I had my oil changed and the status sheet showed my rear brakes are worn more than my fronts, although I changed discs and rotors at the same time on all four corners. Over twenty years of driving and I've never seen the rears wear before the fronts.
My experience is the rear inner pads wear the fastest with this platform so it checks out as far as I'm concerned. I had to replace my rear pads first.
this would not be the first car I've had to replace rears first. hondas are notorious for this, seeing the same thing on wife's honda pilot right now. 24k miles and the rears are wasted. And it's a FWD pilot, no driveshaft back there at all.
I don't know about my pads, I changed them out for powerstops at about 13k miles as a preventative measure against the pulsating brakes issue and haven't looked back since.
Only time this happened to me was due to the guide pins on the front seizing. Happened on my xB. When I noticed that the rears went before the fronts I went ahead and bought parts for all 4, replaced everything, regreased the guide pins, etc. Brembos seem to be built different so not sure if that's a thing on them. Haven't put enough miles on the car to have to do the brakes yet.
My rear pads are due to be replaced, the fronts are fine. I believe this is something to do with radar cruise control operating on the rear brakes, thought it was on here that I read that.
Most likely the tech just took a look and guesstimated the numbers.
Judging by the amount of brake dust generated, it's pretty clear mine wears the front more than the rear. That said, the rear pads are smaller, so that might make a difference in thickness wear. Also, it's not uncommon for F&R pad compounds to be different.
^^Expected, the fronts do most of the braking. Can't recall exact numbers but 70/30% F/R comes to mind. More so the harder you press the pedal. Different compound makes sense too, prob good idea to use matched set from the same company/model.
