Honda Car Forum

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:50:14 -0500, "Saintor"
<saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:

>Just check most comparos. Honda's brakes don't fare very well in
>performance testing. Also, the rotors are prone to warp easily. I never
>changed my rotors in 75000 miles (Accord 99), but they are subject to pulse
>slightly since day one.

Measuring brake performance has a quite a bit of subjective factor though -
the limit being incipient lock-up and expectation of how much to ease off
to prevent it. Someone conditioned to expect grabby brakes might ease up
too much on a Honda. I can't say I get any impression that other mfrs'
brakes are better.

Our 2K Accord shows no sign of warping at 45K miles and the rotors look
nice and polished with no banding or streaking of the swept surface on
front or rear. They work very well with no pulsing. With my '99 Integra I
just found out recently, when I changed the rear rotors, that they were
responsible for my pulsing problem, which was violent at high speed - it
was excessive corrosion of the rotors which was at the root of it.

>My wife's Corolla 2004 brakes are amazing.

New cars always seem to feel good.:-) Our '93 Camry always felt like the
brake pedal effort was too light, which on top of the grabbiness of the
brake mechanism made them quite unpleasant. They also had a terrible groan
in some situations.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

> Measuring brake performance has a quite a bit of subjective factor
though -
> the limit being incipient lock-up and expectation of how much to ease off
> to prevent it. Someone conditioned to expect grabby brakes might ease up
> too much on a Honda. I can't say I get any impression that other mfrs'
> brakes are better.

I disagree; they are. Performance numbers talk. Honda' cars are most often
average or lower than average in this aspect. It is surprising because it
is directly related to safety

> Our 2K Accord shows no sign of warping at 45K miles and the rotors look
> nice and polished with no banding or streaking of the swept surface on
> front or rear. They work very well with no pulsing. With my '99 Integra
I
> just found out recently, when I changed the rear rotors, that they were
> responsible for my pulsing problem, which was violent at high speed - it
> was excessive corrosion of the rotors which was at the root of it.

Mine and my previous one ('96) did the same. Slight pulsing when braking
from 50mph after a while. They give an impression of being fragile. My
rear pads (disk) had to be changed 3x in 75000 miles. The brakes
components seem right-sized in the Accord, but in the Civic/RSX they are
tiny and even worse.

> >My wife's Corolla 2004 brakes are amazing.
>
> New cars always seem to feel good.:-) Our '93 Camry always felt like the
> brake pedal effort was too light, which on top of the grabbiness of the
> brake mechanism made them quite unpleasant. They also had a terrible
groan
> in some situations.

She had a Corolla '94 before and the brakes always have a been strong
aspect. She had 2 Protegé after this one and brakes were terrible. We feel
that Honda are in between.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:15:26 -0500, "Saintor"
<saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:

>> Measuring brake performance has a quite a bit of subjective factor
>though -
>> the limit being incipient lock-up and expectation of how much to ease off
>> to prevent it. Someone conditioned to expect grabby brakes might ease up
>> too much on a Honda. I can't say I get any impression that other mfrs'
>> brakes are better.
>
>I disagree; they are. Performance numbers talk. Honda' cars are most often
>average or lower than average in this aspect. It is surprising because it
>is directly related to safety

I tend to take auto review performance numbers with a grain of salt and of
course tires make a big difference in brake performance - often OEM tires
are compromised by the all-season, high wear demands of the mass consumer.
Brakes also degrade over time, with disk scoring, pad contamination etc.
This 2001 review
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...cc/index1.html doesn't
seem to show the Civic's brakes as any worse than the others in its class
and the Corolla is the worst of the three.

>> Our 2K Accord shows no sign of warping at 45K miles and the rotors look
>> nice and polished with no banding or streaking of the swept surface on
>> front or rear. They work very well with no pulsing. With my '99 Integra
>I
>> just found out recently, when I changed the rear rotors, that they were
>> responsible for my pulsing problem, which was violent at high speed - it
>> was excessive corrosion of the rotors which was at the root of it.
>
>Mine and my previous one ('96) did the same. Slight pulsing when braking
>from 50mph after a while. They give an impression of being fragile. My
>rear pads (disk) had to be changed 3x in 75000 miles. The brakes
>components seem right-sized in the Accord, but in the Civic/RSX they are
>tiny and even worse.

Nothing to do with fragile - like I said, it's corrosion. You get a build
up of rust between the rotor and the hub where there are holes in the hub.
When I mounted my new rotors, I put them on right after taking the old ones
off just to check that they fit the hub and I couldn't believe how much
they rocked. Then I saw the rust, filed and wire brushed it off and they
went on fine *and* no more warp syndrome.

I don't see where you get "tiny" from for the Civic/RSX brakes. The fronts
are 10.3" rotors, slightly smaller than the Corolla's but hardly worth
noting. The RSX rears are 10.2" - actually quite big for rears on that
size car.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

And if you look at the comparo of 10 econo cars of Car&Driver (11/2002), the
Civic has *the worst* brake performance for braking from 70-0 (even worse
than Hyundai or Kia). Also, it had *the worst* subjective rating for
brakes.


"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:esiu60p1cjkhhbfhkcgr2ts90adlvbeqcj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:15:26 -0500, "Saintor"
> <saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Measuring brake performance has a quite a bit of subjective factor
> >though -
> >> the limit being incipient lock-up and expectation of how much to ease
off
> >> to prevent it. Someone conditioned to expect grabby brakes might ease
up
> >> too much on a Honda. I can't say I get any impression that other mfrs'
> >> brakes are better.
> >
> >I disagree; they are. Performance numbers talk. Honda' cars are most
often
> >average or lower than average in this aspect. It is surprising because
it
> >is directly related to safety
>
> I tend to take auto review performance numbers with a grain of salt and of
> course tires make a big difference in brake performance - often OEM tires
> are compromised by the all-season, high wear demands of the mass consumer.
> Brakes also degrade over time, with disk scoring, pad contamination etc.
> This 2001 review
> http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...cc/index1.html doesn't
> seem to show the Civic's brakes as any worse than the others in its class
> and the Corolla is the worst of the three.
>
> >> Our 2K Accord shows no sign of warping at 45K miles and the rotors look
> >> nice and polished with no banding or streaking of the swept surface on
> >> front or rear. They work very well with no pulsing. With my '99
Integra
> >I
> >> just found out recently, when I changed the rear rotors, that they were
> >> responsible for my pulsing problem, which was violent at high speed -
it
> >> was excessive corrosion of the rotors which was at the root of it.
> >
> >Mine and my previous one ('96) did the same. Slight pulsing when
braking
> >from 50mph after a while. They give an impression of being fragile. My
> >rear pads (disk) had to be changed 3x in 75000 miles. The brakes
> >components seem right-sized in the Accord, but in the Civic/RSX they are
> >tiny and even worse.
>
> Nothing to do with fragile - like I said, it's corrosion. You get a build
> up of rust between the rotor and the hub where there are holes in the hub.
> When I mounted my new rotors, I put them on right after taking the old
ones
> off just to check that they fit the hub and I couldn't believe how much
> they rocked. Then I saw the rust, filed and wire brushed it off and they
> went on fine *and* no more warp syndrome.
>
> I don't see where you get "tiny" from for the Civic/RSX brakes. The
fronts
> are 10.3" rotors, slightly smaller than the Corolla's but hardly worth
> noting. The RSX rears are 10.2" - actually quite big for rears on that
> size car.
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who,
me??

The stock Civic tires tend to be on the cheap side with conservative dimensions
which would have a detrimental affect on braking.. When shoed with extra wide &
low profile tires, with a suspension system that does not dip during braking,
brake performance is significantly improved (at leas it's the case with my 98
Hatch).

My wife's 2000 EX Civic with ABS has even fatter tires then my 98 DX Hatch (205
vs 195). One time I locked her brakes up at 160 km/hr and it was gut wrenching
experience. The ABS on the older Civic might be crap in the snow, but it sure
does a great job in the dry, when equipped with some sticky tires at high speeds.

Pars

George Macdonald wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:15:26 -0500, "Saintor"
> <saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Measuring brake performance has a quite a bit of subjective factor
> >though -
> >> the limit being incipient lock-up and expectation of how much to ease off
> >> to prevent it. Someone conditioned to expect grabby brakes might ease up
> >> too much on a Honda. I can't say I get any impression that other mfrs'
> >> brakes are better.
> >
> >I disagree; they are. Performance numbers talk. Honda' cars are most often
> >average or lower than average in this aspect. It is surprising because it
> >is directly related to safety
>
> I tend to take auto review performance numbers with a grain of salt and of
> course tires make a big difference in brake performance - often OEM tires
> are compromised by the all-season, high wear demands of the mass consumer.
> Brakes also degrade over time, with disk scoring, pad contamination etc.
> This 2001 review
> http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...cc/index1.html doesn't
> seem to show the Civic's brakes as any worse than the others in its class
> and the Corolla is the worst of the three.
>
> >> Our 2K Accord shows no sign of warping at 45K miles and the rotors look
> >> nice and polished with no banding or streaking of the swept surface on
> >> front or rear. They work very well with no pulsing. With my '99 Integra
> >I
> >> just found out recently, when I changed the rear rotors, that they were
> >> responsible for my pulsing problem, which was violent at high speed - it
> >> was excessive corrosion of the rotors which was at the root of it.
> >
> >Mine and my previous one ('96) did the same. Slight pulsing when braking
> >from 50mph after a while. They give an impression of being fragile. My
> >rear pads (disk) had to be changed 3x in 75000 miles. The brakes
> >components seem right-sized in the Accord, but in the Civic/RSX they are
> >tiny and even worse.
>
> Nothing to do with fragile - like I said, it's corrosion. You get a build
> up of rust between the rotor and the hub where there are holes in the hub.
> When I mounted my new rotors, I put them on right after taking the old ones
> off just to check that they fit the hub and I couldn't believe how much
> they rocked. Then I saw the rust, filed and wire brushed it off and they
> went on fine *and* no more warp syndrome.
>
> I don't see where you get "tiny" from for the Civic/RSX brakes. The fronts
> are 10.3" rotors, slightly smaller than the Corolla's but hardly worth
> noting. The RSX rears are 10.2" - actually quite big for rears on that
> size car.
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

In article <j0Ubc.18118$2K3.80133@weber.videotron.net>,
Saintor <saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:

> And if you look at the comparo of 10 econo cars of Car&Driver (11/2002), the
> Civic has *the worst* brake performance for braking from 70-0 (even worse
> than Hyundai or Kia).

That probably says a lot more about the tires than the brakes themselves.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:24:07 -0400, "Saintor"
<saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:

>And if you look at the comparo of 10 econo cars of Car&Driver (11/2002), the
>Civic has *the worst* brake performance for braking from 70-0 (even worse
>than Hyundai or Kia). Also, it had *the worst* subjective rating for
>brakes.

Who to believe? Every review I've read has said the Civic brakes are fine,
even quite impressive... with mention of especially the linear response
coming up regularly. The impression I've gotten recently is that Car &
Driver is losing respect from many people - e.g. RWD dogma with reports of
"torque steer" on FWD cars which have been properly engineered to eliminate
it. IOW it can't happen but they still report it... one can only assume
because they don't actually know what it is nor the engineering facts
behind it... but it sounds so-o-o kewl to appear knowledgeable to the
ignorant... and they are getting "incentives" to push the new Detroit RWD
iron. Hey, maybe they're "outsourcing" their articles.:-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??