"Anthony Giorgianni" wrote...
> Hello All. Sorry for the length of this.
>
> I'm hoping folks here might be able to come up with a theory - or
confirm
> one of my theories - about what is happening with my 92 Explorer brakes.
> Keep in mind that I'm an unusual in how I use the brakes; more on that
> later...
>
> ISSUE: I have about 97,000 miles and have never changed the pads. The
> thing
> is the rear brake shoes are wearing out FASTER than the front disc
brakes
> pads, although both are wearing very slowly...
> MY DRIVING HABITS: I think you can tell that I am EXTREMELY light on the
> brakes...
> So... has anyone seen this before, with rear brakes wearing out as fast
or
> more quickly than the fronts?
Thanks so much for making me feel better and not think that I'm crazy. I
have a '96 Explorer with about 128k miles on it. Like you, I'm not an
aggressive driver although I won't say that "I am extremely light on the
brakes" as you do. I definitely don't use my emergency brake as a
substitute
for the disk brakes as you do.
My rear pads were replaced at about 90k miles and the front pads are
still
original. [Even better, I'm still on my first clutch--yes, I'm stick
****ft,
like you, with the V-6 engine.]
I have a cousin who runs a very successful auto repair shop in Chicago
who
told me this is impossible, but it's true. I do have my brakes serviced
(pad
thickness check, lube the rails, etc. at the prescribed intervals) and am
still on my original factory front pads after almost 13 years.
Based on my history, I'd agree with you and go ahead and get the rear
pads
replaced now. More than likely, the car will live out its useful life
without ever having a front pad replacement.
Craig in Northern AZ
|
