I'm not really sure that rear discs are even needed on a normal car. Drums have a lot going for them, and I reckon they are all that is needed on the rear of the huge majority of cars. Rear discs are a marketing ploy, making the prospective owner think that they have a performance vehicle ............ when they probably don't.
Thanks,
Mick.
Sorry Mick, can't agree with what I've highlighted. Nothing to do with being a marketing ploy. Even on smaller cars, discs don't suffer from the same sort of brake fade issues that can occur with cars fitted with drum brakes. If you live in a really hilly area and you're having to brake often on the downhill, then obviously the discs will dissipate heat more efficently than drums.
Also, drum brakes can collect water inside the drums if driven through heavy rain or large puddles. You may laugh, but I've driven a small car fitted with rear drum brakes through a ford (for those of you who don't know what a ford is and I'm not being sarcastic! ) and the braking has been utter pants afterward.
I've driven through that very ford a number of times and people still get it wrong! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/drivers-warned-not-to-risk-driving-through-floodwater
As for people thinking they're owning a 'performance car' with disc brakes all round, well if anyone thinks an i10 with disc brakes all round is 'performance', they'd be somewhat deluded! I'll stand by my own comments, the brakes on our new i10 are far superior than our old TA.