If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Accord 2000 - Question on Brakes wear
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"butch burton" > wrote in
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/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"SadaYama" > wrote in
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/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
TeGGeR® wrote:
> "SadaYama" > wrote in > 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! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
TeGGeR® wrote:
> "butch burton" > wrote in > 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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Abeness > wrote in :
> TeGGeR® wrote: >> "butch burton" > wrote in >> 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/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2000 Accord stalls while driving | anony | Honda | 8 | February 17th 05 10:14 PM |
2000 Accord coolant drain plug location | Howard and Audrey | Technology | 0 | December 21st 04 04:50 PM |
2000 Accord coolant drain plug location | Howard and Audrey | Technology | 0 | December 21st 04 04:48 PM |
2000 Honda Accord Ex- question- lights in clock and radio light goes dim | KOS | Honda | 4 | December 4th 04 08:11 AM |