I was at my tire/lube place for typical maintenance, and they warned me that my front pads looked low. After an inspection, they said it was 2mm on one side, 3mm on the other. Rear shoes were at 7mm ("like new", were his exact words). This is at my vehicle's 180,000 mile maintenance (actually performed at 179,300 miles). Is this normal that the rear brakes still have so much left, vs the front? (I guess, by normal, I mean for a hypermiled vehicle. ) This is on a traditional ICE'd 07 Toyota Matrix, base engine (front disc, rear drum). I downshift when coming to a stop regularly (keeping an eye on RPMs). Thanks.
Are the rear drums self-adjusting? If not, were they adjusted properly? Are the rear pistons working correctly? This would seem to come down to the engineering of the balance of braking power; and /or the hardness of the drum shoes.
Yes, about 80% in a hard stop with a typical small FWD car. Drums are less susceptible to rust-related wear, if you park outside a lot.
Another thing is that driving to maximize economy means that brakes are used less - and for some disks, that means rust could then cause more wear?
Some years ago, my wife said the brakes were funny on our 2008 Hyundai Accent. Took it to my mechanic figuring the front disk pads needed changing. Picking up the car later, suprisingly, he said the original rear drums needed work! But the original front pads were excellent. At 140,000 miles now, the original front pads are still in good shape. Up to 2007, the Accent had disk brakes all around, but went to rear drums in 2008. I don't think it was coincidence that the rear drums needed work.
Hi MPGee: Sounds pretty normal actually. My 18 Elantra doing severe duty rideshare had new brakes installed at the 97k mark. Fronts were not drawn down as their was 40 percent left but the discs were beginning to warp. Rear drum shoes were at 65 percent. Wayne
