ABS brakes and pad wear

[Sparty92]

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]

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.

 

[sjpony]

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]

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]

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.

 

[67&05STANGS]

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.

 

[Five Oh Brian]

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

 

[SpartaPerformance]

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. ..........

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

 

[Sparty92]

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]

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.

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....

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..

 

[racerraj]

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.