Honda Accord 2003 Front Brakes

Has anyone had problems with the Honda Accord 2003 front brakes? I
had my car serviced and after 31K (approx 20K miles), the front brake
pads had to be changed. I was informed by the dealership that there
is a problem with the front brakes and some cars had their front brake
pad changed at 12K (approx 7K miles).

I would be glad to heard from anyone who had a similar experience.

 

Honda, like many other brands, has had a problem with front
brakes for several year. Generally the problem lies in the REAR
brakes being out of adjustment, requiring the front brakes to do
most of the work and overheating. We check rear brakes for
proper operation at each service interval.


mike hunt

 

Just to clarify our cut-and-paste friend, the front brakes *always* do most
of the work (braking)...right around 70%.

Still waiting...

 

Duh. If you account for front-heavy weight distribution and torque
about the front axle when stopping, then the front brakes have the
POTENTIAL to most of the work if the brakes are calibrated to favor
the front by the proper amount. The problem with my Accord is that
the dickheads at NTB underadjusted my rear brakes so that they were
pulling nowhere near 30% of the braking burden, which resulted
directly in me crashing into another car. That 30% DOES matter.

Andrew

 

The axle torque has nothing to do with it...there is none at closed throttle
situations, but with the weight distribution in addition to kinetic energy
that "dives" the front end, and "lifts"the back, the rear tires can only
grip so much.

On a FWD car, one could put on the e brake, and drive away...dragging the
locked up rear tires, however, on a RWD car, one can hold the car to a stop
with the front brakes, as the back wheels spin.

It most certainly does...I was not indicating that it doesn't, rather Mike
habit of making statements that are not clear, or downright incorrect.

 

Hmmm. In May I had the 75,000 mile tune-up done on my 99 Accord Ex. My
Honda mechanic had to replace the rear brake pads. He said my rear discs,
front discs, and front brake pads are all fine. I bought the car new and
other than brake fluid changes and parking brake adjustments no other brake
work has been required.

Rick

 

I didn't say axle torque, I said torque about the front axle, which is
what dives the front end.

Andrew

 

I guess you lost me then...

What does "...torque about the front axle..." mean?

 

Nose dive is not torque "around" the front axle, but a force vector "at" the
front axle. Sure, the vehicle rotates slightly about the axle during
braking, but that's a miniscule resultant motion. If you had only rear
brakes, the car still nose dives because the CG transfers from the back
toward the front as you slow down.

As for the primary point of the discussion: braking capability is directly
proportional to the friction at the tire. If a rear tires have 30% of the
weight during the braking maneuver, the best they will be able to contribute
is 30% of the braking power. That's not a limitation of the brakes--it's
all about weight transfer and friction.

I think the idea that many manufacturers have had problems with front brakes
for many years is absurd. This is true on some types of vehicles (minivans
in particular), but it's ridiculous to make such a general statement. Some
minivans have problems with front brakes and tires because they sometimes
use brake/wheel combinates that were designed for the cars they were derived
from--but the minivan is much heavier and wears them out. This problem is
becoming less widespread as minivan designs improve. I do not neglect the
fact that some cars have wimpy brakes--but that is not generally the case
anywhere.

 

My '92 Civic has 218K miles and is still--even to my amazement--on the first
set of brakes with no signs of fading.

 

This is apparently quite common these days, unlike the past when the
rule always was once or twice in the front before needing rear brakes.
My 2000 Passat wagon needed rear brakes at 40K, but the dealer
reported more than half remaining on the front brakes. I was surprised
and made some calls. First I called other VW dealers. They confirmed
this is common. Second I called other makes including both Toyota and
Honda. Both also reported that they see the same pattern with the
Camry and Accord.

No one was sure why this was the case versus the old maxim of front
before rear. Some observations and thoughts.

When I look at my Accord and even more so, my Passat, the rear brakes
are really tiny compared to the front. I remember my old Volvo with
four wheel disk had similar sized brakes front and rear.

The front disks are ventilated; the rear are solid. Cooler may last
longer.

ABS. I'm not sure how this affects things, but I'm told it changes the
braking distribution setup. I remember older cars with limiting valves
to keep the rears from simply locking up every time you stopped. I'm
assuming the ABS is supposed to take care of that now.

These are just observations / thoughts. Other than size, I don't
understand why newer cars wear the rears faster than the front.

 

I don't know why either but I'm OK with it. Less money on maintenance
right? All 7 of my Honda starting in 1978 with my Civic CVCC have been
cheap to maintain.

Cheers,

Rick

 

No-one said it was.

Correct. It's the downforce that results when the torque applied
to the car about the front axle causes the weight distribution
of the axles to shift.

The CG doesn't move WRT the car (except for some give in the springs and shocks).
When you brake in any manner, if the CG x Acelleration vector has a component
that doesn't point at the front axle, you have torque that has a tendency to
lift the rear wheels.

Andrew

 

and if you can prove that, youve just won the lottery!

 

its gotta be a stick, right?

 

My 1989 VW Jetta had the rear brakes done twice, at 66,000 and at
155,000 miles. The front brake pads had plenty of meat left at- get
this- 196,000 miles.

 

I understood that this problem is only with the 2003 Accord V6, not wityh any other.

 

You said basically the same thing I did, you just took up more
time in a effort to explain the obvious.


mike hunt

 

Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahahah!

This coming from the clown known as "The Master of the Obvious"!

Bwaaahahahah!