Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum banner
21 - 40 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
Now I'm more confused than ever:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
830 Posts
Because the brake system is proportioned to favor the front.
Then why do the rear brakes wear faster on my car? Rear pads to metal at 168k, but the fronts had at least half the material left at 175k if not more.

If the system is not proportioned to the front then at least the rears engage first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mickey

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
144 Posts
Then why do the rear brakes wear faster on my car? Rear pads to metal at 168k, but the fronts had at least half the material left at 175k if not more.

If the system is not proportioned to the front then at least the rears engage first.
Because race car

In all seriousness. It's a VW, it may have some proportioning system that detects wheel turn when locking the brakes up or someone might not have changed the previous pads correctly. You have no idea of how many times I've seen techs NOT replace the bushing on the slider pin in some brakes.


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
Then why do the rear brakes wear faster on my car? Rear pads to metal at 168k, but the fronts had at least half the material left at 175k if not more.

If the system is not proportioned to the front then at least the rears engage first.
So your factory pads still had 50% of their life left at 175,000 miles?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
830 Posts
Yes, 50% at 175k, while rears were toast. I bought the car with just 25 miles on it, no prior owners at all. I'm the only driver of the car too.

Only reason why I checked front pads was because one pad separated from the backing plate. Otherwise I would still be using, I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
Yes, 50% at 175k, while rears were toast. I bought the car with just 25 miles on it, no prior owners at all. I'm the only driver of the car too.

Only reason why I checked front pads was because one pad separated from the backing plate. Otherwise I would still be using, I think.
You get an A for effort but I call BS. In 40 years, I've never seen an OEM pad last 175,000 miles, much less still have 50% life left.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
834 Posts
You get an A for effort but I call BS.
Agreed. I've never seen any front pads last anything close to that long, OEM, aftermarket, or otherwise. Maybe somebody put the proportioning valve in backwards :D But not likely.

Brakes need to be biased to the front - the physics of stopping a vehicle demands it. Unless, of course, you drive your car around in reverse all day long. First off, there is more weight on the front axle of the vehicle (when unloaded) than on the back. You've got the motor, trans, steering, driver, braking systems, cooling system, battery, etc up front. When you slow down, the weight of the vehicle shifts forward putting more weight on the front axle and less weight on the back. So it only makes sense to bias braking power to the front wheels, as is evidenced by a proportioning valve which has been used in just about every vehicle from the 50's on and the disparity between rotor and caliper sizes front to back. Typically, 70% or more of your braking force comes from the front wheels.

In the early 90's, GM added Anti Lock Brakes to the rear brakes only on their pickups due to the rear brakes locking up when unloaded. Despite the fact that the front brakes were discs (and more powerful) and the backs were drums, plus a proportioning valve, they still locked up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
830 Posts
Sorry for the delay; WiFi was lousy at our campground.

Not sure what you think I gain by lying. But it is what it is. If it is any consolation, I have no expectation of getting such brake life out of my Tundra: have to ride the brakes all the time in this thing. Just yesterday I did a few miles of suburban driving driving, and when I got to the parking garage, I put my hands near the rotors, front and rear. Both front and rear were quite warm, if not hot--no way I was touching them! I'm used to being able to touch the rotors on my car when I get to work or home.

You see, I coast to stop most of the time. Manual transmission, so I can downshift once or twice. Rural commute. 45 miles to get to work, 45 miles home. I recently altered my drive, so I might make four stops on the way--before it was less, and a couple miles longer. One time I estimated my car spent over 90% of its time on the highway. It's less now, but it's still lots of rural driving. The car has also seen some plenty of highway trips. If it's any indication, I'm getting more than 10% over the pre-'08 high mpg estimate for my car -- it's being driven to minimize cost.

Anyhow, perhaps I'm in for a rude shock on this Tundra. I've noticed I've had to the brakes a ton more. Not sure why, probably because it's getting more use not on my well-known commute where I know where to let off and coast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AKtrd

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
97 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 · (Edited)
Upgraded my brakes + rotors today. Seem to work great. The break in period was inconvenient to find a street to do this. Power Stop rotors/pads front rear.
The break in procedure is critical to brake performance. The reason for a proper break in is to establish an even layer of friction material deposited on the rotors from the brake pads. It is very important that this initial layer of friction material is evenly distributed. Break in the pads as follows: 5 moderate to aggressive stops from 40 mph down to 10 mph in rapid succession without letting the brakes cool and do not come to a complete stop. Then do 5 mod*erate stops from 35 mph to 5 mph in rapid succession without letting the brakes cool. You should expect to smell some resin as the brakes get hot. After this is complete, drive around for as long as possible without excessively heating the brakes and without coming to a complete stop (Try for about 5 minutes at moderate speed). This is the cooling stage. It allows the heated resin in the brake pads to cool and cure. After the brakes have cooled to standard operating temperature, you may use the brakes normally.

I got it done
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,151 Posts
I asked one of my buddies with a Jetta in the family about his brakes yesterday. He had to replace his rears for the first time at 135K miles. He asked them to go ahead and do the fronts while it was there but they contacted him and told him he still had 40% or so on the front. :whoa:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
834 Posts
@ supton - I'm not trying to pick a fight about the brakes pads - that's just crazy to see that many miles on a set of pads. But if you say it and you mean, then I'll believe you. I've seen stranger things... :) Your explanation does make it sound much more plausible with a manual, downshifting before stops, <4 stops per 45 miles, etc. And jettas are much lighter than anything I drive.

My buddy's jetta ate brake pads for lunch. He was lucky to get more than 10,000 miles on his ceramic front pads. Granted, his was a modified GLi that spent more time around 6k RPM than anywhere else so he rode those brakes hard when he got on them.. Yeah, it was fast. That is, until he bought his Hyabusa. Crazy kid [shakes head left to right].
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Sorry for the delay; WiFi was lousy at our campground.

Not sure what you think I gain by lying. But it is what it is. If it is any consolation, I have no expectation of getting such brake life out of my Tundra: have to ride the brakes all the time in this thing. Just yesterday I did a few miles of suburban driving driving, and when I got to the parking garage, I put my hands near the rotors, front and rear. Both front and rear were quite warm, if not hot--no way I was touching them! I'm used to being able to touch the rotors on my car when I get to work or home.

You see, I coast to stop most of the time. Manual transmission, so I can downshift once or twice. Rural commute. 45 miles to get to work, 45 miles home. I recently altered my drive, so I might make four stops on the way--before it was less, and a couple miles longer. One time I estimated my car spent over 90% of its time on the highway. It's less now, but it's still lots of rural driving. The car has also seen some plenty of highway trips. If it's any indication, I'm getting more than 10% over the pre-'08 high mpg estimate for my car -- it's being driven to minimize cost.

Anyhow, perhaps I'm in for a rude shock on this Tundra. I've noticed I've had to the brakes a ton more. Not sure why, probably because it's getting more use not on my well-known commute where I know where to let off and coast.
I believe you because I drive the same way. I have however change the pads on my wife's automatic Camry probably four times in 210,000 miles but she drives more aggressively than me.
My commute was very similar to yours. With my Tundra, I quickly learned where I needed to start coasting to come to a stop. The engine braking on this Tundra is great! Actually, a little better than I'd like. I hardly use the brakes on my Tundra and expect to get over 100K miles on my original pads. I'm only at 21K now.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,349 Posts
Not true any more. Or at least not all the time. My VW (well, the model not just mine) is notorious for eating rear brake pads before fronts, typically at a rate of 2x the fronts. In order to help front end dive on braking, rear brakes are often activated first--on the VW anyhow it's called Electronic Brake Distribution, or EBD. On a truck I'd expect similar, since during towing the rear brakes are capable of doing much more work. The ABS controller deals with lockup issues but I'm guessing they can play with bias just the same with the controller, without having to wait for a tire to lock up.
Agree. Most 4 wheel disc vehicles the back brake hits first then the front brake.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,349 Posts
Those are rotor sizes, not caliper, but it reaffims what I said in the beginning. Your brakes are proportioned to the front. :) I've never known a manufacturer who built a vehicle otherwise.
Ford does...... 97 Thunderbird, 03 Crown Victoria.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,349 Posts
You get an A for effort but I call BS. In 40 years, I've never seen an OEM pad last 175,000 miles, much less still have 50% life left.
You can call B/S all day long. On here you have one Tundra owner going for 200k miles on his. I changed mine at 130k and had a lot of pad left. Right now the wife's 07 Prius has 135k miles and Toyota dealership checked them last month and gave her still in the green in pads. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Here's mine at over 100k miles. Only half a pad left.
PADS III Photo by Mickey9201 | Photobucket
100_1912.jpg Photo by Mickey9201 | Photobucket
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,349 Posts
Agreed. I've never seen any front pads last anything close to that long, OEM, aftermarket, or otherwise. Maybe somebody put the proportioning valve in backwards :D But not likely.

Brakes need to be biased to the front - the physics of stopping a vehicle demands it. Unless, of course, you drive your car around in reverse all day long. First off, there is more weight on the front axle of the vehicle (when unloaded) than on the back. You've got the motor, trans, steering, driver, braking systems, cooling system, battery, etc up front. When you slow down, the weight of the vehicle shifts forward putting more weight on the front axle and less weight on the back. So it only makes sense to bias braking power to the front wheels, as is evidenced by a proportioning valve which has been used in just about every vehicle from the 50's on and the disparity between rotor and caliper sizes front to back. Typically, 70% or more of your braking force comes from the front wheels.

In the early 90's, GM added Anti Lock Brakes to the rear brakes only on their pickups due to the rear brakes locking up when unloaded. Despite the fact that the front brakes were discs (and more powerful) and the backs were drums, plus a proportioning valve, they still locked up.
GM isn't the only one. Ford did it in their cars also. Yes the front has weight hence the size of the brake compared to the rear. The rear hits first for stability. I'm not sure if these trucks do the same but it would be to stable the load.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,349 Posts
Sorry for the delay; WiFi was lousy at our campground.

Not sure what you think I gain by lying. But it is what it is. If it is any consolation, I have no expectation of getting such brake life out of my Tundra: have to ride the brakes all the time in this thing. Just yesterday I did a few miles of suburban driving driving, and when I got to the parking garage, I put my hands near the rotors, front and rear. Both front and rear were quite warm, if not hot--no way I was touching them! I'm used to being able to touch the rotors on my car when I get to work or home.

You see, I coast to stop most of the time. Manual transmission, so I can downshift once or twice. Rural commute. 45 miles to get to work, 45 miles home. I recently altered my drive, so I might make four stops on the way--before it was less, and a couple miles longer. One time I estimated my car spent over 90% of its time on the highway. It's less now, but it's still lots of rural driving. The car has also seen some plenty of highway trips. If it's any indication, I'm getting more than 10% over the pre-'08 high mpg estimate for my car -- it's being driven to minimize cost.

Anyhow, perhaps I'm in for a rude shock on this Tundra. I've noticed I've had to the brakes a ton more. Not sure why, probably because it's getting more use not on my well-known commute where I know where to let off and coast.
Coasting to a stop or downshifting instead of brakes saves wear and tear on brakes. You won't ever get a warped rotor that way too. What you are doing is part of an advance driving technique. That's how you save gas and wear and tear.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,349 Posts
Because the brake system is proportioned to favor the front.
Not exactly. When the front tires leave the pavement and is in the air at the time you brake the front has no friction so they will lock up while the rear is still on the pavement will keep turning trying to slow the vehicle. You are welcome to try this in front of my subdivision. The turning lane is the same height as the roadway but right where the intersection starts it drops 3 inches so front wheels tend to lock up on people not braking way before the turn. In fact the asphalt is breaking up where the front tires hit because of the brake locking up.
 
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
Top