grek30

I know all the standard way, Carfax, ect. Carfax comes up empty but there is a huge conflict in the stated service by the head of the service dept who said they serviced the car versus the history in the very database all Lexus dealers nationwide share.

So if anyone will give their advice, approx, how many miles would a LS-430 have to be driven beginning with a period it received all new brakes pads and resurfaced rotors till the time the front brakes were needed to be replaced as well as the rear which includes new calipers as for the rear brakes?

Assuming normal country and smaller city driving. Approx how many miles would you estimated the car would have to be driven till it needed all new brakes with the rear brake calipers needing replacement as well?

All replies appreciated.

Aron9000

Not exactly sure what you are asking. Brake life depends on driving styles. If the previous owner drove like them Duke Boys, I could see them going in every 10k to 20k for brake service. However if all the miles were straight highway, I've heard of people getting 50, 60, 70, 80k miles out of the OEM pads on newer cars.

If the wheels on the car don't completely cover the brakes(ie steel wheels with hubcaps), have a look at the brakes with your own eyeballs. With a flashlight and close examination, you can tell if the discs are scored up, and if the pads are really thin or have a bunch of meat left on them. Make sure on a test drive to hit the brakes at all speeds, ie make sure they don't shudder when braking from 80mph. I've seen cars where stopping at in town speeds the brakes feel fine, stopping from 70-80mph the whole car shudders. Note a mushy pedal or any other odd feeling behavior.

grek30

The car was owned by an elderly gentleman who passed away a few years back so I assume no hot-rodding while it was in his possession. And the fact that it appears the rear brakes had more wear than the front is significant, because the front brakes always wear out much faster than the rear brakes do, that has always been my experience. So it would seem to me that in order for the rear brakes to demonstrate more wear than the front over a certain period of time, in reality the front brakes would have had to have been replaced at least a few times for more brake wear to be present in the rear meaning a realistic travel distance of approx 75,000 to 100,000 miles under normal driving conditions,

And I would base that estimate on a Lincoln Town Car L Sedan I bought with 110,000 that was driven approx, 220,000 additional miles that in that distance required 3 new front brake repairs on already well used brakes at the time of purchase, the final repair requiring new rotors on the front while the rear brakes remained serviceable during that entire distance - time frame. Now these are livery miles I'm referring too, or 80% highway miles so brake repair will be less frequent then normal driving patterns. But factoring that normal driving patterns would require at least 3 more brake repair intervals versus mostly highway driving we still have, based on rear brake wear alone, at least a 75.000 - 100,000 travel distance as other factors clearly indicate as well.

So does a 75,000 - 100,000 mile interval sound reasonable for rear brakes to need new rotors besides pads?

So I guess that's the real question being asked here. Based on the fact that front brakes wear out with far more frequency than the rear brakes do..., what is a fair estimate on how many normal condition miles a Lexus LS-430 would have to be driven for new rear brakes to be completely worn out and require not only new pads but new rotors as well?

jimbosr1

i think you may be over thinking this.the owner might have been the guy that leaves is foot on the brakes all the time (two footed driver) and wore out several pads out.having the rear pads with more wear then the front would not bother me as the front would wear out first, been replaced and the rears should follow at some point.
when i bought mine i changed the rear brakes then the fronts 3 years later.

grek30

I've driven millions of miles in my lifetime, and have driven at least 25+ vehicles during over 40 years of driving not to mention operating a present car fleet with every type of driver.

I have never seen rear brakes wear out before front brakes in that entire driving history.., ever.

XJSFan

My 06 LS430 has mostly highway miles on it and the rear brakes were first replaced at 72K miles. The front pads were then first replaced at 78K miles... Now sitting at 89K miles and the brakes and rotors still look new. Do not forget but the front pads on these cars are more substantial then the rear pads... In a perfect world, I would think they would wear pretty much at the same pace.

grek30

Well I just googled this question and it seems the overwhelming view on the matter is pretty much in line with my experiences.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...n+front+brakes

"In vehicles with a conventional proportioning valve, the front brakes typically wear two to three times faster than the pads or shoes in the rear. Consequently, a vehicle may go through one or two sets of front pads before all four brakes need to be relined."

Jks24

"If the previous owner drove like them Duke Boys" ahhh that made me laugh this morning thank you. Also i have seen plenty of cars rear brakes wear out before the front. It all has to do with brake bias i had a friend who's evo was set up to be more aggressive braking in the rear and looser in the front, same with my friends supra.

jimbosr1

read up on the 08-09 honda accord.they had a recall on this.

MikeFoxx

iTrader: (8)

Call me crazy but the front brakes were prob replaced when he was alive and didn't do the rear. OEM rotors can be resurfaced several times before needing replacement. It really only takes one bad owner to ruin a set of rotors by the first brake change simply by pushing it too far on not changing the pads in time.

I'm at 108k original rotors and plenty life in them. I replaced the brakes shortly after purchasing the car at 105k just because the fronts were getting close to the sensor.

grek30

That sound more like what I would expect..

To quickly summarize, the service dept claims and has provided documentation for all new brakes installed, front and rear, w all rotors resurfaced.

25,000 later they are completely worn out with the rear brakes needing new rotors..., something is just not right with that.

And when googling the same question this immediately comes up.., and this has been exactly my experience many years and long miles of driving..

"In vehicles with a conventional proportioning valve, the front brakes typically wear two to three times faster than the pads or shoes in the rear. Consequently, a vehicle may go through one or two sets of front pads before all four brakes need to be relined."

So I think it's a very safe assumption that this car in question was driven much further than the 25,000 miles [between brake repairs] that service records are indicating.

yoitskenn

iTrader: (4)

Maybe they drove around without fully releasing the parking brakes

yoitskenn

iTrader: (4)

Or the dealership never replaced the rears. Maybe they thought they did but the tech actually didn't.

LS430Lexus

1. While it may be the exception, my wife's Honda Accords have always had rear brakes that wore out before the front. In fact, the fronts lasted twice as long as the rear.

2. Move on from this car. If you are unsure of the mileage or have to guesstimate, it is not the car for you. Find another.

Howzit

I've seen it once. A buddy with a jeep. Dude is really heavy on the throttle causing the traction control to kick in and apply rear breaks to control wheel spin.