 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / July 20042002 CR-V Brakes
Can someone enlighten me as to why the rear disc brakes are worn out but the front are at 50% ? I tho't the fronts would wear down first. Keith > Can someone enlighten me as to why the rear disc brakes are worn out but > the front are at 50% ? I tho't the fronts would wear down first. Why? They aren't the same size. > > Can someone enlighten me as to why the rear disc brakes are worn out but > > the front are at 50% ? I tho't the fronts would wear down first. > > Why? > > They aren't the same size. Better answer than most I've seen in the newsgroups. Certainly agrees with my 90 Prelude experience. I replaced my rear pads at 105Kmiles (and no they were not completely worn down) while the fronts still had over 50% left when I sold the car at 130Kmiles. J. > Can someone enlighten me as to why the rear disc brakes are worn out but > the front are at 50% ? I tho't the fronts would wear down first. I know what you're thinking, I thought the same way, when my Accord's rear pads had to be replaced with only 89,000 km on them. I managed to get 113,800 km on the front pads, before having to replace them.  SignatureBrian www.cakesbydarlene.ca www.accesswave.ca/~orion Disc brakes (rear) on a 2002, didn't know that thought they were still shoes. Tom > Can someone enlighten me as to why the rear disc brakes are worn out but > the front are at 50% ? I tho't the fronts would wear down first. > > Keith |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.