any difference between front and rear brake pads
 

The warning squeal told me it was time to replace the rear pads on my '08 JK (45,000mi).

Easy as pie to pop out the old pads.

When I picked up the rear pads (NAPA UP Semi-metallic) I also bough a set of rear rotors and a set of front pads.

Rotors were fine so I'll save them for the next time. (front pads: tru-stop ceramic)

Here's my question:

Looking at the front pads, is there really any difference between front and the rear pads? I mean size, etc.

Or could I have just bought two sets of "rear" and had identical pads on all four positions?

I didn't compare them when I had the chance, now I am curious.

Yeah the rear pads are going to be smaller.. I would reccomend going back to napa and getting their "Adaptive One" line of pads.. MUCH better quality. Also "pad slapping" isnt a good thing.. Have your rotors turned or just replace them otherwise they will be noisey.. Just saying..

Front pads are also twice as thick as the rears (it's the reason why there is this illusion that the rear pads on these things wear permaturely).

thanks, Guys. The rotors are fine so I kept them. I'll look into he Adaptive pad model.

I am curious as to why there would be a difference in the pads. I don't mean lining material or thickness.

I wondered if/why Chrysler would make two different parts when one size for all around would seem to be sufficient.

So it really comes down to the difference is just the thickness of the braking material?

I can't claim to know the reasoning, other than perhaps saving some money on materials in the long run since more braking is done with the front brakes than the rears, but I know I've owned a few vehicles besides wranglers and they all had different size front pads and rear pads.

Front brakes do a lot more work than rear brakes, so it makes sense that a thicker pad made with a material having more friction would be used by Mopar on the front.

I've had rigs where smaller pads were used on the rear for the same reason.

Yep. this is generally correct. The difference with the JK Wrangler (& many vehicles with the latest ABS & stability control/roll mitigation systems) is that the rears now do much more work than they used to on vehicles of years past; the JK's ESP and Brake Lock Differential systems are particularly grabby on the rear brakes. You think Chrysler would have worked this out by now & beefed up the specs for the rear brakes.

I've already had my rear pads changed and the rotors have a deep and very noticable groove around the outside (will need to be changed out with the next set of rear pads) while the front pads & rotors are the originals with over 40K miles on them & still look brand new. It's just a Jeep thing apparantly...

I agree... the front pads 'should' do more work, but it seems that on late model vehicles the rears are doing a lot. I believe as part of trying to make the vehicle easy to drive for the average person, the rear brakes have too much bias.., causing them to reach the ABS threshold before the fronts. I haven't tried with the JK, but in my old Dodge Magnum and Chevy Silverado, with the ABS off, I could brake slide the rear in the snow by JUST tickling that threshold.

I replaced my rear pads around 28000 miles, they had less than 50% (maybe 30 or 40)when compared to new ones, my front ones are still over 60 or 70% left

Thank you!

As a newbie, I have noticed that there is already some brake dust on my rear wheels (something which I never noticed before on any vehicle I have ever owned). Your post helps to explain this.

I know I'm in the right place here, and look forward to learning all the little things that they don't tell you about at the dealership! :)


All best,
Joe