Car Brakes & Pads ? How Would I Know

nickcc

knightstyle wrote: »

Since they stopped using asbestos in the pads they do seem to wear out quicker. People who do regular track days were trying to get older pads for a while because they thought they were better and more progressive but that source seems to have gone now.

Brings back memories of using an airline to blow off brake and clutch dust, sometimes you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. Even after introducing equipment to minimise the exposure some clown would still use the old method. We used to wash down the drums and back plates with carbon tet until that was banned.

Arklight

chrisw wrote: »

Not necessarily so.

The newer Volvos (V60/XC60) seem to wear out rear pads twice or even three times as fast as the fronts. That's certainly been the case on my car.

There are a number of theories why the rears wear faster - rears brought into use slightly earlier to prevent nose dive, electronic parking brake dragging slightly on release, smaller cross sectional area of rear pads, etc.

The dealer suggested that a light braking driving style wears the rears, heavy braking wears the fronts.

That has got bells on, mate. How many pairs of rear pads has he had you for now?

chrisw

Arklight wrote: »

That has got bells on, mate. How many pairs of rear pads has he had you for now?

I've had the car from new just over 5 years ago. The last mot test noted the rear pads were worn so I changed them myself together with the rear discs ahead of this years mot test.

The fronts are still probably just under half worn. It's a common discussion/argument on the Volvo forums.

Eg https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/archive/index.php/t-258339.html

UncleZen

Apparently its quite common on Japanese cars to wear rear brakes quickly. Some models apply the inner rear brake when cornering to help with stability (quite common in motorsport). I think its common on Mazda's, but it also may depend a lot on how you corner, and at what speed.

mcpitman

chrisw wrote: »

I've had the car from new just over 5 years ago. The last mot test noted the rear pads were worn so I changed them myself together with the rear discs ahead of this years mot test.

The fronts are still probably just under half worn. It's a common discussion/argument on the Volvo forums.

Eg https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/archive/index.php/t-258339.html

Also noticeable on my car (a lowly vauxbore insignificant).

I have a "gentle/smooth" driving style and tend to get through 2x rear pads to every set of fronts.

But then again, I got nearly 120k miles from a front set of pads and discs...... (all motorway driving, no stress and minimal "urgent" braking).

Belenus

Ideally find a reliable local garage that you can trust.

Otherwise, for cars three years and older, an MOT will include a check on the pads and disks.

As far as I am aware you will get a fail if they are too worn and an advisory if they are getting close to end of life.

For low mileage cars that may be enough.

Get your car serviced according to the manufacturers advice or learn to do the required checks yourself.

foxy-stoat

discoveranother wrote: »

How would I know if brake pads and discs are low on the front or rear if I'm not the mechanic ?

You will find out at the annual service usually as its part of the service schedule.

You should be able to see the discs and pads if you look or as said take the wheel off.

If he said your rears needed changing when you only booked it in for the fronts you could excuse him of unnecessary work.

Robisere

nickcc wrote: »

Brings back memories of using an airline to blow off brake and clutch dust, sometimes you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. Even after introducing equipment to minimise the exposure some clown would still use the old method. We used to wash down the drums and back plates with carbon tet until that was banned.

Oh yes the good old days! I remember blowing asbestos into my face without a mask, using carbon tet in a parts washer. All carcinogens, probably why I was on Chemo for most of 2018.