Notices

I was quite surprised

Old 12-03-2008, 09:08 AM
  #1  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Garett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 24,131
Default I was quite surprised

The other day when I did my rear brakes, they were worse off then the fronts; I was surprised! I did the fronts the week before. My truck is a 03 Dodge 2500 diesel, 4x4, quad cab, extended box. The truck has disk brakes front and back.
I was always under the understanding that one would change the fronts twice to the back once. And yet here the backs were worse then the fronts. This was the truck's first brake job.
Garett is offline  
Old 12-03-2008, 10:32 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England
Posts: 5,074
Default Re: I was quite surprised

Have you ever left the emergency/parking brake on and drove?, that is unless the rear discs use some other way to engage the e/parking brake like Mercedes uses which is another set of shoes on the inside of the disc/rotor-hub. Or, if like my truck, which has a load-sensor in it that adjusts pressure to the rear brakes as appropriate, and you either tow/haul a lot, then that might account for the rear brakes being worn at a rate of some 2:1 which sure is unusual. I have 90,000 miles and have replaced my front pads once but my rear pads have a lot of life left and I do adjust them every now and then as they are drums.

thundra is offline  
Old 12-03-2008, 12:58 PM
  #3  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 12,710
Default Re: I was quite surprised

My rears typically wear out quicker The reason I think(not a fact just opinion) is they are smaller in size 13" in front with 7" pads 11 or 12" with 5" pads The rears also don't wear as evenly as the fronts The piston side is usually 1/3 more worn than the slave side My truck might have a proportion valve problem I don't know and don't really care
ubettcha13 is offline  
Old 12-03-2008, 11:20 PM
  #4  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Garett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 24,131
Default Re: I was quite surprised

There's no doubt about it my backs are definitely a much smaller pad, maybe that's why? Sounds plausible that's for certain.
Hauling / towing, oh there’s no doubt I’ve put some Serious weight back of me, but that wouldn’t be my norm.
Diff valve, I guess it wouldn’t kill me to bleed out the brakes just to make sure the valve is set properly.
Garett is offline  
Old 12-04-2008, 01:41 AM
  #5  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: S. Galvez, Louisiana. Ame
Posts: 7,448
Default Re: I was quite surprised

Leaving the e brakes on won't do it.
twentynine is offline  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:18 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 852
Default Re: I was quite surprised

Hesitate to report this but....... '85 GMC pickup w/ 237,000 miles on it, original rear brakes (drums & shoes). Have pulled them down several times assuming they were shot but still have significant material. The fronts are a different story, replaced the pads numerous times as well as rotor replacements.
Rascalsdad is offline  
Old 12-05-2008, 06:23 PM
  #7  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Whitesboro, texas
Posts: 8,050
Default Re: I was quite surprised

On drum breaks the rears will last for ever BUT on 4 wheel disc the rears will go out a lot faster on every make.
welder is offline  
Old 12-05-2008, 07:58 PM
  #8  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGERPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maui and SoCal
Posts: 7,103
Default Re: I was quite surprised

Rascalsdad: I'm going with Welder on this one. Early GM rear brakes were there because the lawyers said they had to be there, not because they worked. Early GM softspension made every vehicle stand on its nose in braking, so the rear axle was unloaded. If they'd have put real brakes on them, the wheels would have locked. Once GM finally realized that cars and trucks could stop without pitching forward and revised their suspensions accordingly, the rear brakes actually got to work.

I'm not picking on them. It is the way they were made. I own a 1970 and a 1978 El Camino. I know all about the early GM four link rear suspension systems.
kerno is offline  
Old 12-05-2008, 08:27 PM
  #9  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: South Jersey - That's below Cherry Hill
Posts: 761
Default Re: I was quite surprised

I just put my 5th set of pads along with new rotors on the front of my E-150. I bought new rear shoes as well but never took them out of the box, they aren't even close to needing replacing. It has 194,000 on it (And it's not a GM).
linesix is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread