Honda Car Forum

Hi there -
My Accord EX-V6 has 14,500 miles on it and I took it in for the 15,000
mile service. The dealer informed me the rear brake pads were at 15%
and needed to be replaced.

This seems unbelievably soon to need to replace brake pads. I live in
SF and recognize that the braking conditions are more severe here, but
this still seems too soon.

Is this normal? The dealer indicated the 2003 rear brake pads go
faster than they used to.

Thanks,
--dan

On 2 Nov 2003 11:25:05 -0800, danm@danmiller.net (Dan Miller) wrote:

>Hi there -
>My Accord EX-V6 has 14,500 miles on it and I took it in for the 15,000
>mile service. The dealer informed me the rear brake pads were at 15%
>and needed to be replaced.
>
>This seems unbelievably soon to need to replace brake pads. I live in
>SF and recognize that the braking conditions are more severe here, but
>this still seems too soon.
>
>Is this normal? The dealer indicated the 2003 rear brake pads go
>faster than they used to.

No.. The front discs do most of the braking, so if your at 15k and
your fronts are ok and the rears need to be replaced.. I'd be really
curious.

However, if you speed up to 50 MPH and slam on your brakes a lot and
had to do your front brakes at 9k, then 15k on the rears doesn't sound
that bad.

I'd ask the dealer to check the pressure the calipers are exerting on
the pads.

__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
N38.6 W121.4

Actually on newer cars it is not unusual for the rear brakes to need
to be replaced before the front. I know this is different from past
patterns, but when my Passat needed rears at 40K and the front still
had more than 50%, I checked around with not only VW, but also Honda
and Toyota dealers. Why has been discussed in this forum; I don't
think anyone knows the real answer. (The rear brakes on both my Honda
and Passat are tiny compared to the front which might have something
to do with it.) But it is a fact, apparently.

That said, 15K for brakes of any sort is absolutely too soon in my
book. Do you ride the brakes a lot going down those SF hills? That
tends to wear the back, I would think. But 15K? I'd be pretty
disappointed.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:55:17 -0800, Barry S. <nntp@spamsack.org>
wrote:

>On 2 Nov 2003 11:25:05 -0800, danm@danmiller.net (Dan Miller) wrote:
>
>>Hi there -
>>My Accord EX-V6 has 14,500 miles on it and I took it in for the 15,000
>>mile service. The dealer informed me the rear brake pads were at 15%
>>and needed to be replaced.
>>
>>This seems unbelievably soon to need to replace brake pads. I live in
>>SF and recognize that the braking conditions are more severe here, but
>>this still seems too soon.
>>
>>Is this normal? The dealer indicated the 2003 rear brake pads go
>>faster than they used to.
>
>No.. The front discs do most of the braking, so if your at 15k and
>your fronts are ok and the rears need to be replaced.. I'd be really
>curious.
>
>However, if you speed up to 50 MPH and slam on your brakes a lot and
>had to do your front brakes at 9k, then 15k on the rears doesn't sound
>that bad.
>
>I'd ask the dealer to check the pressure the calipers are exerting on
>the pads.
>
>__________________
>Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
>N38.6 W121.4

TL <tlehman@visi.com> wrote in
news:hjgbqvk69m6csu4cmij29ktpeq3kbopkuk@4ax.com:

> Actually on newer cars it is not unusual for the rear brakes to need
> to be replaced before the front. I know this is different from past
> patterns, but when my Passat needed rears at 40K and the front still
> had more than 50%, I checked around with not only VW, but also Honda
> and Toyota dealers. Why has been discussed in this forum; I don't
> think anyone knows the real answer. (The rear brakes on both my Honda
> and Passat are tiny compared to the front which might have something
> to do with it.) But it is a fact, apparently.
>
> That said, 15K for brakes of any sort is absolutely too soon in my
> book. Do you ride the brakes a lot going down those SF hills? That
> tends to wear the back, I would think. But 15K? I'd be pretty
> disappointed.
>
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:55:17 -0800, Barry S. <nntp@spamsack.org>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2 Nov 2003 11:25:05 -0800, danm@danmiller.net (Dan Miller) wrote:
>>
>>>Hi there -
>>>My Accord EX-V6 has 14,500 miles on it and I took it in for the
>>>15,000 mile service. The dealer informed me the rear brake pads were
>>>at 15% and needed to be replaced.
>>>
>>>This seems unbelievably soon to need to replace brake pads. I live in
>>>SF and recognize that the braking conditions are more severe here,
>>>but this still seems too soon.
>>>
>>>Is this normal? The dealer indicated the 2003 rear brake pads go
>>>faster than they used to.
>>
>>No.. The front discs do most of the braking, so if your at 15k and
>>your fronts are ok and the rears need to be replaced.. I'd be really
>>curious.
>>
>>However, if you speed up to 50 MPH and slam on your brakes a lot and
>>had to do your front brakes at 9k, then 15k on the rears doesn't sound
>>that bad.
>>
>>I'd ask the dealer to check the pressure the calipers are exerting on
>>the pads.


I have a 2002 Accord which has 20K miles on it. Possibly the front brakes
on this car also need to be replaced. A poster here suggested ACT
ceramic brake pads as a replacement as they may last much longer. However
none of the Honda dealerships that I contacted use this type of a pad.
Would the use of these types of brake pads void the warranty?

What warranty? Brakes are considered a wearable part and are not covered by
warranty at all. As for those ceramic brake pads, whenever you talk about
friction and wearing, something has to give. Usually it's the pads that
give but if you use harder brake pads, then you'll wear out your rotors
quicker. Personally, I preffer using the softer pads since brake pads are a
lot cheaper to replace than rotors. Especially on a Honda.

<svrz@REMOVEXYahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9427D1F25474Dnone@68.6.19.6...
> TL <tlehman@visi.com> wrote in
> news:hjgbqvk69m6csu4cmij29ktpeq3kbopkuk@4ax.com:
>
> > Actually on newer cars it is not unusual for the rear brakes to need
> > to be replaced before the front. I know this is different from past
> > patterns, but when my Passat needed rears at 40K and the front still
> > had more than 50%, I checked around with not only VW, but also Honda
> > and Toyota dealers. Why has been discussed in this forum; I don't
> > think anyone knows the real answer. (The rear brakes on both my Honda
> > and Passat are tiny compared to the front which might have something
> > to do with it.) But it is a fact, apparently.
> >
> > That said, 15K for brakes of any sort is absolutely too soon in my
> > book. Do you ride the brakes a lot going down those SF hills? That
> > tends to wear the back, I would think. But 15K? I'd be pretty
> > disappointed.
> >
> > On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:55:17 -0800, Barry S. <nntp@spamsack.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On 2 Nov 2003 11:25:05 -0800, danm@danmiller.net (Dan Miller) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi there -
> >>>My Accord EX-V6 has 14,500 miles on it and I took it in for the
> >>>15,000 mile service. The dealer informed me the rear brake pads were
> >>>at 15% and needed to be replaced.
> >>>
> >>>This seems unbelievably soon to need to replace brake pads. I live in
> >>>SF and recognize that the braking conditions are more severe here,
> >>>but this still seems too soon.
> >>>
> >>>Is this normal? The dealer indicated the 2003 rear brake pads go
> >>>faster than they used to.
> >>
> >>No.. The front discs do most of the braking, so if your at 15k and
> >>your fronts are ok and the rears need to be replaced.. I'd be really
> >>curious.
> >>
> >>However, if you speed up to 50 MPH and slam on your brakes a lot and
> >>had to do your front brakes at 9k, then 15k on the rears doesn't sound
> >>that bad.
> >>
> >>I'd ask the dealer to check the pressure the calipers are exerting on
> >>the pads.
>
>
> I have a 2002 Accord which has 20K miles on it. Possibly the front brakes
> on this car also need to be replaced. A poster here suggested ACT
> ceramic brake pads as a replacement as they may last much longer. However
> none of the Honda dealerships that I contacted use this type of a pad.
> Would the use of these types of brake pads void the warranty?
>

I remember on my 96 accord, the rear pads went at 45k miles, maybe 20k
miles before the front pads.

The rear pads are smaller than the front so they just wear out
quicker, at least on my 96 accord. They are also thinner to begin
with.


danm@danmiller.net (Dan Miller) wrote in message news:<b9d59005.0311021125.54d41a72@posting.google. com>...
> Hi there -
> My Accord EX-V6 has 14,500 miles on it and I took it in for the 15,000
> mile service. The dealer informed me the rear brake pads were at 15%
> and needed to be replaced.
>
> This seems unbelievably soon to need to replace brake pads. I live in
> SF and recognize that the braking conditions are more severe here, but
> this still seems too soon.
>
> Is this normal? The dealer indicated the 2003 rear brake pads go
> faster than they used to.
>
> Thanks,
> --dan

On 2 Nov 2003 11:25:05 -0800, danm@danmiller.net (Dan Miller) wrote:

>Hi there -
>My Accord EX-V6 has 14,500 miles on it and I took it in for the 15,000
>mile service. The dealer informed me the rear brake pads were at 15%
>and needed to be replaced.
>
>This seems unbelievably soon to need to replace brake pads. I live in
>SF and recognize that the braking conditions are more severe here, but
>this still seems too soon.
>
>Is this normal? The dealer indicated the 2003 rear brake pads go
>faster than they used to.
>
>Thanks,
>--dan

A lot of people seem to get this 'premature' wear of the rear brake
pads. For me it was at around 24k miles. The fronts are still fine at
43k miles. In the last week there was another thread on this topic . .
..



George
gearlnospamno@nospamcomcast.net