Original brake pads lasted 96,000 miles
 

Ok. I have to say this is a bit odd to me. The original pads lasted just over 96,000 miles on my 05 coupe. I had checked them around 50,000 expecting to change them (had the new pads ready to go) because every car I have ever owned needed them replaced around 30,000 miles. But I still had over half the pads remaining. And in reality, the front pads still did not need replaced at 96,000. There was plenty of pad left, although, I did go ahead and change them since I had the tires off. In reality, I believe I could have gotten 115,000 out of them easy.

Anyway, the point of this thread is to ask if this has been normal for others with this car.

Also, generally speaking, the front pads have always given way before the rear pads with my previous cars. In my case here, the rear pads did need replaced at this time and wore much faster than the front. This is the first car i have owned that was rear wheel drive with disc brakes. My other RWD cars were drums in the rear. So it is normal for a RWD car to wear the rear pads faster?

Wow...Ummm I had to change my original pads/rotors at 35k miles and i will be changing the ones i have on now in about 10k miles[im at 45 now]....but i have the ****ty 03/04 brakes, the brembo and 05/06 and 07 on coupes wear much slower than the 03/04 but 100k miles is a lot! do you put ur car in neutral and coast to a stop or something haha idk but what ever your doin you save money on brake pads :bigthumbup"

Wow is all I have to say.

On the rears wearing faster, I have read on here more than once that the VDC puts extra stress on the rear end causing the brakes back there to wear out faster than the fronts. Don't have a clue if that's true, but it sounds logical.

Pics? I would assume they were thin as paper! :eek:

I have over 55k miles on my 05 Coupe (6mt) as well and my original pads have more than half the pads left. I have a second set of rotors sitting in my garage but I havent even used them either!

As for the rear wearing out, Blue dream is right. The VDC activates individual rear brakes as needed (both or individually) for stability control and to control slipping of the rear tires on top of decreasing throttle(from what I read). My rears are still fine, but I am sure that in the end, my rears (which I still have original pads!) will need to be replaced before the fronts!

I will have to look and see if I still have the pads in the garage to take a pic.

The rear pads were paper thin but the fronts had at least half the pad remaining. I know it is damn odd but it is what it is.

It does make sense about the VDC. I appreciate the replies! It is a manual so I imagine there is some engine braking here and there but it is not normal practice. If the new pads do as well as the first set, this is the last set I will likely put on the car before the car is dead and gone.

Very strange!

my pads were just as good as new

its all relative to where you drive and how you drive

city driving is gonna eat more pad faster

im 90% highway....so my pads will probably live longer than I will

I have heard similar stories about the rears wearing out first, though I don't think it's the VDC causing it, but rather EBFD (Electronic Brake Force Distribution) with apportions more pressure to the rears under certain braking situations.

Congrats on the long wear!

Lol, I replaced my brembo's with Wagner ThermoQuiets (EW DUST!!!) AROUND 66k, I'm now at about 82K and they're going to need to be replaced soon.

Maybe I brake alot? lol.

Just replaced the front pads and rotors on my 06 sedan this past weekend. I had replaced the rear pads at about 45k miles because the wear indicators were going off. I was doing the shocks/struts and got a killer deal on the rotors so I figured I would replace them. The oem pads had plenty of material and could have gone another 30-40k miles easy but I replaced them because I was already in there. I drive about 80% city.

I bought my G in May 2004 and joined this forum immediately. I read that the brakes were giving quite a few 2003 owners' problems so I change to Hawk HPS immeditely. Now I am at 80K with all orginal rotors. The rear pads wore much faster than the front, I am at 3rd set since last October The front pads are still orignal HPS, maybe still good for another 10K. These Hawk pads are really rotor friendly and low dust.

My car is at the dealership right now to have the front brakes replaced. I have an '06 6MT coupe with 58,000 miles on it. I just had the back pads replaced a few thousand miles ago, but the dealership is telling me I've only worn 30% of the front pads down.

My claim to the dealership is that the front brakes aren't adjusted correctly if the back brakes are doing most of the work. They're claiming everything checks out okay.

I personally don't think that makes a lot of sense.

have you taken the tires off and looked at the pads yourself??

Some pads last a long time

I dont think the wear issue was as bad as some make it

My understanding was the compound differed between the front and rear pads. Brake bias is probably around 70% front and 30% or somewhere around there but the composition of the rear pads wears at a much faster rate.

Alright,here's my update from the dealership. I was told by the head service technician that the reason why the rear brake pads wear out before the front brake pads is because "Nissan" designed the braking system to have the back brakes handle more of the stopping to prevent the nose of the car from diving during braking.