HizliBullet

Heavier braking in the rear counter balances the laws of physics that force u to lean forward (during breaking)

English not first language someone tell me they see what I mean

stupidgenius36

Wrong. Most of the braking is done by the front. The rears help you keep control.

HizliBullet

I called ford after ur comment, heres what they say "nowadays on all disc brake vehicles its equally proportional but there more braking on the rear than in the front" I did my idea back up i'd like to hear urs.

stupidgenius36

My simple answer: Notice the bigger rotors and calipers on the front brakes vs the rear? Bigger rotors allow more torque to be put on the wheel, and therefore more stopping power. As you brake, weight shifts forward...Which means that more grip and more stopping power can be applied to the front without them locking up, and the opposite for the rear. When the wheels lock up, you lose control. If the rear is supplying too much braking, then you're not gonna be happy.

Outside source, in case you don't want to believe me:
http://www.stoptech.com/technical-su...brake-upgrades

"Finally, under an OEM bias condition, the rear brakes only contribute about 15-20% of all the braking force the vehicle generates..."

bob

The less wordy version would be initiating braking from the rear enhances stability.

This is the same reason why when all four tires are the same size and type if your installing less than four you always install from the rear.

Same thing with differing speed ratings, always install the higher speed rating on the rear.

kcoTiger

On anything but rear engine cars, the front will have heavier braking. When the brakes are applied in the back, the centrifugal force pulls the weight counter-clockwise around the rear wheel. This forces the front end down even further, causing the nose to "dive" because of the suspension giving under the excess force. This doesn't create more force on the rear axle, vertically, but horizontally. Horizontal force doesn't add to the vertical force component of the force vector, meaning the only things acting in the rear tires' favor in terms of stopping the car are the vehicle's initial weight over the rear wheels and the coefficient of friction of the tires themselves. On the front end, braking at any point delivers an incredibly strong vertical force component over the front axle by delivering any rotational or centrifugal force component created by rear breaking as well as "catching" the inertia generated by the car and its mass with the front suspension. This then means that a much larger percentage of the vehicle's weight sits squarely on the front suspension and, by design, on the front tires/rotors/brakes. The suspension forces the weight down upon the wheels, and the rotation of the wheels then transfers that force to the tires. The tires are stopped by the larger, heavier front brakes. The greater vertical force component also allows the front tires to do more of the work in stopping the car; whereas the rear tires can only stop as much as the initial weight and coefficient of friction allow, the front can use the extra force on the tires to help stop the car by increasing the contact patch and therefore a larger portion of the tire can be used to help stop the car before the coefficient of friction is overcome. Hand braking is a perfect illustration of this. Also, think about loading during acceleration: the back end receives the weight transfer and is able to more effectively grip the asphalt as a result. This is why braking is always stronger in the front.

There is no truth to the idea that the effects of forward inertia is minimized by rear--or any kind of--braking. That enertia is there and has to be stopped one way or another. To suggest otherwise is ignoring the laws of physics.

HizliBullet

okay that was the explanation I was looking for, now I see

mcate

A friend of my son has a 2006 V6 Mustang, & I put rear brakes on it last year at around 50k miles. The fronts were fine, & I found that really weird. Like most on here, I've always done front brakes first.

wheelman

Sure those fronts hadnt been replaced already?

stupidgenius36

Just replaced mine at around 57,000mi. They were all about the same, and I use my parking brake liberally while driving.

kn7671

I replaced my brakes at 28k miles on my 2011 5.0 6MT, not because the pads were worn out, but I just felt like the rotors had become a little warped, and contained countless heat spots front and rear, causing a little more shake and fade under duress than they originally had when with less than 20k miles on them.

In my 2011 5.0 6MT, I had performed countless runs well over the legal limit, and was driven quite hard on occasion. Here's the thing though, even with hard braking and over 28k miles, the front and rear pads still had 1/4" of brake pad material remaining on every single pad, inboard and outboard, front and rear.

There are only 2 explanations for excessive rear brake wear on a Mustang when compared to the front:

1. Burn Outs while lightly using the brakes to hold the car in place. At the drag strip, people typically use Line Locks to allow the rear brakes to be completely disengaged while engaging the front to hold the car, thus the rear suffer ZERO wear or use.
2. A Malfunction in the braking system.

If I were a Ford Service Advisor, I would have the techs look at the car and examine the brakes, and if found that the rear were damaged from Burn Outs and not any type of Malfunction, I will bill the heck out of the customer trying to get a freebie out of Ford.

This thread sort of reminds me of the threads where idiots were trying to blame the #8 cylinder failure on Ford, and then after we all start poking and prodding, we found that the idiots had loaded a crappy Tune files on the new 5.0 engine, thus causing the failure. I'm not saying the OP is crying wolf and blaming Ford, but there are many many mechanically inclined people on this forum that know how Automotive Braking systems work, and know how to diagnose these issues rapidly.

And to the guy somewhere above that said he called a Ford Service Advisor, and that the service advisor stated that Front and Rear braking is equal is today's cars, please tell us where that was, as we need to BlackList that dealer for any Mustang warranty work.

kn7671

I take that back, there is a 3rd way the rear brakes could excessively wear before the fronts.

3. The owner is driving with the parking brake engaged.

These cars have enough power that if the parking brake was lightly engaged, you probably wouldn't even feel it.

bob

Or it sticks and tru'dat. I had the rear brakes stick one time and I didn't notice until I pulled into the driveway which is on a slight incline. I let the clutch out to roll back and the car just stopped. The parking brake handle was down and the light was off but the rear calipers were engaged.

kn7671

2. A Malfunction in the braking system.

Bert

driving with the parking brake on would do it, maybe parking brake cable is out of adjustment?

edit: didn't see second page before I posted, now I see this has been mentioned already

FordService

Hello DrFrag,

I advise you to have your dealer take a look at your vehicle and make sure there is nothing else going on before just replacing them. Make an appointment with them and PM me with VIN, dealer, mileage, and contact info so I can help.

Deysha

Mustangfreak

I haven't seen this posted yet, but where did you get your oil changed?

If it was at a jiffy lube or whatever, I wouldn't trust them. I wouldn't trust them with my bicycle! Take it to a Ford dealer and have them check the pads. And if it was at a Ford dealer, take it to another for a second opinion and have them warranty it if they are really 3mm.

Fat Boss

Bwut what? The fronts do the VAST majority of the braking. If you had anywhere near equal braking on the fronts and backs the backs would be locking up all the time. The weight transfers to the front giving waaay more traction there to do the actual braking. Your theory is suggesting that the wheels are somehow disconnected to the inertia of the car and that slowing the front of the car would be different than slowing the back of the car from a perception standpoint. Just not the case. If the backs were doing more work they'd be bigger.

On my 99 Super Duty diesel 4x4 crew cab, I've changed the rear pads once in over 275,000 miles. The fronts had new pads once, and new rotors and pads once. But the manual transmission makes for much longer life for the brakes in general. Automatics will cause you to use the brakes significantly more.

DrFrag

It was at a major Ford dealer in the southern california area. I would never take my car to a jiffy lube or similar.

Additionally, I just got off the phone with them and they said the warranty is 12 months or 18k miles, whichever is first. the car is 14 months old so no dice on the warranty

DrFrag

I will definitely do this, thank you!