brakes...

OK...so I serviced my brakes yesterday...53,000 miles and 1st time to mess w/them. Curious though, my front pads still had about 1/2 left; however, the rears were about gone. I thought the front's would/should wear before the rear. Is this normal? Not that I'm complaining, just curious

normal on the JK's

I'm doing my rears this weekend. When we did my Ox install, the rear inner pads were down to about an 1/16" left, and about 1/8" left on the outers (that uneven wear is caused by the stupid single piston design). I only have 24k miles, but the majority of my driving is stop/go city driving.

My fronts pads look almost brand new- hardly any wear on them at all.

No one has any real reason as to why the rears wear out faster on the JK's. My guess is they are using softer material pads from the factory.

TxRubiRig wrote:

OK...so I serviced my brakes yesterday...53,000 miles and 1st time to mess w/them. Curious though, my front pads still had about 1/2 left; however, the rears were about gone. I thought the front's would/should wear before the rear. Is this normal? Not that I'm complaining, just curious

That does seem odd. I have never had a vehicle with 4 wheel discs before. Might have something to do with the proportioning. I thought they applied the front brakes first.

Thanks for the info though. I am planning to get mine done at 50k. Guess they won't last much longer

Here is a possible solution. Raising the front would make a mechanical proportioning valve "think" the vehicle is loaded. Could just need an adjustment. Position of valve is based on vehicle height, front compared to rear. If only people with lifts have the problem.................

There are three main positions for these
types of valves. The position it spends most of its life is where the
vehicle is operating at normal ride height and performing routine stops
(see Figure 11). In this position the rear brakes are allowed to do
their fair share of the vehicle's braking.
The next most common position for the
valve is when the vehicle is carrying a load. When the vehicle is
loaded the valve is opened further (Figure 12) to allow the rear brakes
to do more braking. This is one area that sets it apart from its
hydraulic counterpart.

N2rock wrote:

No one has any real reason as to why the rears wear out faster on the JK's. My guess is they are using softer material pads from the factory.

Physics would dictate the front getting more wear. The rears should have very little, if any stopping power relative to the front. I'd go with the softer pads b/c they figured it wouldn't need the harder ones, and kept at it once they determined it to be a revenue stream. Minor, but a revenue stream nonetheless. =)

!c

jkdrone wrote:

N2rock wrote:

No one has any real reason as to why the rears wear out faster on the JK's. My guess is they are using softer material pads from the factory.

Physics would dictate the front getting more wear. The rears should have very little, if any stopping power relative to the front. I'd go with the softer pads b/c they figured it wouldn't need the harder ones, and kept at it once they determined it to be a revenue stream. Minor, but a revenue stream nonetheless. =)

!c

Yup, that's my guess as well.

N2rock wrote:

jkdrone wrote:

N2rock wrote:

No one has any real reason as to why the rears wear out faster on the JK's. My guess is they are using softer material pads from the factory.

Physics would dictate the front getting more wear. The rears should have very little, if any stopping power relative to the front. I'd go with the softer pads b/c they figured it wouldn't need the harder ones, and kept at it once they determined it to be a revenue stream. Minor, but a revenue stream nonetheless. =)

!c

Yup, that's my guess as well.

It's hard for me to believe they would do that. I guess I have too much faith that companies will do the right thing.

I read on a couple forums that several manufacturers use softer material on rear brakes to "reduce noise".

BMW and Volkswagen to name a couple.

jdldx3 wrote:

It's hard for me to believe they would do that. I guess I have too much faith that companies will do the right thing.

I read on a couple forums that several manufacturers use softer material on rear brakes to "reduce noise".

BMW and Volkswagen to name a couple.

Generally speaking, the right thing is the least you can get away with, that makes you the most profit, and pisses your customers off least. Sometimes, you can modify the last part by coming up with very plausible-sounding explanations for cutting corners. *grin* (Really though, you've gotta separate the MBAs from the engineers. The engineers have no interest in screwing you over, the MBAs "product" is a maximized profit. =)

!c

jkdrone wrote:

Generally speaking, the right thing is the least you can get away with, that makes you the most profit, and pisses your customers off least. Sometimes, you can modify the last part by coming up with very plausible-sounding explanations for cutting corners. *grin* (Really though, you've gotta separate the MBAs from the engineers. The engineers have no interest in screwing you over, the MBAs "product" is a maximized profit. =)

!c

MBA? masters in bs and asskissing?

I still say there is something to be said about not cutting corners and making an all around quality product. Guess I am still living in the past