jim beam

Caroline wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> snip
>
>>like i said, i had 50k of sf driving on my car, original pads, and that
>>/included/ regularly doing the lombard st tourist thing when i had
>>friends in from out of town.
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
> I'll just throw in that the original pads on my 1991 Civic lasted only 43k miles
> and 1.75 years. Maybe two weeks of this was spent driving in mountainous areas.
> The rest of the driving was in very flat areas.

i think the '88-'91's has a softer pad material because the vacuum servo
on my '89 is much smaller than my 2000 but the brake feels the same.
both have 13/16" brake cylinders.

>
>
>>unless the o.p. does 100 miles a night with a dominos pizza delivery
>>job, 10% is something of a stretch.
>
>
> Depends on driving habits.
>
> To the previous list, add: Is it a manual transmission where the driver often
> uses the engine to brake?

that's a good point! mine's an auto, but it still engine brakes -
programmed in depending on deceleration rate & initial speed.

>
> I do agree that plenty of shops (dealer and otherwise) are into ripping off
> customers for brake pads. Checking brake pad thickness is not difficult, even
> for someone who has minimal mechanical experience. At the least, stick around
> the shop who's checking the pads and make the technician show you the brake pad
> thickness up close and personal.
>
>