Actually on newer cars it is not unusual for the rear brakes to need
to be replaced before the front. I know this is different from past
patterns, but when my Passat needed rears at 40K and the front still
had more than 50%, I checked around with not only VW, but also Honda
and Toyota dealers. Why has been discussed in this forum; I don't
think anyone knows the real answer. (The rear brakes on both my Honda
and Passat are tiny compared to the front which might have something
to do with it.) But it is a fact, apparently.

That said, 15K for brakes of any sort is absolutely too soon in my
book. Do you ride the brakes a lot going down those SF hills? That
tends to wear the back, I would think. But 15K? I'd be pretty
disappointed.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:55:17 -0800, Barry S. <nntp@spamsack.org>
wrote:

>On 2 Nov 2003 11:25:05 -0800, danm@danmiller.net (Dan Miller) wrote:
>
>>Hi there -
>>My Accord EX-V6 has 14,500 miles on it and I took it in for the 15,000
>>mile service. The dealer informed me the rear brake pads were at 15%
>>and needed to be replaced.
>>
>>This seems unbelievably soon to need to replace brake pads. I live in
>>SF and recognize that the braking conditions are more severe here, but
>>this still seems too soon.
>>
>>Is this normal? The dealer indicated the 2003 rear brake pads go
>>faster than they used to.
>
>No.. The front discs do most of the braking, so if your at 15k and
>your fronts are ok and the rears need to be replaced.. I'd be really
>curious.
>
>However, if you speed up to 50 MPH and slam on your brakes a lot and
>had to do your front brakes at 9k, then 15k on the rears doesn't sound
>that bad.
>
>I'd ask the dealer to check the pressure the calipers are exerting on
>the pads.
>
>__________________
>Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
>N38.6 W121.4