Uneven brake shoe wear

anthonyp

New member
Pulled the rear brake drums off today to clean 'em. Typical 5,000 mile routine for me. I noticed that on both sides of the vehicle that the shoes toward the front are wearing quicker than the shoes toward the rear. It looks pretty similar on both (left/right) sides of the vehicle.

This is the first time I've had this happen on a vehicle. Usually, all four rear shoes wear out at the same pace. But, this is my first Jeep. Is this normal for a TJ?

I'm not overly concerned about it...just want to see if others have had this happen and if anything can be done to correct it.

Thanks.
 

I recall that we had a pretty detailed post on this phenomenon at one time..........If I remember right, Gadget even had some great diagrams (I think he has a little Ross Perot in him!! :lol: :lol: ). Maybe if you do a search, you can find it. (?)
 
On the contrary, I've rarely owned a vehicle where the pads wore evenly front and back. Your front and rear brakes are different animals, and take differing amounts of stress. That's why you often see Drums in the rear and discs up front.

I think you're fine as long as the wear- right to left is fairly even.
 

mingez said:
On the contrary, I've rarely owned a vehicle where the pads wore evenly front and back. Your front and rear brakes are different animals, and take differing amounts of stress. That's why you often see Drums in the rear and discs up front.

I think you're fine as long as the wear- right to left is fairly even.

Don't mean to belittle you or anything, mingez, but I think he's speaking of his shoes in his rear brakes (4 total). Generally, the "leading" shoe sees more wear than the "trailing" shoe......as best as I remember. Some of us old farts can even remember cars (or maybe it was motorcylcles :shock: ) with mechanical brakes all around - no hydraulics to help!!!!!! No brake lines, just rods and levers!!! It's truly amazing we're still alive!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Yes, and I believe the reason the front shoes are wearing faster than the rear is because the front of the wheel has to stop before the rear of the wheel does. Or it could be a bolt in the flywheel......<sniffle>......
 
It is a "leading" and "trailing" shoe issue. "Leading" rear shoes are wearing faster than "trailing" rear shoes. (Drums in the back...disc up front.) Thanks Gadget for the old thread. There is some great info in there but it is a little bit different issue.
 

Gadget, I just reread the other thread again slowly. (I'm a fast read, then a half-fas$t read, then a slow read kind of guy.) You stated the following in that thread...

"It is inherent to the "self-servo' design that the trailing brake shoe actually provides most of the stopping power. Hence, the trailing brake shoe will wear faster than the leading brake shoe, and that is also why there is more brake pad material on the trailing shoe? (A way to tell them apart.)"

That's exactly the opposite of my problem. Would that mean that my brakes are wearing correctly since if I started with more thickness on the trailing and I still have more thickness on the trailing...then they are wearing like they should?
 
RE: New England Jeepz...

anthonyp said:
.............Would that mean that my brakes are wearing correctly since if I started with more thickness on the trailing and I still have more thickness on the trailing...then they are wearing like they should?

That sounds like a logical assumption. Unless the rivets are about to start scrapin' the drum, I don't think I'd worry much about it.
 
Re: Men in black... Judicial tyranny strikes again

No, no, no...

Anthonyp, when I wrote the following:

...that is also why there is more brake pad material on the trailing shoe? (A way to tell them apart.)

I was not referring to a difference of thickness of the brake shoe pads. I was referring to the length (arc length) of the brake pad material.

Look at this pic:

image-missing.png


Front of vehicle and "leading" brake shoe is at picture left. Note how much more the friction pad material of the "trailing" show wraps around the axle. The "trailing" shoe has more square-inches of friction pad because the pad is longer (in degrees of arc) than the pad on the "leading" shoe.

Regards,

Gadget

PS:

Mingez wrote:

On the contrary, I've rarely owned a vehicle where the pads wore evenly front and back. Your front and rear brakes are different animals, and take differing amounts of stress.

True -- Depending on which automotive writer one selects as an "authority," the front brakes provide 65% to 85% percent of the vehicle stopping power. (When you hit the brakes, the vehicle nose-drives and there is a weight shift. The rear wheels are unloaded and the front wheels are more heavily loaded.) In the days of yore -- yore meaning the days of drum-brakes on all four wheels -- it was a commonplace to replace the front drum brake shoes twice for each change of rear drum brake shoes.

Mingez wrote:

That's why you often see Drums in the rear and discs up front.

False -- Disk brakes replaced drum brakes primarily for two reasons: (1) Disk brakes are an inherently superior design not nearly so subject to the phenomenon associated with drum brakes called "brake fade." It would take a lot of words to explain "brake fade," and I won't go into that here because it would only further muddy the water. Another day another thread. (2) Vehicle builders know that the production line assembly-installation time reguired for disk brakes is much less than drum brakes. Build a million or so vehicles and that time saving translates into big-time cost reduction and big-time increase of productivity.

A historical aside: Disk brakes and anti-lock disk brakes were used on large aircraft long before use in automobiles.

Sparky-Watts wrote:

Yes, and I believe the reason the front shoes are wearing faster than the rear is because the front of the wheel has to stop before the rear of the wheel does. Or it could be a bolt in the flywheel......<sniffle>......

HAHAHAHAHA! Now cut that out, Sparky! :lol:
 

sensor

Aaaaha....got it Gadget. Picture says it all. Thank you. :D
More square inches on the "trailing"...NOT thickness.
 
Back
Top