 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / May 2007Can I upgrade to disc brakes front and rear? '05 Accord
Hi. My '05 Accord has provided reliability beyond my expecations. I have many miles on it, since purchasing it new. It's an LX 4 cyl, with a 5sp. Everything works well. I am just wondering if I can upgrade to discs in the back, and have these questions: 1) Do I have to change the front discs to match the rear ones? 2) Can I also have installed EBD (electronic brake distribution)? 3) Will the stock steel wheels fit once new rotors/caiper assemblies are installed? > Hi. > My '05 Accord has provided reliability beyond my expecations. I have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 3) Will the stock steel wheels fit once new rotors/caiper assemblies > are installed? Don't bother. Rear discs will get you no better braking and lots more maintenance headaches. Sure rear discs have a kewl factor that boring ol' drums do not, but they're not worth it. Stick with the drums.  SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Don't bother. Rear discs will get you no better braking and lots more > maintenance headaches. > > Sure rear discs have a kewl factor that boring ol' drums do not, but > they're not worth it. Stick with the drums. Out of curiosity, what maintenance issues are there? I have never serviced a set or rear discs, as this is my first car that came with them, but I have always hated working on drums. Front discs are extremely easy to work on, so what makes the rear harder? >> Don't bother. Rear discs will get you no better braking and lots more >> maintenance headaches. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > them, but I have always hated working on drums. Front discs are > extremely easy to work on, so what makes the rear harder? Rust. Rust. Seizure. Rust. More rust. Corrosion. More seizure. Rust. More corrosion. Even more rust. Even more seizure. If you live in Arizona or SoCal, rear discs are groovy man, but up in places where it rains or snows, they're a real bummer. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>Don't bother. Rear discs will get you no better braking and lots more >>>maintenance headaches. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If you live in Arizona or SoCal, rear discs are groovy man, but up in > places where it rains or snows, they're a real bummer. Even in Texas, I would suggest leaving the drums. Fact is drum linings still last twice as long as disk pads maybe longer. Why people insist on haveing the latest 'n greatest when in fact is ain't any better just beats the crap outta me... JT >>>>Don't bother. Rear discs will get you no better braking and lots more >>>>maintenance headaches. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > JT I can understand why nobody wants front drums - they are bad news. Rear drums are fine with me. Mike >>>>Don't bother. Rear discs will get you no better braking and lots >>>>more maintenance headaches. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > people insist on haveing the latest 'n greatest when in fact is ain't > any better just beats the crap outta me... On a FWD car the rear brakes do maybe 20% of the stopping. Drums on the rear are an infinitely better choice for such a light-duty application. Drums are sealed from the weather, and do not need to burn off moisture to remain operational. The shoes will last 75K miles with no maintenance whatsoever. The only people who think rear discs are better than drums are those who live in Arizona, or those who own shares in Norton Abrasives or Dow Corning (or both). SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > > Even in Texas, I would suggest leaving the drums. Fact is drum > > linings still last twice as long as disk pads maybe longer. Why > > people insist on haveing the latest 'n greatest when in fact is ain't > > any better just beats the crap outta me... > > On a FWD car the rear brakes do maybe 20% of the stopping. as they do on an AWD and RWD car :^) > Drums on the > rear are an infinitely better choice for such a light-duty application. but the disks look so kewl. must be such a chick magnet with all those red calipers sticking thru the bicycle bespoked wheels > Drums are sealed from the weather, and do not need to burn off moisture > to remain operational. well, don't tell that to the rice boys. they are the bread and butter of a cottage industry of a few billion bucks > The shoes will last 75K miles with no maintenance whatsoever. > > The only people who think rear discs are better than drums are those who > live in Arizona, or those who own shares in Norton Abrasives or Dow > Corning (or both). :-) >>>>> Don't bother. Rear discs will get you no better braking and lots >>>>> more maintenance headaches. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > On a FWD car the rear brakes do maybe 20% of the stopping. whether or not it's fwd makes absolutely /zero/ difference to braking load distribution if the weight distribution is the same. if anything, front brakes on fwd's work /less/ since engine braking is available up front. > Drums on the > rear are an infinitely better choice for such a light-duty application. they're easier to maintain and it's /much/ easier to implement a parking brake, but disks are a better brake in that their function is more linear and they dump their heat much quicker. > Drums are sealed from the weather, and do not need to burn off moisture > to remain operational. if water gets inside a drum, it's nigh-on useless for /way/ longer than any wet disk. drums are weather resistant, but not weather proof. > The shoes will last 75K miles with no maintenance whatsoever. for honda rears, often much longer! > The only people who think rear discs are better than drums are those who > live in Arizona, or those who own shares in Norton Abrasives or Dow > Corning (or both). no, disks are safer in that their operation is more linear and they're harder to overheat. the advantages of drums are cost [first and foremost], and ease of parking brake design. reliability of honda rear disk brakes is not great because of their parking brake design, but that's not a disk problem per se. other manufacturers have different solutions which don't have the same reliability problems, but lose some/all of the weight advantage. >>Don't bother. Rear discs will get you no better braking and lots more >>maintenance headaches. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have always hated working on drums. Front discs are extremely easy to work > on, so what makes the rear harder? Parking brake issues for starters. JT The old saying 'if it aint broke'......applies here. >>Hi. >>My '05 Accord has provided reliability beyond my expecations. I have [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Sure rear discs have a kewl factor that boring ol' drums do not, but > they're not worth it. Stick with the drums. A true mouthfull here. Why in the world to people lOOK for trouble? JT > Hi. > My '05 Accord has provided reliability beyond my expecations. I have many [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > also have installed EBD (electronic brake distribution)? 3) Will the > stock steel wheels fit once new rotors/caiper assemblies are installed? This means at least changing the rear spindles, and perhaps other suspension components. Also, a new proportioning valve, maybe a master cylinder, and a whole slew of other parts. My experience has been that discs are easier to work on, but that drums also do a fine job of bringing the car to a stop. Unless you're adding other mods to the car (increasing HP, lowering, etc) don't bother! Honda knows what they're doing! On May 16, 5:11 pm, harley_davids...@mailcity.com (Hrundi V. Bakshi) wrote: > Hi. > My '05 Accord has provided reliability beyond my expecations. I have > many miles on it, since purchasing it new. > > It's an LX 4 cyl, with a 5sp. Everything works well. i love disc brakes. they are great. they are better in almost every aspect over drum brakes. i say almost because, generally, a drum brake has more actual surface area (more surface area creates more friction). more friction means greater stopping power. friction creates more heat. heat leads to fade. fade means less stopping power. disc brakes are out in the open, so they tend to shed the heat better than drums and therefore are used on all of the cool racecars. here is the best reason to keep your drum brakes: gas is expensive and not getting any cheaper. if i were to build a car today, it would have drum brakes at every corner. why? not because of rust. not because of maintenance. not because they aren't cool. not because of the parking brake. drum brakes have springs that pull the shoes away from the drum. disc brakes do not have this little feature. disc brakes use the imperfections of life to allow the disc to 'bounce' the pads away and create a gap. of course, people will say this extra bit of friction while traveling down the road is minimal.... minimal yes, but every little bit counts. bob z. > On May 16, 5:11 pm, harley_davids...@mailcity.com (Hrundi V. Bakshi) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > bob z. The ONLY disk brake cylinder that would actually retract pads from the rotor surface were the (Girling I think) system used by Jaquar, Mercedes, Studebaker and Nissan (Datsun) in the 1960's and early 1970's. JT >> On May 16, 5:11 pm, harley_davids...@mailcity.com (Hrundi V. Bakshi) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > JT no, they all retract a little. it's not a mechanical system built into the piston, simply a function of seal elasticity - the inner seal, not the flimsy on the outside. wierd..my 93 del sol has front and rear disc brakes. I always get the old wobble to a stop effect ..Of course I do go 120mph on I-95..heh. > wierd..my 93 del sol has front and rear disc brakes. I always get the > old wobble to a stop effect ..Of course I do go 120mph on I-95..heh. then google this group o how to fix it. i repeat it every few months and did so again this last week or so. Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in news:8_p3i.8416 $p47.471@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > The ONLY disk brake cylinder that would actually retract pads from the > rotor surface JT, they ALL do. ALL of them. EVERY one. If the piston does NOT retract once you release the pedal, then the piston is seizing and the caliper requires major servicing. Not one single disc brake system does not involve piston retraction upon pedal release. Not one. Not even Chrysler's weirdo Lambert discs of the '50s. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ bob zee <bobzee1@gmail.com> wrote in news:1179505974.155339.158570 @l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > On May 16, 5:11 pm, harley_davids...@mailcity.com (Hrundi V. Bakshi) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > i love disc brakes. they are great. they are better in almost every > aspect over drum brakes. Unless they are used on the rear of a FWD car. > i say almost because, generally, a drum > brake has more actual surface area (more surface area creates more > friction). more friction means greater stopping power. friction > creates more heat. heat leads to fade. fade means less stopping > power. Blah blah blah. You read many automotive magazines but do not work on any actual motor vehicles. > disc brakes are out in the open, so they tend to shed the heat > better than drums and therefore are used on all of the cool > racecars. Do you regularly travel at 200mph? I know I don't. 200mph race requirements are not the same as the requirements imposed by regular low-speed city driving through salty winter slush. > here is the best reason to keep your drum brakes: gas is expensive > and not getting any cheaper. if i were to build a car today, it would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > create a gap. of course, people will say this extra bit of friction > while traveling down the road is minimal.... You have evidently never actually watched a disc brake piston in action. Correctly-operating disc brake pistons RETRACT when you let off the pedal. Believe it...or not. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> disc brakes are out in the open, so they tend to shed the heat >> better than drums and therefore are used on all of the cool [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > requirements are not the same as the requirements imposed by regular > low-speed city driving through salty winter slush. Didn't actually get to DRIVE one (probably because I couldn't fit my fat a.s into its bucket with a shoehorn and a gallon of vaseline), but I worked with a CASCAR team for a season... they all had front and rear discs, and lemme tell ya, on the short oval, those brakes would spend half the circuit glowing red... but they cooled down pretty quick out of the apex. Of course, having dedicated ducting to scoop air from the air dam and pipe it right onto the rotors helped :) > -- > Tegger i really, really enjoyed all of your posts until this one. you are an idiot. go away. bob z. bob zee <bobzee1@gmail.com> wrote in news:1179619151.088326.69490 @p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: >> -- >> Tegger > > i really, really enjoyed all of your posts until this one. you are an > idiot. go away. Except that I happen to be right. I see so many people go on and on about the friction area of drums vs that of discs, and cite the better heat-shedding capabilites of discs. The problem is...all that is IRRELEVANT. Rear brakes of either type generate so little heat that fade is NOT even close to being any kind of a concern. Heat-fade is a concern with the FRONTS (which handle 80% of braking effort), which is why all road cars use discs at the front these days. Rear discs heat up so little in use they cannot even reliably burn off the moisture they collect, which is why they rust up so badly. Rear drums don't heat up much at all either, but they are basically sealed from the weather. A test if you want to try it. Procure the use of a rear disc-braked car and a rear drum-braked one. Drive both vehicles up to 30 mph or so on a deserted road. Now apply the parking brake hard, just short of lockup, as though you were going to stop the car using just that brake. You will find both systems feel exactly the same, and any "fade" will be identical on both. Of course, I assume both cars have rear brakes in good repair... SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Rear brakes of either type generate so little heat that fade is NOT even > close to being any kind of a concern. Heat-fade is a concern with the > FRONTS (which handle 80% of braking effort), which is why all road cars > use > discs at the front these days. That's my experience, too. Here in Arizona rust isn't a problem, but discs still have more noise problems than drums do and the slide pins are still troublesome. The only problem I've ever had with rear drums is worn-out self-adjusters. Replace the self-adjuster assembly (usually when the linings are worn out) and they are good for the rest of the life of the car. I'm convinced front drums are what gave drum brakes their reputation as second rate. I learned to drive on cars that had drums all around, and they were completely unacceptable for highway use. Mike >> Rear brakes of either type generate so little heat that fade is NOT even >> close to being any kind of a concern. Heat-fade is a concern with the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > still have more noise problems than drums do and the slide pins are still > troublesome. a number of manufacturers don't have slide pins on rear disks - they use old fashioned twin-piston calipers because there are no steering geometry constraints. [single piston front calipers were originally born of the desire to create negative steering scrub radius.] bmw, volvo and subaru use twin-piston iirc. > The only problem I've ever had with rear drums is worn-out > self-adjusters. Replace the self-adjuster assembly (usually when the linings > are worn out) and they are good for the rest of the life of the car. > > I'm convinced front drums are what gave drum brakes their reputation as > second rate. i'd say it differently - it's front drums that /prove/ they're second rate! their action is non-linear and they can only dump heat /through/ the drum metal by conduction, not direct to atmosphere like a disk. > I learned to drive on cars that had drums all around, and they > were completely unacceptable for highway use. >> I'm convinced front drums are what gave drum brakes their reputation as >> second rate. > > i'd say it differently - it's front drums that /prove/ they're second > rate! their action is non-linear and they can only dump heat /through/ > the drum metal by conduction, not direct to atmosphere like a disk. They are definitely second rate for the front, where they have lots of heat to dump. Drum brakes fade like crazy in that application. That isn't an issue in the rear. From Edmunds techcenter @ http://tinyurl.com/6r6kh : ".. the truth is that today's disc/drum setups are completely adequate for the majority of new cars. Remember that both disc and drum brake design has been vastly improved in the last 20 years. In fact, the current rear drum brake systems on today's cars would provide better stopping performance then [sic] the front disc setups of the '70s. And today's front disc brakes are truly exceptional in terms of stopping power. Combined with the fact that between 60 and 90 percent of a vehicle's stopping power comes from the front wheels, it's clear that a well-designed, modern drum brake is all that's required for most rear wheel brake duty." Mike >>> I'm convinced front drums are what gave drum brakes their reputation as >>> second rate. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > clear that a well-designed, modern drum brake is all that's required for > most rear wheel brake duty." You'll note that drums are still used almost universally in semi-trailer rigs, where massive stopping power is of utmost importance. Of course, if you really want to confuse the issue, you can always look at the "hub brakes" used on train cars.... >>>> I'm convinced front drums are what gave drum brakes their reputation >>>> as second rate. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > You'll note that drums are still used almost universally in semi-trailer > rigs, where massive stopping power is of utmost importance. it's true that most trailers use them, but it's not because of superior performance. http://www.mcicoach.com/Parts-Service-Support/partsNewsDrum2Disc.htm is the way of the future. and hopefully, rigs having to use runaway ramps will be a thing of the past. > Of course, if you really want to confuse the issue, you can always look > at the "hub brakes" used on train cars.... > You'll note that drums are still used almost universally in semi-trailer > rigs, where massive stopping power is of utmost importance. > > Of course, if you really want to confuse the issue, you can always look at > the "hub brakes" used on train cars.... In trucks and trains the brakes are pre-engaged; air pressure is required to release them. It is easier to do that with drums than disks. Mike >> You'll note that drums are still used almost universally in semi-trailer >> rigs, where massive stopping power is of utmost importance. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In trucks and trains the brakes are pre-engaged; air pressure is required to > release them. It is easier to do that with drums than disks. true! >>> I'm convinced front drums are what gave drum brakes their reputation as >>> second rate. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > today's cars would provide better stopping performance then [sic] the front > disc setups of the '70s. eh? that's bullshit. whoever wrote that is basing it on the erroneous supposition that because drum brakes are still used, there must be a reason, and is just guessing that it's about performance. but it's just a guess and has no basis in fact if they'd bothered to look up performance figures. the reason drum brakes are used is cost and hand brake implementation. and market segmentation creeps in there too to some extent. > And today's front disc brakes are truly exceptional > in terms of stopping power. Combined with the fact that between 60 and 90 > percent of a vehicle's stopping power comes from the front wheels, it's > clear that a well-designed, modern drum brake is all that's required for > most rear wheel brake duty." what's required and what's best are not the same thing. On 5/20/2007 4:59 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: >>>> I'm convinced front drums are what gave drum brakes their reputation as >>>> second rate. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > brake implementation. and market segmentation creeps in there too to > some extent. Christ, Jim; is there any f.cking way you could be more pompous? Man! For what it's worth, you might try actually reading the paragraph above yours. Nothing is said about the reason drum brakes are used. Only that they are better than they used to be, and in the following paragraph, that they are adequate to the job requirements. Through the years you've shown yourself to be very knowledgeable, as well as high-handed, overbearing, impatient and rude. Or maybe it's just me. Ah, well, it's usenet. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen Signature"I've reached that age in life when I surreptitiously ogle my co-worker -- a smokin'-hot blonde Russian chick with legs that go on for days -- and all I can think is, "Man, I wish I could get her to say, 'Boris! Is Moose and Squirrel!'" -- Allen Lindsey > On 5/20/2007 4:59 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Or maybe it's just me. Ah, well, it's usenet. "the current rear drum brake systems on today's cars would provide better stopping performance then [sic] the front disc setups of the '70s." is bullshit. it has no basis in fact - it's simply supposition for the reasons i outlined before. On 5/20/2007 8:54 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: >> On 5/20/2007 4:59 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > '70s." is bullshit. it has no basis in fact - it's simply supposition > for the reasons i outlined before. Thank you for your reasonable response to my outburst. I would think that to test that claim, you'd have to find figures on vehicles from the 70's which had disc front brakes - not difficult - and current vehicles which have drum front brakes, as well as similar weight and tire characteristics to those 70's cars, which I imagine would be awfully difficult. Maybe tractor-trailer rigs? RFT!!! Dave Kelsen Signature"SATAN, SATAN! It's the main megafurnace! She's losin' power and the temperature is dropping fast! I'm not sure if I can hold her!" -- Scotty in Hell > On 5/20/2007 8:54 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > and tire characteristics to those 70's cars, which I imagine would be > awfully difficult. Maybe tractor-trailer rigs? no, the baseless bull is that current /rear/ brakes are more effective than disks of the 70's. and for testing, you want to eliminate variables, especially tires. On 5/21/2007 7:50 AM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: >> On 5/20/2007 8:54 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > than disks of the 70's. and for testing, you want to eliminate > variables, especially tires. That's what I was saying; you'd have to have vehicles with similar weight and tire characteristics in order to minimize those differences as factors. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen SignatureMy dumb brother says life is all about compassion, wisdom and love for our fellow man. What an idiot! Life is about peace and understanding and building a world full of friendship for all mankind. Dumbass. >>>> I'm convinced front drums are what gave drum brakes their reputation as >>>> second rate. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > what's required and what's best are not the same thing. The part before the excerpt notes that drums are used because they are less expensive. Their point is that drums are adequate for the application. Maybe not "best" but "good enough." Mike > a number of manufacturers don't have slide pins on rear disks - they > use old fashioned twin-piston calipers because there are no steering > geometry constraints. [single piston front calipers were originally > born of the desire to create negative steering scrub radius.] No. Single-piston brakes are CHEAPER. Way, WAY cheaper. Single piston brakes were adopted for economy reasons and for no other. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> a number of manufacturers don't have slide pins on rear disks - they >> use old fashioned twin-piston calipers because there are no steering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No. Single-piston brakes are CHEAPER. Way, WAY cheaper. Single piston > brakes were adopted for economy reasons and for no other. not that simple. regarding the single/double thing, there's a few factors at play, one being that the caliper casting for single piston needs better q.c. to take the fatigue load of spanning the disk in a single piece and the more complex shape. with twin piston, there are two halves that bolt together and q.c. on a single more compact part is easier to cast. the extra piston is more expensive, but the housing can be cheaper and machining access is easier. but the biggest factor is steering geometry. by far. that's why you have "double piston" calipers like this: http://www2.partstrain.com/products/Engine/Brake/Brake_Caliper/1992~FORD~CROWN_V ICTORIA~8~4.6~CROW-LX-003.html?index=17 to get negative scrub radius, you have to get the hub face as close to the bottom swivel as possible. you can do that easily with single piston [single sided] caliper, but not easily with double [sided] unless you have shallow pistons and thin pads. that's not acceptable for production cars. |
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
|
©2009 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.