My '05 Accord has provided reliability beyond my expecations. I have
many miles on it, since purchasing it new.
It's an LX 4 cyl, with a 5sp. Everything works well.
I am just wondering if I can upgrade to discs in the back, and have
1) Do I have to change the front discs to match the rear ones?
2) Can I also have installed EBD (electronic brake distribution)?
3) Will the stock steel wheels fit once new rotors/caiper assemblies
harley firstname.lastname@example.org (Hrundi V. Bakshi) wrote in
Don't bother. Rear discs will get you no better braking and lots more
Sure rear discs have a kewl factor that boring ol' drums do not, but
they're not worth it. Stick with the drums.
Out of curiosity, what maintenance issues are there? I have never serviced
a set or rear discs, as this is my first car that came with them, but I
have always hated working on drums. Front discs are extremely easy to work
on, so what makes the rear harder?
Rust. Rust. Seizure. Rust. More rust. Corrosion. More seizure. Rust. More
corrosion. Even more rust. Even more seizure.
If you live in Arizona or SoCal, rear discs are groovy man, but up in
places where it rains or snows, they're a real bummer.
Even in Texas, I would suggest leaving the drums. Fact is drum linings
still last twice as long as disk pads maybe longer. Why people insist
on haveing the latest 'n greatest when in fact is ain't any better just
beats the crap outta me...
On a FWD car the rear brakes do maybe 20% of the stopping. Drums on the
rear are an infinitely better choice for such a light-duty application.
Drums are sealed from the weather, and do not need to burn off moisture
to remain operational.
The shoes will last 75K miles with no maintenance whatsoever.
The only people who think rear discs are better than drums are those who
live in Arizona, or those who own shares in Norton Abrasives or Dow
Corning (or both).
whether or not it's fwd makes absolutely /zero/ difference to braking
load distribution if the weight distribution is the same. if anything,
front brakes on fwd's work /less/ since engine braking is available up
they're easier to maintain and it's /much/ easier to implement a parking
brake, but disks are a better brake in that their function is more
linear and they dump their heat much quicker.
if water gets inside a drum, it's nigh-on useless for /way/ longer than
any wet disk. drums are weather resistant, but not weather proof.
for honda rears, often much longer!
no, disks are safer in that their operation is more linear and they're
harder to overheat.
the advantages of drums are cost [first and foremost], and ease of
parking brake design. reliability of honda rear disk brakes is not
great because of their parking brake design, but that's not a disk
problem per se. other manufacturers have different solutions which
don't have the same reliability problems, but lose some/all of the
On Wed, 16 May 2007 21:11:58 +0000, Hrundi V. Bakshi wrote:
This means at least changing the rear spindles, and perhaps other
suspension components. Also, a new proportioning valve, maybe a master
cylinder, and a whole slew of other parts.
My experience has been that discs are easier to work on, but that drums
also do a fine job of bringing the car to a stop. Unless you're adding
other mods to the car (increasing HP, lowering, etc) don't bother! Honda
knows what they're doing!
On May 16, 5:11 pm, harley email@example.com (Hrundi V. Bakshi)
i love disc brakes. they are great. they are better in almost every
aspect over drum brakes. i say almost because, generally, a drum
brake has more actual surface area (more surface area creates more
friction). more friction means greater stopping power. friction
creates more heat. heat leads to fade. fade means less stopping
power. disc brakes are out in the open, so they tend to shed the heat
better than drums and therefore are used on all of the cool
here is the best reason to keep your drum brakes: gas is expensive
and not getting any cheaper. if i were to build a car today, it would
have drum brakes at every corner. why? not because of rust. not
because of maintenance. not because they aren't cool. not because of
the parking brake.
drum brakes have springs that pull the shoes away from the drum. disc
brakes do not have this little feature. disc brakes use the
imperfections of life to allow the disc to 'bounce' the pads away and
create a gap. of course, people will say this extra bit of friction
while traveling down the road is minimal....
minimal yes, but every little bit counts.
The ONLY disk brake cylinder that would actually retract pads from the
rotor surface were the (Girling I think) system used by Jaquar,
Mercedes, Studebaker and Nissan (Datsun) in the 1960's and early 1970's.
JT, they ALL do. ALL of them. EVERY one.
If the piston does NOT retract once you release the pedal, then the piston
is seizing and the caliper requires major servicing.
Not one single disc brake system does not involve piston retraction upon
pedal release. Not one. Not even Chrysler's weirdo Lambert discs of the
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.