2009 Accord - Bad rear brakes?

OK, will do - I don't mind more wear for higher performance - in fact, I
expect it.

q

 

Strongly disagree. Many other car sites ie: edmunds.com have a lot of
owners complaining about their brakes. OP is correct in asking.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

Still in all, I am VERY pleased with the service I received with the OEM

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.

 

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>

 

(As opposed to the Peoples' Republic of California??)