Brake wear question about uneven wear
02-10-2012, 04:49 AM
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southeast
Posts: 1,481
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2008 C300 Sport, RWD, US
Brake wear question about uneven wear
I took my 2008 early production C300 with 82,000ish miles into the dealership primarily to have the transmission serviced and asked that they check the brake pads.
They later told me that the rear brakes had about 10% pad left and the fronts had 60-70 percent left. These are estimates.
Is this usual to have this much difference? I have/had the original brake pads on the rear...the ones that are terrible about putting dust on the rear wheels.
They later told me that the rear brakes had about 10% pad left and the fronts had 60-70 percent left. These are estimates.
Is this usual to have this much difference? I have/had the original brake pads on the rear...the ones that are terrible about putting dust on the rear wheels.
02-10-2012, 07:28 AM
#2
Super Moderator
For a town car the usual pad wear ratio is about 2.5 front sets to 1 rear set although it is very service dependent. If you have the messy soft batch of pads on the rear all bets are off. Their wear rates were abnormal hence the mess.
02-10-2012, 07:49 AM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southeast
Posts: 1,481
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2008 C300 Sport, RWD, US
Glyn...thanks for posting.
So what you're saying is that the front pads usually wear faster and that you'd normally have the rear pads lasting 2.5s longer than the fronts or do I have that backwards? Since the back pads were made of softer material is likely the cause of them wearing faster...even though I got 82,000 miles off of them. If wear is linear, I should be getting 160,000 miles off of the front brakes....that doesn't sound right, does it?
Would they have put the softer batch of pads on the back and not on the front? It seems that most of us that were having brake dust problems were having them on the back.
I just woke up and my brain is in overdrive. Sorry for all the questions.
So what you're saying is that the front pads usually wear faster and that you'd normally have the rear pads lasting 2.5s longer than the fronts or do I have that backwards? Since the back pads were made of softer material is likely the cause of them wearing faster...even though I got 82,000 miles off of them. If wear is linear, I should be getting 160,000 miles off of the front brakes....that doesn't sound right, does it?
Would they have put the softer batch of pads on the back and not on the front? It seems that most of us that were having brake dust problems were having them on the back.
I just woke up and my brain is in overdrive. Sorry for all the questions.
02-10-2012, 08:10 AM
#4
Super Moderator
Yes you have it right - back should last very approx 2.5 times front.
The soft pad problem was only rear pads. You should have black front wheels not back ones.
There are no ways fronts should last 160K. You are obviously a gentle driver.
Carsy is tending to see your unusual wear pattern on his diesel but it is a mainly open road car & he is a very predictive driver & gentle on brakes. We have speculated that his gentle brake use & mainly from speed may glaze the front pads & protect them a little.
The soft pad problem was only rear pads. You should have black front wheels not back ones.
There are no ways fronts should last 160K. You are obviously a gentle driver.
Carsy is tending to see your unusual wear pattern on his diesel but it is a mainly open road car & he is a very predictive driver & gentle on brakes. We have speculated that his gentle brake use & mainly from speed may glaze the front pads & protect them a little.
02-10-2012, 08:14 AM
#5
Super Moderator
Also - it's not wise to run brake pads until you trigger a sensor. There is a chance of friction material delamination from the backing plate when it gets too thin. The sensors should be considered a safety device.
