 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / September 2005Rear brakes gone at 20k
Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes were fine, but the *rear* brakes needed replacement. I just said yes. In retrospect, isn't that odd, that the back brakes were gone so early? Should I have raised a question if anything was wrong, or if they should even be replaced under warranty (was like $175 at dealer prices, IIRC). It's been 95% LA freeway driving the last six months, not very aggressive, hey it's an EX4! Thanks. J. > Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and > lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > J. My rear brake pads on my 94 Integra wore out well before the fronts need new pads. From what I've read here,it seems to be "normal" for Honda products.  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and > lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > J. My mechanic (former Honda Tech) says the rear disc brakes on all Hondas are prone to early wear. Must be cleaned and lubed with silicone at yearly intervals regardless of miles driven. He also said the rear drum brakes like I have on my LX are bullet proof. bob That does sound awful odd, I have a 98 ex 6 and replaced all pads at the same time at 50k and 85k, something is not set right or the "dealer" might have pulled a scam on you. I also do alot of stop and go driving with a couple of 5-6k trips. > That does sound awful odd, I have a 98 ex 6 and replaced all pads at the > same time at 50k and 85k, something is not set right or the "dealer" might > have pulled a scam on you. > I also do alot of stop and go driving with a couple of 5-6k trips. The '03 and later Accord is a completely new design generation and your experience is not typical of the new ones. John > Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and > lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes > were fine, but the *rear* brakes needed replacement. I just said yes. I made it to 28k miles on my Accord before the rear pads were completely shot. > In retrospect, isn't that odd, that the back brakes were gone so > early? Should I have raised a question if anything was wrong, or if > they should even be replaced under warranty (was like $175 at dealer > prices, IIRC). It's been 95% LA freeway driving the last six months, > not very aggressive, hey it's an EX4! It seems to me that Honda has skimped on either the size of the rear pads or their thickness. The rear pads have about 1/2 the surface area of the front pads and about 1/2 of the material thickness when new. So, even though the rear brakes don't work as hard as the fronts, there appears to be so little pad material to work with that they wear out rapidly. My Accord is the first vehicle I have ever owned where the rear brakes wore out so quickly. To me it isn't a big deal as I do my own repairs and the replacement pad set only cost me around $30. I would be mighty annoyed if I had to pay a dealer $175 every 20k miles for new rear brake pads! John >It seems to me that Honda has skimped on either the size of the rear >pads or their thickness. The rear pads have about 1/2 the surface area >of the front pads and about 1/2 of the material thickness when new. >So, even though the rear brakes don't work as hard as the fronts, there >appears to be so little pad material to work with that they wear out >rapidly. I didn't know that. Wouldn't you think they'd try to standardize on the pads, even if the disks in back were smaller? Nah, ... >My Accord is the first vehicle I have ever owned where the rear brakes >wore out so quickly. To me it isn't a big deal as I do my own repairs >and the replacement pad set only cost me around $30. I would be mighty >annoyed if I had to pay a dealer $175 every 20k miles for new rear brake >pads! I will definitely raise a stink about it at the dealer if/when it happens again. OTOH, I only have a three year lease and my practice is to trade it in for a new one at that time, so I may not see the day. Thanks for the info! Hey, Honda, what were ya thinking? J. ps - thought: are there any aftermarket replacement pads that might be better? >My Accord is the first vehicle I have ever owned where the rear brakes >wore out so quickly. To me it isn't a big deal as I do my own repairs >and the replacement pad set only cost me around $30. I would be mighty Or, you could just get lifetime pads. I haven't paid for pads in MANY years. > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:18:59 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Or, you could just get lifetime pads. I haven't paid for pads in MANY > years. Pads may be guaranteed/warrantied for life, but then that generally translates to simply harder pads. Meaning they're going to wear the rotor more quickly. Replacing rotors (when done the right way) is expensive. |
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.