Last Friday (at 227K miles) I just replaced the original clutch and original front
struts, so I guess I was lucky not having an automatic transmission.
Ken
"DW" <dwinslow2@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:8Z%ue.1444$BA6.6743@news.uswest.net...
> Ken, mine has 193K, and I likewise bought mine new back in '87. I don't know how
> many years this was a problem area for the Accord or other Honda/Acura models, but
> the brakes are definitely not up to par with the rest of the car. I even
> researched aftermarket brakes and had some put on (OEM size cross-drilled and
> slotted with GreenStuff pads) and they did work better but they still worn
> prematurely and the rotors needed to be replaced (apparently they couldn't be
> turned) only after about a year. Perhaps the premature wear on the front brakes
> may be due to the lack of help from the rear drums.
>
> I do have to note however, that when the brakes have just been replaced you can get
> them to lock up for perhaps the first 100 miles or so, then back to the mediocre
> performance of norm. I guess one benefit to this is that you won't go into any
> uncontrollable skids. ;-)
>
> One last thing I want to point out about Honda/Acura cars is that there is one
> additional weak point (besides the flimzy hood rod holder) on these cars, and that
> is the auto trans. Not a big problem, but expect to replace it in the 100k to 150k
> range. I can legitimately say this from the experience I've had with these cars
> over the years. I've owned an '87 Acura Integra (2nd gear clutch went out around
> 110k), an '88 Acura Legend (2nd gear clutch went out around 117k), an '88 Honda
> Accord Coupe (2nd gear clutch was going out around 115k), and my '87 Accord LX-i
> sedan (the tranny was having problems around 150k). I have had different makes
> before too but never experienced such consistant transmission problems like in the
> Honda products.
>
> If you experience transmission problems in your Honda/Acura vehicle, especially in
> the late 1980's models, you will save money and a lot of time to just have the
> entire transmission replaced instead of having it rebuilt/repaired -costs about the
> same anyway (it was around $2,000! each time for me).
>
>
> "KenA" <kabrahamsen@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cOidnTUCVOYcBSbfRVn-2w@comcast.com...
>>I too have a 1987 Accord (DX), and the brakes have always been the weakest part of
>>the car. I bought the car new, and the original brakes failed at about 15K miles
>>(mostly highway driving). The dealer replaced them for free. The brakes have
>>*always* been weak since the day I bought it. In the 18+ years that I've owned it,
>>I can say that the weak brakes was one contributing factor to a minor accident I
>>had a few years back. I stepped on the brakes hard, but (as usual) the car slowed
>>(gradually), but not commensurate with how hard I was stepping on the brake peddle.
>>Trying to lock the wheels by braking at anytime during the last 18 years was/is
>>merely a fantasy. I just isn't going to happen no matter what. Braking performance
>>is the one thing I miss about my previous Toyota, as it would stop on a dime. If
>>anyone finds a cure for this, please let me know, as I like everything else about
>>my Accord (227k miles and still going strong....).
>> Ken
>> ===
>> "DW" <dwinslow2@qwest.net> wrote in message
>> news:VhOte.92$4H2.29835@news.uswest.net...
>>> If you have own or have ever owned a Honda Accord for some time, surely you know
>>> how weak the brakes are.
>>>
>>> Not only are they not very powerful (very difficult to get the brakes to the
>>> point of lock-up), but the front rotors have to be replaced often as compared to
>>> most cars.
>>>
>>> MY QUESTION IS: Does anyone know of any aftermarket brakes that are better than
>>> the weak stock brakes for a 1987 ACCORD LX-i (besides from Midas or Meineke)?
>>> Perhaps even a high performance brake kit upgrade?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>