It's not the proportioning valve that is the cause. It is that early model GM trucks had different braking systems, namely the front setup, that is very efficient. I have spoken to several service managers at varies GM dealers and all report the 00-03, but mainly 00-01 have braking systems that usually go over 100-200K with out needing front pads. The rear setup was the same and wears out like a typical brake system. I guess you could say they were over engineered! One ex GM manager said he hated turning people away that thought their brakes needed replacing. He stated most didn't believe the trucks could go that long with out replacing.
01 Front brake pad wear verses Rear.
- Thread starter Gordy
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
It's not the proportioning valve that is the cause. It is that early model GM trucks had different braking systems, namely the front setup, that is very efficient. I have spoken to several service managers at varies GM dealers and all report the 00-03, but mainly 00-01 have braking systems that usually go over 100-200K with out needing front pads. The rear setup was the same and wears out like a typical brake system. I guess you could say they were over engineered! One ex GM manager said he hated turning people away that thought their brakes needed replacing. He stated most didn't believe the trucks could go that long with out replacing.
A good thing
I did not believe there was anything wrong with my brakes. But when the rears needed replacement I just bought the fronts also. When I pulled the front tires off the pads were darn near the same thickness as the new ones so I just replaced the rotors not that they even really needed it but for 35 bucks what the hell.
Just wondering if everyone else was having the same wear pattern. If it aint broke don't fix or change a thing I say.
Gordy
I did not believe there was anything wrong with my brakes. But when the rears needed replacement I just bought the fronts also. When I pulled the front tires off the pads were darn near the same thickness as the new ones so I just replaced the rotors not that they even really needed it but for 35 bucks what the hell.
Just wondering if everyone else was having the same wear pattern. If it aint broke don't fix or change a thing I say.
Gordy
ntxstallion
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Posts
- 248
- Reaction score
- 0
I thought that the rears would wear out faster since they are the drive tires.
My dad has a 1998 Chevrolet Venture van with 316,*** miles on it. It's old and falling apart, but the front brake pads that were on it when he bought the van (around 60-70k miles) are still around 50%. Unbelievable, isn't it? haha
I have 115K on my 01. Bought new pads @ 80K thinking they were close to needing replacing. Took them back when I pulled the wheels. I suppose they still have 75% of the material left on them.
As far as the rear goes, they should last much longer than the front since the front does 80% of the breaking.
As far as the rear goes, they should last much longer than the front since the front does 80% of the breaking.
YukonJ
Member
Wow, reading this makes me wonder what my mechanic did when he supposedly replaced the brakes all the way around. That was about 6 months ago so I'm sure his "warranty" has expired but lately my brakes seem to be bad. Granted I have the 2500 XL with big *** tires but it takes forever to stop.
How hard is it to replace pads? Should I do rotors too?
How hard is it to replace pads? Should I do rotors too?
ScottyBoy
Full Access Member
I did my front brakes and rear brakes within the past 6-8 months. The rear pads were definitely worn, (see pic)
but the fronts had easily 40% left on them. But the front rotors were warped and vibrating really bad. So I just replaced all the pads and rotors.
I did a nice write up when I did the rears. http://www.tahoeyukonforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24184
but the fronts had easily 40% left on them. But the front rotors were warped and vibrating really bad. So I just replaced all the pads and rotors.
I did a nice write up when I did the rears. http://www.tahoeyukonforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24184
Kman
Full Access Member
I did my front brakes and rear brakes within the past 6-8 months. The rear pads were definitely worn, (see pic)
but the fronts had easily 40% left on them. But the front rotors were warped and vibrating really bad. So I just replaced all the pads and rotors.
I did a nice write up when I did the rears. http://www.tahoeyukonforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24184
Nice write up, thanks!
If you tow, the rear brakes will get worn much faster than they normally would. It is also normal for the brakes on the 2000-2006 trucks to last 200k easily. People never understand why I recommend going back with the GM brake pads because the aftermarket pads never last like the GMs do. Now, bear in mind if you live up north or by the ocean where salt/rust destroys everything, you're not going to get 200k out of the brakes because the brakes get eat up by the rust. The front brakes on the Tahoe still had 6mm left at 110k when I changed to the GMT900 brakes, my dad's 01 2500 has 160k on the original brakes, and my Trailblazer had 106k on the original pads when I changed them for some high performance pads (and then went back 3k miles later because of the noise).
Similar threads
