On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:04:39 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.
If the rear PADS wore out (rear disk brakes) there is a very strong
chance there is either a problem with the parking brake cable or
actuator,(caliper) or someone has a habit of driving with the parking
brake on. General rule of thumb is 2 or 3 sets of front brakes to one
set of rear brakes. My ranger got new front brakes at about 166,00
(0km (8 years) - but that's highway miles, no load, and standard
transmission. Still origional rears at 314,000km - and about half
lining left. - well over half pads left too. They were changed because
of a thump - not because they were worn out.