rover Guru Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 895	I didn't expect it, but my rears went out first too. I replaced them when I bought my truck with 28k on it. The first owner must have braked more aggressively because 28k later and I have about half the pad left. Replaced the fronts with about 38000 on them.

02-07-2010, 10:10 AM	#4
Greg O Roverito Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3	Mine just went in for its 60,000 mile service and same issue. What the service rep said that is because the rear brakes are smaller. My take on this is smaller brakes = more work = more wear. I could be wrong but it sounds real good.

02-07-2010, 10:29 AM	#5
morrisdl Rover Guru Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 455	I am sure they are 'engineered' to all go appox. the same distance...All 4 of mine were VERY near end of pad material 500 miles after the front sensor tripped.

02-08-2010, 07:50 AM	#8
thorgal Rover Guru Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 226	I replaced a pads and rotors from AB at 54.600 miles.Went with EBC performance green pads and now at 76.000 miles, front still have a 50% life left , whereas rear are almost gone,so in my case,rears are definitely wearing a LOT faster in the rear end IMO

02-08-2010, 03:17 PM	#9
Maddie Rover Guru Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 213	Rear pads and rotors should most generally last much longer as mike states. However lately I've seen newer "green" materials being used on rear pads probably made out of bamboo shoots or something. Additionally it seems the growing trend is to use these newer "green" materials for an engineered obsolesence .

02-08-2010, 04:00 PM	#10
bscmich RoVerified Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 68	Maddie, damn that made me laugh, bamboo shoots! We just installed bamboo floors, I see bamboo in clothing and I just saw some commercial for lotion of some sort that had bamboo in it. Hilarious!