I have the brake pad low warning - only 5700 miles - is it possible I need brakes already or is it a sensor issue. I haven't been driving hard or heavy on the brakes at all. Taking it in on Monday for my annual service - guess I'll find out then. Anyone else have this issue or actual had to replace brakes this early?

 

I think it's possible one of your pad sensor wires got out of its holder and got chewed up by a wheel. I can't imagine you going through pads that fast.

Cheers,

 

Usual cause is a failed wiring to the pad sensor.

 

Or, although it seems unlikely, it really could be worn pads. It's a heavy car, and if you do a lot of expressway driving (not freeway) where you often get up to 45mph or so and then have to brake for lights, it could take a toll on brake wear. Probably good to check it or get it checked.

 

Some UK owners have reported actual premature rear brake pad wear. Big arguments with the dealers as brake pads are not normally a warranty item as a consumable.

5,700 miles and only the rear pads worn is a definitely manufacturing defect. The front pads do 80% of the work and should wear much faster than the rear pads. At worst all four wheels should wear at similar rates if the brake system is optimized for that. Usually the front brakes are expected to be renewed about twice as often as the rears.

 

its the sensor wire rubbing on the inside of the wheel and grounding out turing on the light.
All FYI, jaguar won't admit it, but we(techs) see rear pads on the newer cars going out at 2to1 over the fronts. Our reasoning is that Jaguar it their infinite quest to have a better more compliant ride have biased braking more to the rear for those that brake lighter. We notice that that cars DO NOT front end dive like they used to and stay much more level under braking. Now if you bias more to the rear then you get more rear brake pad wear and more level braking with lighter brake application. normal front bias on heavier braking. Ive replaced pads at 10k on the rear and the normal now is 15-20k for rear and about 30-35k on the fronts..

 

Thanks for the endorsement. Front to rear brake bias does not affect nose dive. Suspension dive results from the suspension geometry. It is feasible to design suspension that causes the nose to rise under braking, but nobody does for fairly obvious reasons. It is also feasible to design suspension with no roll or even reverse roll but nobody does for similar reasons.

The idea that brake bias can make a car brake more level under light braking is just incorrect. The reasoning is faulty and derives from a misunderstanding of how chassis dynamics actually work.

It is perfectly possible for the rear brakes to be designed to wear out faster than the fronts, or quicker than the fronts, or at about the same rate. However, all road cars are designed to optimize braking under emergency conditions (well, except for Chrysler products before FIAT bought them out). Brake pad wear is secondary to safety.

Any road car that wears out a set of pads at either end in under 6,000 miles is faulty. This assumes the car is driven and braked properly. Riding the brake pedal can wear out brakes very quickly. Otherwise, it is a manufacturing fault.

My 2009 XF is at 36,000 km (22,000 miles) with no sign of premature brake pad ear at either end.

 

oh here we go again genius, do 1 thing. get in your car. pull up the emergency brake and tell me your front end dives and that the rear doesnt squat.......comeon Im waiting
this is gonna be as good as evaporators not under the dash on Jaguars again isnt it
MATTER OF FACT WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE GO OUT AND TRY THIS AND REPORT BACK WHAT THEY FIND IN THIS THREAD

 

In the upcoming feature event bun fight, both of the following statements seem to be reasonable:

"Front to rear brake bias does not affect nose dive. Suspension dive results from the suspension geometry. "

"its the sensor wire rubbing on the inside of the wheel and grounding out turing on the light.
All FYI, jaguar won't admit it, but we(techs) see rear pads on the newer cars going out at 2to1 over the fronts. Our reasoning is that Jaguar it their infinite quest to have a better more compliant ride have biased braking more to the rear for those that brake lighter."

Note that they are not logically inconsistent, despite whatever differences may exist between the authors.

 

read the more to the rear that seem to brake lighter, not all cars do this buts its a FACT we see every day....so If its not on yours then you must use youre brakes more than others. plus at 22k youre no where near out of the woods Jagular. cause the avg on most cars including jags before the change was 30k front and 60k rear pads for replacement...
and again if you take my advise to go pull up your e brake when driving in the parking lot or down the street, you'll feel the rear brakes pull the rear of the car down as theyre applied. and we see, and theres a bulletin about wires coming loose and hitting the wheel turning on the low pad warning light.......

 

Well Folks - Here's the update. My brakes were fine. As some sugested it was the sensor wire rubbing on the wheel that caused low pad warning. Dealer repaired the wire. I guess this is a somewhat common fault. So all is well ...but for how long???

 

I figgered that's where you'd end up.......
Just glad it was that simple.

Keep on JagIN!

 

FYI......my 2011 XF Premium, delivered last June, had a slight rubbing sound at low speeds, which I notice with the windows open. Upon investigation it turned out to be the driver's side brake pad sensor wire rubbing against the wheel rim. After securing it with a nylon lock tie the sound was eliminated.
Funny thing was the dealership had swapped out the original 19" wheels with the 18" Cygnus and didn't notice the problem! How did it leave the factory that way?

 

I think there is yet another reason for the more rapid than average wear of the rear brakes compared to the fronts. The e-diff. From what I've read, it works using the ABS to apply brakes to one side or the other to effectively prevent one side from spinning w/o traction. If true, this could explain why the rears wear faster, if the e-diff is often called upon to do its job this way. Take a look at this article for description of how the e-diff works. Review: 2010 Jaguar XF Supercharged is the Goldilocks of Q-ships — Autoblog

That said, I thought the e-diff did not use the ABS but rather had electronic controls for a clutch pack inside the diff. If that's the case, forget what I said above!

 

It's not a Jaguar quirk.
My last 3 cars before the 2010 FX were all Infinitis: 1991 Q45, 2003 M45, 2007 G35x. All three had the rear pads wear much faster then the fronts.

 

Well, there is a different explanation in Car & Driver. They said, in their May 2009 issue, "Cementing the traction is an electronic differential that shuttles between open and full lock by varing electric motor torque on a ball-ramp assembly that squeezes clutch plates." This contradicts what I quoted above, and would not explain faster wear of the rear pads.

 

fwiw, my new gti is rear biased

and just in case it was forgotten, BRUTAL, called that one. thank you sir for everything you do here. Its a thankless job when doing support, trust me i know.

 

+1 on both counts. In the old days you would not want to bias braking to the rear because the fronts do most of the braking and locking up the rears before the fronts is a no-no, as you could fishtail and lose control. But I would think modern ABS allows you to get away with more rear bias, as the proportioning can be actively managed by the ABS.

 

I just want to say "Way to man-up" Need4Spd!! Lots of information floating around out there, and not all of it correct. Nice of you to post the take-back and clarify when you found better information.

I wish more folks would take heed!

Kudos to you and phd12volt too, for the tip 'o the hat to Brutal. Always nice to be acknowledged when you hit that nail square!

Cheers,

 

I think you've got that backwards. Having the fronts lock up first would cause loss of steering control. Every non-ABS car I've owned would lock the rears first.