Apologies in advance if this has been covered recently but ...

Just by eyeballing it, I can tell my rear brake pads need replacing. Oddly enough, my front pads are very good, at probably 75%.

My mechanic told me in early 2008 that the rear pads were at 30%, and now they're obviously worn down badly. But what's up with this? Shouldn't the fronts wear out faster? I never drove with my E-brake on by accident and I don't drive in reverse more than forward (obviously) so I don't get it. My co-worker said he had an s40 and he heard that the brake pads can be a problem (he had to replace them 3 times in 3 years) but Volvo doesn't want to acknowledge this.

Any truth to this?

Oh, and what brake pads should I get?

Thanks in advance!

 

The S40's wear the rear pads more for some reason. I like OEM pads and thats all.

 

I own a 2005 S40 T5 AWD which currently clocks in at 60000 miles. At 37500 I had the car at the dealer who reported the rear brakes were shot, which I couldn't believe. I've never had to replace rear brake pads prior to 100,000 miles on any car I've had. At home I inspected the pads and was horrified to see how unevenly worn the pads were. I replaced the pads, documented everything and sent a letter to Volvo, which didn't get me very far. I spent about $30 on the new pads at a local auto parts.

Today as part of my 60000 mile service I took all of the wheels off and inspected the brakes. I was happy to see the rear pads look much like they did when I replaced them last year and appear to be wearing in a manner I would expect. My only conclusion is the original brake pads were somehow not installed correctly. I have pictures showing the pads worn down to almost 1/16 of an inch, and that was only at37000 miles. The original front brake pads look great.
ColoradoZ28