Brake pad lifetime

[LT1Zob]

Funny this came up. Was listening to someone complain recently about pads. Apparently GM sold him a "track capable car" and after "only" a dozen or so track events, his pads were not looking so good. Of course, this was GM's fault. Some people are just idiots and can't be helped. But anyway OP, as others have said, 100% up to how you drive. Mine's a summer weekend driver that gets pushed on the curvy back roads and sees a few track weekends a year, so you wouldn't like my answer. But I will say, the OEM pads will take a lot of punishment and still work very well for these rather heavy cars

[rshelar]

2015 SS auto with Brembo changed at 45k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[myold88]

My front pads and rotors were were changed at 48,000 miles with OEM GM parts.
My rears still have 50% remaining. Both local & highway driving with my 2010 SS.

[Rainbow1616]

replaced pads at 20000 miles but only because I was getting the calipers powder coated and I didn't like the roller skate pads anyway. Just recently replaced all the rotors because they were getting ugly.

[Spurshot]

My 2014 SS auto went to about 40,000 for the fronts. Still going on the rears. Probably change the rears around 50k.

[Marko7230]

45000 miles. I uses Autozone Gold brake pads, & have had no issues.

[Scalded Dog]

I live in the mountains, with 25 miles of steep mountain highway for every day's commute. I also drive hard and fast... I rarely get more than 15,000 miles out of a set of TIRES, but, for braking, I use the gears instead of the brakes.

This gave me 100,000 miles on my first set of front pads... I've now put 70,000 miles on the NEXT set, and they still look pretty good.

Most people in my area with similar mountain commutes get 5,000 to 10,000 miles out of a set... and most other vehicles I have owned got similar numbers. So, it's remarkable to me that I'm able to squeeze 100,000 miles out of a set on THIS car. But, I guess driving style (gears vs. brakes) makes all the difference. I drive this car much harder than most of my previous vehicles (none of which were performance- oriented), but staying off of the binders and keeping it in the correct gear has made these pads last.

[Lndryguru]

19 k because the pads were making my black wheels look brown with all the brake dust

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by gzobian

But anyway OP, as others have said, 100% up to how you drive. Mine's a summer weekend driver that gets pushed on the curvy back roads and sees a few track weekends a year, so you wouldn't like my answer.

Over or under 2500?


Norm

[Spurshot]

Originally Posted by Scalded Dog

I live in the mountains, with 25 miles of steep mountain highway for every day's commute. I also drive hard and fast... I rarely get more than 15,000 miles out of a set of TIRES, but, for braking, I use the gears instead of the brakes.

This gave me 100,000 miles on my first set of front pads... I've now put 70,000 miles on the NEXT set, and they still look pretty good.

Most people in my area with similar mountain commutes get 5,000 to 10,000 miles out of a set... and most other vehicles I have owned got similar numbers. So, it's remarkable to me that I'm able to squeeze 100,000 miles out of a set on THIS car. But, I guess driving style (gears vs. brakes) makes all the difference. I drive this car much harder than most of my previous vehicles (none of which were performance- oriented), but staying off of the binders and keeping it in the correct gear has made these pads last.

Brake pads are cheaper than engines, clutches, throwout bearings, and syncros. Just sayin. No free lunches. An engine's wear is directly tied to the revolutions it sees.

[Dan1028]

I got about 50k-60k from the pads. The dealership installed some other GM pads by accident and it was quite noticeable performance-wise...this was after I had asked for all OEM original stock parts. I looked at the profile and noticed the roller skates missing. Dealership confirmed they messed up . Not sure if bedding in the wrong pads screwed up the rotors for life, but things seem correct now after about 15-20k miles...

[Gasoholic]

I'm fleet mechanic for ambulance company. We have mostly Ford E-350 and 450s, some assorted pool cars, and wheelchair busses and a couple really big rigs with air brakes, and air over hydraulic brakes.
I find myself replacing brakes about every 50k miles. Give or take.
I've noticed the on the pool cars which are like Focuses and Fusions, and a few Expeditions and Escapes, the pad life is less. The Focuses, and Fusions only get around 40k before I have to replace them.
They're slowly changing out the wheelchair busses to the Ford Transits. Man those things suck! Pads start getting to the 20% range by 30k.
We try to change out brakes when they get just below the 20% range. That's a little thinner than 1/8th inch. Approx anyway.
Once they get that thin theres a good chance they'll be very close to metal to metal before we perform the next PM which is supposed to be every 3500 miles. And my supervisor gets a little miffed if brakes get metal to metal.
On my own stuff, I don't own any Fords but I can usually get 75k out of a set of brakes.
A lot depends on how you drive.

[CamaroFred]

Originally Posted by Scalded Dog

I live in the mountains, with 25 miles of steep mountain highway for every day's commute. I also drive hard and fast... I rarely get more than 15,000 miles out of a set of TIRES, but, for braking, I use the gears instead of the brakes.

This gave me 100,000 miles on my first set of front pads... I've now put 70,000 miles on the NEXT set, and they still look pretty good.

Most people in my area with similar mountain commutes get 5,000 to 10,000 miles out of a set... and most other vehicles I have owned got similar numbers. So, it's remarkable to me that I'm able to squeeze 100,000 miles out of a set on THIS car. But, I guess driving style (gears vs. brakes) makes all the difference. I drive this car much harder than most of my previous vehicles (none of which were performance- oriented), but staying off of the binders and keeping it in the correct gear has made these pads last.

A manual transmission vehicle will always have longer brake life than an automatic.
There is always engine braking on a manual, even when in high gear; an automatic coasts unless you manually downshift.
An automatic is trying to push the car even as you stop. Slipping it into neutral just before completing your stop can help there. That is especially effective with RWD on slippery surfaces.

Originally Posted by Spurshot

Brake pads are cheaper than engines, clutches, throwout bearings, and syncros. Just sayin. No free lunches. An engine's wear is directly tied to the revolutions it sees.

True enough, but there usually isn't a need for radical downshifts and high engine speeds to slow a car when on a decline. From ScaldedDog's description he is just keeping the car in a lower gear through the ups and downs, lefts and rights.

[Spurshot]

Originally Posted by CamaroFred

...

True enough, but there usually isn't a need for radical downshifts and high engine speeds to slow a car when on a decline. From ScaldedDog's description he is just keeping the car in a lower gear through the ups and downs, lefts and rights.

What I got from his post was he was he was driving hard and using the gearbox in lieu of brakes, at an uncommonly higher rate than others he compared himself to. If true, my point is he's trading one type of maintenance for another. Just a perspective. Not touting scientific fact.