Honda Car Forum

I have a 2000-Accord-4DR-EX with ~60,000 miles. I have never changed my
brakes - since new. Today, I went for my annual inspection and the
mechanic said that my front brakes look like new and the rear are
almost gone, but OK until replacement soon.

(1) Should I have both the front and rear replaced at the same time?
Should I replace the rotors at the same time or not.

(2) Are rear ones the first to go, in general?

Thanks in advance
Shanks

don't change both at same time unless they need changing. You
obviously have disc brakes on the rear - they IMHO are too small and
wear out fast - have my origional shoes on drum brakes at 189K miles -
got about 113 on first set of pads and 70K on cheap autozone pads.

Have always wondered why auto makers put such small pads on the rear.

Also whatever you do do not let the repair guys talk you into turning
your rotors - big mistake - every time they turn they get thinner and
more of a chance of warping. Also tell them to use torque wrenches not
torque sticks and never ever impact wrenches - will bend/warp your
rotors.

"butch burton" <spacetrax@wi.rr.com> wrote in
news:1120594015.562808.29930@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com:

> don't change both at same time unless they need changing. You
> obviously have disc brakes on the rear - they IMHO are too small and
> wear out fast - have my origional shoes on drum brakes at 189K miles -
> got about 113 on first set of pads and 70K on cheap autozone pads.
>
> Have always wondered why auto makers put such small pads on the rear.



Two reasons:
1) To give them a chance of getting even remotely warm in use
2) To make the parking brake bite properly with reasonable effort.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"SadaYama" <gireesham@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1120590969.267103.222080@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com:

> I have a 2000-Accord-4DR-EX with ~60,000 miles. I have never changed my
> brakes - since new. Today, I went for my annual inspection and the
> mechanic said that my front brakes look like new and the rear are
> almost gone, but OK until replacement soon.
>
> (1) Should I have both the front and rear replaced at the same time?


No. Not if the fronts look brand new. Rears-only are fine.

BUT: Have the fronts checked to make sure the pins and pads are floating
freely with no binding at all.


> Should I replace the rotors at the same time or not.


Not if they're not warped or badly scored.

Turning *can* increase the probability of future warping because it reduces
heat-sink mass if taken too deep. A light skim is no problem, though.

>
> (2) Are rear ones the first to go, in general?


Yes, on a car with rear discs where the parking brake uses the disc pads.



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

TeGGeR® wrote:

<snip>

>>(2) Are rear ones the first to go, in general?
>
> Yes, on a car with rear discs where the parking brake uses the disc pads.

Why is that?

Without knowing any better I would think that using the rear disks as
the parking brake would not put any additional wear on the pads because
it's not engaged until the car is stopped, i.e., the disks aren't
turning with the parking brake on, therefore no wear on the pads.

TeGGeR® wrote:
> "SadaYama" <gireesham@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1120590969.267103.222080@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com:
>
>
>>I have a 2000-Accord-4DR-EX with ~60,000 miles. I have never changed my
>>brakes - since new. Today, I went for my annual inspection and the
>>mechanic said that my front brakes look like new and the rear are
>>almost gone, but OK until replacement soon.
>>
>>(1) Should I have both the front and rear replaced at the same time?
>
>
>
> No. Not if the fronts look brand new. Rears-only are fine.
>
> BUT: Have the fronts checked to make sure the pins and pads are floating
> freely with no binding at all.
>
>
>
>>Should I replace the rotors at the same time or not.
>
>
>
> Not if they're not warped or badly scored.
>
> Turning *can* increase the probability of future warping because it reduces
> heat-sink mass if taken too deep. A light skim is no problem, though.
>
>
>>(2) Are rear ones the first to go, in general?
>
>
>
> Yes, on a car with rear discs where the parking brake uses the disc pads.
>
>
>
as a side note- my local dealer, norm reeves honda of cerritos, CA sent
me a flyer with their service specials in it. they want $165 to do the
front brakes... damn. $165, and thats a "special"?

and that doesnt include turning the rotors, which would be extra, if
needed. but it does include a complete inspection of the brake system!
something i can do in 10 minutes myself.

id change front pads all day for $165 a pop. hell, id even drive to
someones home or place of business and do it there!

TeGGeR® wrote:
> "butch burton" <spacetrax@wi.rr.com> wrote in
> news:1120594015.562808.29930@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com:
>
> <snip>
>>Have always wondered why auto makers put such small pads on the rear.
>
>
>
>
> Two reasons:
> 1) To give them a chance of getting even remotely warm in use
> 2) To make the parking brake bite properly with reasonable effort.

Why would small pads enable the p-brake to bite any better than large pads?

TeGGeR® wrote
:<snip>
> Yes, on a car with rear discs where the parking brake uses the disc pads.

> Sparky Spartacus wrote:
>
> Why is that?

Brake bias, the front brakes are always larger than the rear brakes. Why?
Because more than 70% of braking is done with the front brakes.
This guy's rear pad wear, compared to the front, is probably due to his
braking habits. I'm guessing this person is an early, easy breaker. That is,
he applies the brakes with light pressure, and slows gradually, way in advance
of the final stopping mark. The rear brakes are engaged just slightly before
the front brakes. So the majority of slowing, in this case, is being done
with "just" the rear brakes, thus the wear.
The parking brake has little to do with rear pad wear, unless the car is
driven with the parking brake left on.


--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote in news:PoCdne9KzYtVfVbfRVn-rA@rcn.net:

> TeGGeR® wrote:
>> "butch burton" <spacetrax@wi.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:1120594015.562808.29930@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>Have always wondered why auto makers put such small pads on the rear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Two reasons:
>> 1) To give them a chance of getting even remotely warm in use
>> 2) To make the parking brake bite properly with reasonable effort.
>
> Why would small pads enable the p-brake to bite any better than large
> pads?
>


Small pads concentrate the load over a smaller area, resulting in better
"bite" with a lever that's reasonably easy to pull up.

If the pads were bigger, the force exerted by the parking brake lever would
have to be proportionally greater.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

My friends with cars having pads front and back seem to always wear out
their rear pads first - thus my question as to why the rear pads are so
small. A design screw up in my opinion. With 189K on my rear shoes
and still a lot of miles left on these shoes - shoes it is for me in
the rear - if I have a choice.