Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and
lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes
were fine, but the *rear* brakes needed replacement. I just said yes.

In retrospect, isn't that odd, that the back brakes were gone so
early? Should I have raised a question if anything was wrong, or if
they should even be replaced under warranty (was like $175 at dealer
prices, IIRC). It's been 95% LA freeway driving the last six months,
not very aggressive, hey it's an EX4!

Thanks.

J.

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in
news:554ad117jle1kclu1f5375e85g095cmpj3@4ax.com:

> Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and
> lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes
> were fine, but the *rear* brakes needed replacement. I just said yes.
>
> In retrospect, isn't that odd, that the back brakes were gone so
> early? Should I have raised a question if anything was wrong, or if
> they should even be replaced under warranty (was like $175 at dealer
> prices, IIRC). It's been 95% LA freeway driving the last six months,
> not very aggressive, hey it's an EX4!
>
> Thanks.
>
> J.
>
>

My rear brake pads on my 94 Integra wore out well before the fronts need
new pads.
From what I've read here,it seems to be "normal" for Honda products.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in
news:554ad117jle1kclu1f5375e85g095cmpj3@4ax.com:

> Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and
> lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes
> were fine, but the *rear* brakes needed replacement. I just said yes.
>
> In retrospect, isn't that odd, that the back brakes were gone so
> early? Should I have raised a question if anything was wrong, or if
> they should even be replaced under warranty (was like $175 at dealer
> prices, IIRC). It's been 95% LA freeway driving the last six months,
> not very aggressive, hey it's an EX4!
>
> Thanks.
>
> J.
>
>

My rear brake pads on my 94 Integra wore out well before the fronts need
new pads.
From what I've read here,it seems to be "normal" for Honda products.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

JXStern wrote:
> Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and
> lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes
> were fine, but the *rear* brakes needed replacement. I just said yes.
>
> In retrospect, isn't that odd, that the back brakes were gone so
> early? Should I have raised a question if anything was wrong, or if
> they should even be replaced under warranty (was like $175 at dealer
> prices, IIRC). It's been 95% LA freeway driving the last six months,
> not very aggressive, hey it's an EX4!
>
> Thanks.
>
> J.
>

My mechanic (former Honda Tech) says the rear disc brakes on all Hondas
are prone to early wear. Must be cleaned and lubed with silicone at
yearly intervals regardless of miles driven.
He also said the rear drum brakes like I have on my LX are bullet
proof. bob

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

JXStern wrote:
> Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and
> lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes
> were fine, but the *rear* brakes needed replacement. I just said yes.
>
> In retrospect, isn't that odd, that the back brakes were gone so
> early? Should I have raised a question if anything was wrong, or if
> they should even be replaced under warranty (was like $175 at dealer
> prices, IIRC). It's been 95% LA freeway driving the last six months,
> not very aggressive, hey it's an EX4!
>
> Thanks.
>
> J.
>

My mechanic (former Honda Tech) says the rear disc brakes on all Hondas
are prone to early wear. Must be cleaned and lubed with silicone at
yearly intervals regardless of miles driven.
He also said the rear drum brakes like I have on my LX are bullet
proof. bob

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

That does sound awful odd, I have a 98 ex 6 and replaced all pads at the
same time at 50k and 85k, something is not set right or the "dealer" might
have pulled a scam on you.
I also do alot of stop and go driving with a couple of 5-6k trips.

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

That does sound awful odd, I have a 98 ex 6 and replaced all pads at the
same time at 50k and 85k, something is not set right or the "dealer" might
have pulled a scam on you.
I also do alot of stop and go driving with a couple of 5-6k trips.

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

JXStern wrote:
> Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and
> lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes
> were fine, but the *rear* brakes needed replacement. I just said yes.
>

I made it to 28k miles on my Accord before the rear pads were completely
shot.


> In retrospect, isn't that odd, that the back brakes were gone so
> early? Should I have raised a question if anything was wrong, or if
> they should even be replaced under warranty (was like $175 at dealer
> prices, IIRC). It's been 95% LA freeway driving the last six months,
> not very aggressive, hey it's an EX4!
>

It seems to me that Honda has skimped on either the size of the rear
pads or their thickness. The rear pads have about 1/2 the surface area
of the front pads and about 1/2 of the material thickness when new.
So, even though the rear brakes don't work as hard as the fronts, there
appears to be so little pad material to work with that they wear out
rapidly.

My Accord is the first vehicle I have ever owned where the rear brakes
wore out so quickly. To me it isn't a big deal as I do my own repairs
and the replacement pad set only cost me around $30. I would be mighty
annoyed if I had to pay a dealer $175 every 20k miles for new rear brake
pads!

John

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

JXStern wrote:
> Had my 2004 Accord EX4 sedan in for 20k mile service (oil change and
> lots of checkups, as I recall), and the dealer said the front brakes
> were fine, but the *rear* brakes needed replacement. I just said yes.
>

I made it to 28k miles on my Accord before the rear pads were completely
shot.


> In retrospect, isn't that odd, that the back brakes were gone so
> early? Should I have raised a question if anything was wrong, or if
> they should even be replaced under warranty (was like $175 at dealer
> prices, IIRC). It's been 95% LA freeway driving the last six months,
> not very aggressive, hey it's an EX4!
>

It seems to me that Honda has skimped on either the size of the rear
pads or their thickness. The rear pads have about 1/2 the surface area
of the front pads and about 1/2 of the material thickness when new.
So, even though the rear brakes don't work as hard as the fronts, there
appears to be so little pad material to work with that they wear out
rapidly.

My Accord is the first vehicle I have ever owned where the rear brakes
wore out so quickly. To me it isn't a big deal as I do my own repairs
and the replacement pad set only cost me around $30. I would be mighty
annoyed if I had to pay a dealer $175 every 20k miles for new rear brake
pads!

John

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

joe5705 wrote:
> That does sound awful odd, I have a 98 ex 6 and replaced all pads at the
> same time at 50k and 85k, something is not set right or the "dealer" might
> have pulled a scam on you.
> I also do alot of stop and go driving with a couple of 5-6k trips.
>

The '03 and later Accord is a completely new design generation and your
experience is not typical of the new ones.

John

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

joe5705 wrote:
> That does sound awful odd, I have a 98 ex 6 and replaced all pads at the
> same time at 50k and 85k, something is not set right or the "dealer" might
> have pulled a scam on you.
> I also do alot of stop and go driving with a couple of 5-6k trips.
>

The '03 and later Accord is a completely new design generation and your
experience is not typical of the new ones.

John

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:18:59 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>It seems to me that Honda has skimped on either the size of the rear
>pads or their thickness. The rear pads have about 1/2 the surface area
>of the front pads and about 1/2 of the material thickness when new.
>So, even though the rear brakes don't work as hard as the fronts, there
>appears to be so little pad material to work with that they wear out
>rapidly.

I didn't know that. Wouldn't you think they'd try to standardize on
the pads, even if the disks in back were smaller? Nah, ...

>My Accord is the first vehicle I have ever owned where the rear brakes
>wore out so quickly. To me it isn't a big deal as I do my own repairs
>and the replacement pad set only cost me around $30. I would be mighty
>annoyed if I had to pay a dealer $175 every 20k miles for new rear brake
>pads!

I will definitely raise a stink about it at the dealer if/when it
happens again. OTOH, I only have a three year lease and my practice
is to trade it in for a new one at that time, so I may not see the
day.

Thanks for the info!

Hey, Honda, what were ya thinking?

J.

ps - thought: are there any aftermarket replacement pads that might be
better?

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:18:59 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>It seems to me that Honda has skimped on either the size of the rear
>pads or their thickness. The rear pads have about 1/2 the surface area
>of the front pads and about 1/2 of the material thickness when new.
>So, even though the rear brakes don't work as hard as the fronts, there
>appears to be so little pad material to work with that they wear out
>rapidly.

I didn't know that. Wouldn't you think they'd try to standardize on
the pads, even if the disks in back were smaller? Nah, ...

>My Accord is the first vehicle I have ever owned where the rear brakes
>wore out so quickly. To me it isn't a big deal as I do my own repairs
>and the replacement pad set only cost me around $30. I would be mighty
>annoyed if I had to pay a dealer $175 every 20k miles for new rear brake
>pads!

I will definitely raise a stink about it at the dealer if/when it
happens again. OTOH, I only have a three year lease and my practice
is to trade it in for a new one at that time, so I may not see the
day.

Thanks for the info!

Hey, Honda, what were ya thinking?

J.

ps - thought: are there any aftermarket replacement pads that might be
better?

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:18:59 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>JXStern wrote:

>My Accord is the first vehicle I have ever owned where the rear brakes
>wore out so quickly. To me it isn't a big deal as I do my own repairs
>and the replacement pad set only cost me around $30. I would be mighty

Or, you could just get lifetime pads. I haven't paid for pads in MANY
years.

Re: Rear brakes gone at 20k
 

<Blah....@bal> wrote
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:18:59 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >JXStern wrote:
>
> >My Accord is the first vehicle I have ever owned where the rear brakes
> >wore out so quickly. To me it isn't a big deal as I do my own repairs
> >and the replacement pad set only cost me around $30. I would be mighty
>
> Or, you could just get lifetime pads. I haven't paid for pads in MANY
> years.

Pads may be guaranteed/warrantied for life, but then that generally
translates to simply harder pads. Meaning they're going to wear the rotor
more quickly. Replacing rotors (when done the right way) is expensive.