Rear brakes wear out much sooner than front ones?

At 240K, it's time to replace my rear pads and rotors for the second time. 120K per set.

But my front rotors are factory original, and they still measure 31mm/1.22". I replaced the front pads only once, at 160K (80K miles on them now), and they are still fine. Not more than halfway used up.

Is this normal?? In every other vehicle I have ever owned, from trucks to bicycles, the front brakes always wear out faster. Physics-wise, I don't understand how it's even possible for the rear brakes to go first. Somebody 'splain it to me, please!

 

What’s your setup look like? Have a cap? Tow a lot?

 

Gotta agrees with this subject with 280k my rear ones are gone quicker than the front ones, but I may have a worn-out rear bearing as the passenger side sticks quite often and it's a "newer" caliper, its Autozone brand, but even the OEM driver side ones drive them pads down. Makes me wonder if it's rear biased with them dinner sized plates in the front for reassurance.

 

That is unusual but having the fronts wear first means to me they are undersized by design.

 

Fronts do a larger share of the stopping on all vehicles, due mostly to the physics of weight transfer. That’s why the fronts are always the larger setups. Regardless, OPs brake wear is pretty solid. Over 80k on brakes for a vehicle this large is good.

 

I did my front brakes just over 60k miles for a squeak- they probably had 25% or more pad left. About a year later I wore a pad through in back dragging metal on metal just before 80k. I incorrectly assumed they’d be good for at least 100k miles based on the front. You’re not alone.

 

On my previous vehicle a Subaru Forester, the rears always wore out first before the fronts because they purposely set up the braking to apply an even amount between the brakes so that the braking would be smoother rather than lurching forward. Problem is the rears are so much smaller than the fronts they wore out very fast.

 

No cap, tow very little.

 

My Wrangler did the same thing. Rears lasted half as long as fronts. Crazy.

 

my rear brakes went first too

 

The traction control system / auto LSD uses the rear brakes to control spin. It has become much more common in all newer cars for the rear brakes to wear first.

 

My ford transit cargo van is designed to apply more rear than front, less nose dive.

 

I seem to recall the braking strategy for the tundras to actually apply the rears first. I don’t recall where I learned that or why - something about smoother, more balanced breaking due to the massive four piston front breaks vs the single piston rear. But I could be completely full of it, too…

My original brakes lasted 130k or so and both the front a rear were worn evenly and completely. All needed to be replaced at the same time. Since then, I’ve had to replace the rears once more after another 50k+ miles, but the front were barely half worn. I tow and haul often, but was virtually ALWAYS hauling and often towing since I changed the brakes the first time.

 

I just measured my pads today, about 6mm on all over them.

 

It's starting to make sense. I never thought about it, but Tundras don't stand on their nose when you slam on the brakes, like all vehicles used to do. Technological voodoo makes the rear brakes work harder than the fronts.

These front rotors may very well last 300K at the rate I'm going.

 

Hmmmmm, my 2018 fronts changed at 90k, rears still good at 125k... normal city/hwy 50/50 driving

 

Front's on mine wear more than rears.

 

Same