brakes - front vs rear
 

my son took his jeep in to check the brakes...
they replaced the rear rotors (60k) and pads, fronts were ok.

I was wondering.....
can brakes be treated like tires ? are they the same front/rear ?

Since he now has new rotors and pads on the rear,
could he - instead - move the front rotors & pads to the rear,
and install the new sets on the front ?

Is the labor involved not worth it - compared to the cost of the new parts ?

--
----------------------------------
"If everything seems to be going well,
you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright

brakes - front vs rear
 

ps56k wrote:
> my son took his jeep in to check the brakes...
> they replaced the rear rotors (60k) and pads, fronts were ok.
>
> I was wondering.....
> can brakes be treated like tires ? are they the same front/rear ?
>
> Since he now has new rotors and pads on the rear,
> could he - instead - move the front rotors & pads to the rear,
> and install the new sets on the front ?
>
> Is the labor involved not worth it - compared to the cost of the new parts ?
>

Brakes are not like tires. The rear rotors wouldn't fit the front.
As long as the front brakes have plenty of pad left, no need to touch
them.

Fairly common to do the front brakes a bit more often than the rears,
rarely do all four wear at the same rate.

brakes - front vs rear
 

It won't work but a more serious question is why the rears would wear out
before the fronts? Elementary physics says that the fronts will wear out
first. Hopefully there is a simple explanation like this is a used Jeep and
the fronts have already been replaced once or twice.

Earle

"ps56k" > wrote in message
...
> my son took his jeep in to check the brakes...
> they replaced the rear rotors (60k) and pads, fronts were ok.
>
> I was wondering.....
> can brakes be treated like tires ? are they the same front/rear ?
>
> Since he now has new rotors and pads on the rear,
> could he - instead - move the front rotors & pads to the rear,
> and install the new sets on the front ?
>
> Is the labor involved not worth it - compared to the cost of the new parts
> ?
>
> --
> ----------------------------------
> "If everything seems to be going well,
> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>
>


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

brakes - front vs rear
 

could be driving with the emergency brake engaged or improperly adjusted
Coasty

"Earle Horton" > wrote in message
...
> It won't work but a more serious question is why the rears would wear out
> before the fronts? Elementary physics says that the fronts will wear out
> first. Hopefully there is a simple explanation like this is a used Jeep
> and the fronts have already been replaced once or twice.
>
> Earle
>
> "ps56k" > wrote in message
> ...
>> my son took his jeep in to check the brakes...
>> they replaced the rear rotors (60k) and pads, fronts were ok.
>>
>> I was wondering.....
>> can brakes be treated like tires ? are they the same front/rear ?
>>
>> Since he now has new rotors and pads on the rear,
>> could he - instead - move the front rotors & pads to the rear,
>> and install the new sets on the front ?
>>
>> Is the labor involved not worth it - compared to the cost of the new
>> parts ?
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------
>> "If everything seems to be going well,
>> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>>
>>
>
>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

brakes - front vs rear
 

That would wear out the little drum inside the rear rotor...

I'd go for the fronts already having been done, or a very bad equalizer.


Coasty wrote:
> could be driving with the emergency brake engaged or improperly adjusted
> Coasty
>
> "Earle Horton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It won't work but a more serious question is why the rears would wear
>> out before the fronts? Elementary physics says that the fronts will
>> wear out first. Hopefully there is a simple explanation like this is
>> a used Jeep and the fronts have already been replaced once or twice.
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "ps56k" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> my son took his jeep in to check the brakes...
>>> they replaced the rear rotors (60k) and pads, fronts were ok.
>>>
>>> I was wondering.....
>>> can brakes be treated like tires ? are they the same front/rear ?
>>>
>>> Since he now has new rotors and pads on the rear,
>>> could he - instead - move the front rotors & pads to the rear,
>>> and install the new sets on the front ?
>>>
>>> Is the labor involved not worth it - compared to the cost of the new
>>> parts ?
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> "If everything seems to be going well,
>>> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>

brakes - front vs rear
 

yeah - he bought it used last year....
I think the fronts were recently done, as they looked "in good shape",
and the rears just finally caught up at 60k...

Earle Horton wrote:
> It won't work but a more serious question is why the rears would wear
> out before the fronts? Elementary physics says that the fronts will
> wear out first. Hopefully there is a simple explanation like this is
> a used Jeep and the fronts have already been replaced once or twice.
>
> Earle
>
> "ps56k" > wrote in message
> ...
>> my son took his jeep in to check the brakes...
>> they replaced the rear rotors (60k) and pads, fronts were ok.
>>
>> I was wondering.....
>> can brakes be treated like tires ? are they the same front/rear ?
>>
>> Since he now has new rotors and pads on the rear,
>> could he - instead - move the front rotors & pads to the rear,
>> and install the new sets on the front ?
>>
>> Is the labor involved not worth it - compared to the cost of the new
>> parts ?
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------
>> "If everything seems to be going well,
>> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>>
>>
>
>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

brakes - front vs rear
 

60K seems a tad low. I didnt need to touch the rears on a ZJ until
just over 100K, and even then they really werent in any kind of danger.


ps56k wrote:
> yeah - he bought it used last year....
> I think the fronts were recently done, as they looked "in good shape",
> and the rears just finally caught up at 60k...
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
>> It won't work but a more serious question is why the rears would wear
>> out before the fronts? Elementary physics says that the fronts will
>> wear out first. Hopefully there is a simple explanation like this is
>> a used Jeep and the fronts have already been replaced once or twice.
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "ps56k" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> my son took his jeep in to check the brakes...
>>> they replaced the rear rotors (60k) and pads, fronts were ok.
>>>
>>> I was wondering.....
>>> can brakes be treated like tires ? are they the same front/rear ?
>>>
>>> Since he now has new rotors and pads on the rear,
>>> could he - instead - move the front rotors & pads to the rear,
>>> and install the new sets on the front ?
>>>
>>> Is the labor involved not worth it - compared to the cost of the new
>>> parts ?
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> "If everything seems to be going well,
>>> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
>

brakes - front vs rear
 

"Lon" > wrote in message
. ..
60K seems a tad low. I didnt need to touch the rears on a ZJ until
just over 100K, and even then they really werent in any kind of danger.


---

Could be that the previous owner 'rode' his brakes.
I see a LOT of that out here, especially with the elder crowd. They start
braking three blocks before the green light and at least half a mile before
a curve.

I wouldn't put too much worry into it. If the fronts are fine, and you had
the rears replaced... then he's good to go! Get that little monster out and
get it dirty!


--
Kate
______
/l ,[____],
l-L -OlllllllO-
()_)-()_)--)_)

The shortest distance between two points,
is a lot more fun in a Jeep!