2009 Accord - Bad rear brakes?

Page 2 of 2  
jim beam wrote:


OK, will do - I don't mind more wear for higher performance - in fact, I expect it.
q
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Update - I recently had my first scheduled oil change. I had the brakes looked at along with the other stuff on the multi-point check. They were all measured. Front and rear each had about 1mm worth of wear from their original specs, evenly balanced, after a little over 10,000 miles. I believe the fronts are a few millimeters thicker. The guy said they ought to last to 60,000 and that my pattern of braking and driving is normal with even wear.
He said some wear early beacuse of higher speed driving and braking. (75 MPH or so) and said the brakes would wear evenly regardless, but more with higher speed and slam braking.
Thank you for the responses. I just wanted to check because I heard this going around. :)
David

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:>

It's true the brakes will wear evenly on each axle set, but only if the pads/pins/pistons remain free to move properly. That's why at least annual brake services are highly recommended (twice-annual in the Northeast).

Ah, so you're not a troll. Thanks for the update.
--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Surprising, I know.
The service people I talked to said the brake stuff was being talked over a lot out there and was one of their "frequently asked questions" by customers these days.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Strongly disagree. Many other car sites ie: edmunds.com have a lot of owners complaining about their brakes. OP is correct in asking.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Then why is it so common that they rears go out under 20k while the fronts last 30k?
I had the same thing on the 2007, and the dealer says it's common. "If you break gently, it uses the rears more," he says.
"So I should stomp the brakes?" I asked.
He shrugged.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JRStern, wrote the following at or about 10/14/2009 12:22 PM:

Partial answer, partial brag.
My mechanic - not a Honda dealership - recently replaced the brakes and rotors on my 2006 Accord EX-L. I bought a set of Honda OEM pads thinking that was all I'd need based on his last check of the brakes early this year when I replaced the tires.
When I got back from my trip and picked up the car he told me that while the fronts were getting close to replacement, the rears were literally "paper thin" and really needed replacement. My mileage? 50455 miles on the ORIGINAL brakes. He wound up replacing the rotors as well due to rust and pitting, not due to wear or warpage. Said that he'd seen quite a few rusted, pitted rotors of late.
I asked him about the rears wearing quicker than the fronts (thinking - probably as you - that back in the day, the rears always seemed to last forever with front disks) He told me the rears now seem to go faster than the fronts on many imports. Figures that the braking systems are now allocating more of the work to the rears for some reason.
Still in all, I am VERY pleased with the service I received with the OEM pads and I am NOT a "gentle" driver. Not quite a "drive it like I stole it" guy, but I use the brakes. I wonder how long they would have last me if I'd done the grandpa routine and applied the brakes like I had an egg between my foot and the pedal?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Huh. I was going to note that the back disks are much smaller - only they're not! EX and greater are 11.8 / 11.1, though rear are solid.
Must engage the rears before the fronts, or something, because certainly the load on the fronts is much greater. So, is that part of how they avoid dive?
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
zzznot, wrote the following at or about 10/15/2009 2:06 PM:

Beats me. I think that it must have something to do with the metering on the brake system (computer or mechanical). The first car I owned with four wheel ABS disc brakes was a 87 Pontiac STE (God, I loved that car) and even with that one, the front pads always went before the rear. As I recall, I could generally get ~33K-37K off the fronts and $60K-70K off the rears and I didn't sell the car until I had >190K on the odometer (my mechanic bought it<g>).
If you get too much (or sole braking)effort from the rear, you can find yourself in an amusement park ride.
If you're driving down the road and stomp on the brakes and you only have brakes on the rear, your car's rear end is going to come around 180 degrees and you'll be sailing down the road backwards. Counter-intuitive, I know. That's what I thought when it was taught to me at the Traffic Institute at Northwestern University in a crash investigation course. The instructors proved it to us with both a model car on an incline and later on in the field at a parking lot where we practiced estimating minimum speeds from tire marks.
Just find a nice big parking lot, get it up to 30-40 m/h and pull on the emergency brake like your life depended on it. When you come to rest you'll be looking at where you ceme from rather than where you were headed<g>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.