Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
872 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just replaced my original rotors and pads (80k, not bad) in favor of a Zimmerman/Ferodo combination. I read awhile ago that Passat brakes are biased to the rear (as can be seen by more dust on the rear wheels), but by how much? My rear pads were worn down almost completely but my front still had maybe 50% left.

Is the rear bias constant or inversely proportional to brake force applied?

By extension, how would a front brake upgrade help since the rears seem to be doing more of the work?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
I have 68,000 on a '99 1.8T. My rears are still passable, fronts being replaced today. I drive mostly commuter miles (freeway but often 'slow and go'). It is hard to believe they are rear biased - that would be dangerous. I have also heard the compound is different in the rear. Don't know what to believe. My fronts dust more than rears, which goes with the wear pattern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
it seems like there is a lot of controversy over this.

one idea, which i like the best, is that the rear does not get more braking force cause that would be dangerous, but it gets more in our cars than most other cars, causing the smaller pads to wear quicker than the front pads.

some people believe that the rears get more force when light breaking to eliminate nose dive and then when the brakes are hit hard the front gets most of the braking force.

there is no bias control on our cars, but this can be explained by the abs module, which can take pressure away from each wheel independant of each other.

i have not heard of diffrent compounds before, but that seems like a possible idea too.

but i agree that it makes no sense that rears wear faster than fronts becuase fronts should have more force applies to them and this is what happens in every other road car in history that i have heard of.
 

·
Retired PassatWorld Staff
Joined
·
6,165 Posts
some people believe that the rears get more force when light breaking to eliminate nose dive and then when the brakes are hit hard the front gets most of the braking force.
This is the reason. My old Accord (95) did it too... about 35k for a rear pad change. So it's dependent on driving habits. If you do alot of say, city freeway driving where you are always lightly braking to shave off speed, then you stand a good chance of replacing the rears more frequently. There is a compound difference too. IIRC, this is only for 99 or 00 and newer. The original 98 pads were incredibly dirty bastards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
872 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
pass-variant said:
some people believe that the rears get more force when light breaking to eliminate nose dive and then when the brakes are hit hard the front gets most of the braking force.
This is the reason. My old Accord (95) did it too... about 35k for a rear pad change. So it's dependent on driving habits. If you do alot of say, city freeway driving where you are always lightly braking to shave off speed, then you stand a good chance of replacing the rears more frequently. There is a compound difference too. IIRC, this is only for 99 or 00 and newer. The original 98 pads were incredibly dirty bastards.
This makes the best sense to me. I drive pretty conservatively and mostly on the freeway. I don't brake hard very often so that explains why after 80k my front pads were still in good shape. Thanks, guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
Today when I changed my front brakes, I compared the front pad size to the rear, and the front are at least twice as big. This is part of the answer too.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
About this Discussion
5 Replies
4 Participants
ganseg
Volkswagen Passat Forum
Passatworld is a forum dedicated to Volkswagen Passat enthusiasts to discuss mods, Quattro, Turbo Diesel, reviews and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top