There is no simple rule for the life of brake pads.

Heavier cars tend to be heavier on pad wear.

Cars used mostly in town will use pads faster than those driven on the motorway.

Some drivers anticipate traffic better than others and use their brakes less.

In over 40 years on the road I have never had 2 different types of car that require pads at exactly the same mileage. A few examples follow, all have had near enough the same use:

Golf Mk2 GTi. Had 2 of these and the front pads needed replacing every 35,000 miles. The rear pads needed replacing every 70,000 miles.

Golf Mk3 TDi. The fronts lasted 62,000 miles. The rear shoes were never touched.

Nissan Bluebird 1800. After 85,000 miles it was still on its original pads and shoes although the fronts would have needed replacing if we had not sold it.

Escort Mk2. After 48,000 miles all original lining materials still in and good for many more miles.

But the best was undoutably a Renault 14. The front pads lasted 14,000 miles in exactly the same use and driving manner as the other cars. Luckily I could do it myself. The rear shoes never wore out.

Brakes work satisfactorily till the screech of metal on metal at which point the pads must be changed immediately as not only will they not grip the disc as well, the iron filings knacker the alloy wheels!

Anyone who waits until that point is irresponsible and needs to be taken off the road. But as usual its our trolling friend John F who constantly posts his nonsense.

"Pads should last 50,000m with careful driving."

As usual, more rubbish trotted out.

All cars are different.

All drivers brake differently.

Rusty disks wear out pads more quickly than non rusty ones.

Different types of pads wear faster than others.

Different types of terrain - hills versus flat - impact brake usage and wear.

Fast stops from high speeds on motorways wear out pads quicker than slow speed stops.

"Discs, with regular servicing (take them off every year or two, hammer off the rust and grind off lipping with a carborundum wheel), should last 100,000"

You may do that. No-one else does. Garages certainly do not.

Again you are extrapolating from what YOU do to others.

It is really misleading to post such stuff as it is totally inappropriate to normal use and servcing of cars today.

You obiously have time on your hands to maintain cars in a way more suited to vehicles of the 1960s. The world has changed. Your comments are just plain wrong.

I ignore most of what you write as you extrapolate your personal experience to cover all eventualies.

Garages perpetuate the myth that they won't work properly if only 1mm left.

Brakes work satisfactorily till the screech of metal on metal

The former is TRUE and the latter is DANGEROUS advice.
(I think the moderators should consider removing it!)

Brake pad friction material cannot be bonded successfully to the metal backing. So the friction material has an interlayer where the formulation changes from the friction material needed for braking to a formula that will allow the material to be bonded to the backing. Some years ago this interlayer used to be about 3mm thick, hence the recommendation to change pads at this point. These days improvements in manufacturing processes and bonding technologies have reduced the interlayer to about 1.5mm. Most manufacturers recommend changing pads at 2mm thickness as a result.

The interlayer exhibits considerably less friction on the disc compared to the friction material proper. As a result the available braking is seriously compromised. Under general light braking this may not be noticeable, but in an emergency stop situation braking distances can be massively extended.

I agree that dealers often seem to recommend changing pads earlier than is strictly necessary, but they have a duty of care. They have to consider that the vast majority of customers do not check their brake pad thicknesses at all. They must consider whether there is enough material left to last a reasonable mileage. They are covering their backsides!

They also sometimes attempt to persuade the unknowledgable/gullible that new discs are needed for new pads 'cos they're made of softer metal these days so they wear equally, squire'.

This also is TRUE. Since asbestos was banned from the friction material, the brake pads were unable to generate as much friction as before. It was therefore necessary to reformulate the alloy for the discs. As a result discs are 'softer' than they used to be and wear more in order to give the required braking performance.

In general I have found that one set of discs is usually good for 2 sets of pads.