rear brake pads wear 4X faster than front...why?
rear brake pads wear 4X faster than front...why?
Hi,
My 1995 Z28 (pretty much stock) is at 65k and I have had to replace the rear brakes four times now...the front pads are still like new!
I don't drive the car that hard...
Any possible explanations?
Note: no drums on this car
My 1995 Z28 (pretty much stock) is at 65k and I have had to replace the rear brakes four times now...the front pads are still like new!
I don't drive the car that hard...
Any possible explanations?
Note: no drums on this car
I wore out a set of rears way earlier than fronts before, but that was before I had a line-lock installed, and I did the occasional "break-torque"
(although honestly, I only did maybe ~a half dozen, mostly at the track
) ... but the rear pads wore paper thin, while the fronts were still ~50% or slightly better.
However, since getting into some track days, I've gone through a couple sets of fronts, and no rear pads yet!
(although honestly, I only did maybe ~a half dozen, mostly at the track
) ... but the rear pads wore paper thin, while the fronts were still ~50% or slightly better.However, since getting into some track days, I've gone through a couple sets of fronts, and no rear pads yet!
You're saying Z28's had drum rears in 1998??? I believe you have that backwards. AFAIK, GM dropped the drum rear brakes on the regular V6 models for 1998. All models had disc brakes 1998-03 and AFAIK, all 4th gen Zs had 4 wheel discs.
Primary braking used the rotor disk.
Parking brake used an intergrated drum.
All this normally referred to as LS1 rear brakes, I put them on my 1995. I should have been more specific.
I've experienced replacing the rears twice for each front change on my 1995. I believe the brake bias is setup to minimize nose dive and therefore works the rears harder than "traditional" car setups. If your going through them at a 4X rate, something is wrong (i.e. pads dragging).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



