Just picked up my first Jag yesterday. 2017 F Type R Fuji white convertible with 12K miles. First, this car is AMAZING!!
The only questionable item in the CPO report showed a thickness of 11MM front brake pad, 9MM rear. When I questioned this, I was told this is normal for the car. I've never heard of rears, wearing faster than front on any car. True?

 

Rear brakes are typically thinner on most cars from the start when they are new Both the rotors and pads. Not sure on your specific model but ive seen this on every car ive ever worked on.

 

We had a G35x last decade that was my introduction to rear pads wearing faster than fronts.
Essentially a RWD car with AWD capabilities that had traction control.
Rear brakes doing their darnedest to keep the back end in line.

Take this opportunity to change the pads to Porterfield!

 

All Jag brakes from at least 2008 onwards (when the XF came out) and possibly before that wear the rears quicker than the fronts and generally twice as fast on the rears, both pads and rotors.
There are several theories on why this is but the one I favour is the inbuilt anti-dive system - in a medium or higher pressure brake application the rear brakes bite fractionally sooner and harder than the front brakes. Another theory is the parking/hand/emergency brake on the rear and especially the way it auto applies on some cars and auto releases on most.
That said the front brakes still do most of the work which is why the front pads and rotor swept areas are still a lot bigger than the rears.
And yes new front rotors and pads are a fair bit thicker than new rear rotors and pads, for example the 380 mm front brake rotors are 36 mm thick vs the 376 mm rear brakes at 26 mm thick, and the respective pads at 13 mm and 10.8 mm. Those figures for the 376 mm rear brakes are for the XF and although the F-Type has different pads it has the same rotors so would hazard a guess that new rear pads would be the same or very close in thickness.
Here is a page from my old XFR Workshop Manual showing the brake rotor and pad specs for the XF range:

 

For reference my OEM front pads were at ~10mm and the rears were at ~7mm at about 19k miles when I replaced them with the Porterfield R 4S pads. If I remember correctly the new pads were at least twice the thickness of the worn pads.

 

The obvious answer is are cars have torque vectoring so even though you dont know it when going round corners in a spirited fashion
the rear brakes are applying themselves all the time hence why they wear out faster.
When i fitted porterfields this year my rear pads were nearly down to the wear indicator, where as the fronts had loads of meat left.

 

Having just replaced my stock pads, 11/9mm is fine for these. My rears did wear faster, maybe 2mm more than the fronts. I think I had 4mm on the front remaining and 2 mm on the rear. The wear sensor was starting to rub on the rears but hadn't triggered.

Torque vectoring started in 2016 as an option and was standard in 2019 on all models. Before, it was only available on the R.

 

This is super interesting but makes sense. My rear brakes are wearing and I thought I would wait until the fronts wear too because that usually means they both need it, but I guess I'll replace the rears after all! Once I get the SDD software figured out that is...

 

It's not just limited to torque vectoring cars. My '02 MINI and my wife's '09 MINI also go through rear pads faster than the front. It may have to do with any form of Dynamic Stability Control.

 

Isnt it just simply the engineers have programmed the rears to either come on milliseconds earlier or come on more aggressively to prevent nose diving on braking

 

Maybe, see post #4.

 

I guess it could be a combo of anti-dive and torque vectoring in conjunction with the LSD. Damn these horseless carriages have gotten sophisticated!

 

LOL exactly! This is my first car with any of this wizardry and it continues to surprise me.

 

[QUOTE=RAWONE;2319503]Just picked up my first Jag yesterday. 2017 F Type R Fuji white convertible with 12K miles. First, this car is AMAZING!!
The only questionable item in the CPO report showed a thickness of 11MM front brake pad, 9MM rear. When I questioned this, I was told this is normal for the car. I've never heard of rears, wearing faster than front on any car. True?[/
All my Audi’s all wear faster in the rear and my F Type R is the same wearing down faster in the rear? Anyone really know the reason?

 

[QUOTE=MikeW1;2321480]Mikey, this is normal, read the whole thread for several theories why.
Four possible culprits proposed so far:
1. The rear pads and rotors are much thinner than the fronts to start with
2. Anti-dive
3. Torque vectoring
4. EPB