• Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech

ABS brakes and pad wear

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sparty92
  • Start date Start date Apr 11, 2010

Sparty92

Member
Jul 30, 2007
430
5
19
Detroit Burbs
Apr 11, 2010
#1
  • Apr 11, 2010
  • #1
So I called my dealer the other day asking them why it appeared my rear brakes were wearing faster than my front brakes.

"Your car has ABS," he said.

I am pretty sure ABS is only activated when you're about to die and you're hard on the brakes...?

"The ABS is used every time you brake for stability," he said.

Ok...um...

My car has 48K+ miles. The tech that did my front control arm TSB asked if I had new brakes on the car...I told him they were original. He was impressed, given the mileage.

I figured the front brakes do about 80% of the stopping, so why is the guy on the phone telling me that ABS is activated every time I stop for "stability" purposes, and the rears will wear out faster than the fronts.

Any comments?

Thanks!
 

ct07gt

Member
Feb 14, 2008
377
0
16
Apr 11, 2010
#2
  • Apr 11, 2010
  • #2
Pretty sure the ABS only works when the sensors detect lockup, however the traction control is ABS based. When the TCS detects wheelspin, the system cuts engine power and applies the rear brakes. If the TCS comes on a lot you will be speeding up rear brake pad wear.
 
S

sjpony

New Member
Apr 6, 2010
100
0
0
Apr 11, 2010
#3
  • Apr 11, 2010
  • #3
I was just gong to say TCS. I'm sure controlling the wheel spin is harder on the brakes than normal use. I had a 2003 that, no lie, made it over 80K on the original brakes.
 

Sparty92

Member
Jul 30, 2007
430
5
19
Detroit Burbs
Apr 11, 2010
#4
  • Apr 11, 2010
  • #4
So I assume that ONLY when the traction control light flickers (ie, rain, wet roads, snow....for me)....the ABS kicks on. General light squealing of the tires around corners or off the line does not actuate traction control under most instances. Ford allows the Mustang a certain amount of wheelspin off the line before it kicks in, from my understanding.

Therefore...I rarely see my traction control light flicker. So.....

Why are my rear pads more worn than my fronts? The e-brake is not sticking, either...as I can coast forever.
 

SpartaPerformance

10 Year Member
Nov 5, 2006
2,517
61
89
Long Island NY
Apr 11, 2010
#5
  • Apr 11, 2010
  • #5
That would have to be A LOT of TCS system being activated to wear rear brakes. All I can say is that it does happen. I get all sorts of vehicles different kinds every day and once in a while I'll see rear pads worn before fronts.
 
6

67&05STANGS

Member
Apr 4, 2005
54
1
6
Dearborn Michigan
Apr 12, 2010
#6
  • Apr 12, 2010
  • #6
There are two other reasons that rear discs wear faster than the fronts. Ford engineers re-calibrated the proportioning valve to apply the rear brakes sooner to prevent nose-diving with regard to jamming on the brakes before a crash. It seems that in crash tests the low profile of most cars today combined with slamming on the brakes was stuffing the front of the car under the impacted vehicle. The other reason the rear discs wear out faster is that they are quite a bit smaller than the fronts. I have changed the rears before the fronts in both my wifes's Fusion and my son's Explorer Sport. Ford really should enlarge the rear discs to compensate for all of this.
 
Reactions: ABC

Five Oh Brian

Member
Jun 13, 2007
552
1
16
Pacific Northwest
Apr 12, 2010
#7
  • Apr 12, 2010
  • #7
I recently upgraded to slotted rotors and Hawk ceramic pads on my 07 GT. Only have 23K miles on the car. The stock front pads still look nearly new with tons of life left, while the rears were almost gone....


Fronts...

View attachment 222980


Rears...

View attachment 222981
 
Reactions: ABC

SpartaPerformance

10 Year Member
Nov 5, 2006
2,517
61
89
Long Island NY
Apr 12, 2010
#8
  • Apr 12, 2010
  • #8
67&05STANGS said:
There are two other reasons that rear discs wear faster than the fronts. Ford engineers re-calibrated the proportioning valve to apply the rear brakes sooner to prevent nose-diving with regard to jamming on the brakes before a crash. ..........
Click to expand...

This is the most common reason,adjusting the bias to reduce brake dive can prevent cars from sliding under other cars during collisions.
 

Sparty92

Member
Jul 30, 2007
430
5
19
Detroit Burbs
Apr 24, 2010
#9
  • Apr 24, 2010
  • #9
Asked another dealer the same question. His answer:

The rear pads are smaller and thinner than the front pads to begin with. Makes sense to me as the front brakes do 80% of the stopping anyway. That said, my brakes would look to be worn "proportionately" to each other.
 

ABC

Active Member
Feb 28, 2017
122
17
38
Newark, OH
Feb 10, 2020
#10
  • Feb 10, 2020
  • #10
67&05STANGS said:
There are two other reasons that rear discs wear faster than the fronts. Ford engineers re-calibrated the proportioning valve to apply the rear brakes sooner to prevent nose-diving with regard to jamming on the brakes before a crash. It seems that in crash tests the low profile of most cars today combined with slamming on the brakes was stuffing the front of the car under the impacted vehicle. The other reason the rear discs wear out faster is that they are quite a bit smaller than the fronts. I have changed the rears before the fronts in both my wifes's Fusion and my son's Explorer Sport. Ford really should enlarge the rear discs to compensate for all of this.
Click to expand...

Five Oh Brian said:
I recently upgraded to slotted rotors and Hawk ceramic pads on my 07 GT. Only have 23K miles on the car. The stock front pads still look nearly new with tons of life left, while the rears were almost gone....
Click to expand...

I have a 2014 Mustang V6 that I just took in today for a servicing and say my Fronts were a 5 (green) and the Rears were a 3 (red). I thought either A. The fronts would wear out quicker since in my head Physics would dictate the front needs stopped first since that's where all the force is while stopped, or B. They would wear at the same rate since the front rotors and pads are so much larger. I too have after market brakes like Five Oh Brian and believe I upgraded early 2017, so basically 3 years ago. At that time I was told my brakes were wearing at a Ford servicing but will have to check on what they said then. All I know is I measured my old rear pads since I still have them, and they're at 1/2 inch so basically 12.7mm. Anything between 10-12mm is normal from what I've read online. The guy at Midas who I had use a PowerStop upgrade rotors and brake pads kit said my old pads were still good. Only reason why I'm concerned now is lately I've felt grinding and hear squeaks as well as the car feeling like it's wanting to inch forward at a stop sometimes. I read that if you're not too hard on your brakes the rears wear more because the master cylinder for current cars goes to the rear first then to the front if additional pressure is applied. This apparently prevents your car from nose diving. So I guess if I want my brakes to wear at the same rate I need to stomp on the brake pedal more often LOL. Anyway that's what I have found. Not too happy about it, but since no shop will put my rear pads back in guess I will. Autozone loans you a rear caliper tool needed to push a piston back in. The piston is for the Emergency braking system? Anyway yeah, pretty weird there is such a huge difference between front and rear, especially with the fronts being bigger. Rears should be bigger if they're gonna wear quicker. I guess they're smaller to prevent lockup but still..
 
R

racerraj

Founding Member
Dec 17, 2001
493
32
39
Dickson, TN
Feb 21, 2020
#11
  • Feb 21, 2020
  • #11
I bought my 2006 Mustang GT new. I consistently go 120,000 miles on the front pads and 80,000 miles on the rear pads. The car has 286,000 miles now. My wife's 2009 Front Wheel Drive Ford Flex eats the rear pads faster than the front as well. Only cars I've had that do that. Has to be abs related. They can probably dial more brake in the rear now for better stopping power and let the ABS handle the hard braking to prevent oversteer under braking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Which SN95 axles for 93 LX, disc brakes, ABS rings?
  • dan50
  • Mar 22, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
15
Views
452
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 3, 2026
7-UP BILL
L
05GT brakes on a 98GT?
  • lparsons42
  • Sep 6, 2025
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
174
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Sep 6, 2025
lparsons42
L
Brakes ABS in a Fox - Mark Bettin
  • AeroCoupe
  • Mar 28, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 17, 2025
AeroCoupe
S
Brake issue after changing pads and rotors
  • squirrel0420
  • Jul 14, 2025
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
15
Views
840
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk- Jul 18, 2025
nickyb
Brakes Brake caliper ID help
  • kidott
  • Sep 2, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
1
Views
199
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Sep 2, 2025
AeroCoupe
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?