2001 Accord brake pad replacement

Comments

• tblazer503 Member Posts: 620

  July 2003

  Personally, I would get them from Autozone. Don't get the cheap stuff, though... they have a tendancy to squeak. I usually get the non-metallic stuff w/ the lifetime warranty. Most places will have a "non squeak" version.
  
  I haven't had any problems in the past. Strange that you need rears at 35k, earliest I have ever changed rears is 70k mi. Musta gone through at least a set of fronts already(60/40f/r brake ratio)
  
  good luck

  0
• skreutz Member Posts: 2

  July 2003

  Just bought the car with 28K miles. I was very surprised that it needed new brakes, but dealership told me avg. brake life is only 25-30K miles, which I find hard to believe. Have not replaced front brakes, and do not believe they were replaced before I bought it. Planned on getting the lifetime carbon-metallic brake pads. Glad to hear you agreed. Thanks.

  0
• isellhondas Member Posts: 20,342

  July 2003

  Buy the Honda pads. You were given good advise.
  
  A lot of the aftermarket ones will squeal.
  
  It seems that on the later Accords, they will go through rear pads before the fronts wear out. The rear pads don't come with as much material as the fronts.
  
  My 99 V-6 coupe needed rear pads at 45,000 miles. I probably could have gone another 5000 miles but I decided to have them replaced since the car was already up in the air.
  
  The fronts are original and still had 4.5 MM left to the wear indicators. That's about 50%.

  0
• bburton3 Member Posts: 185

  July 2003

  front pads and not a squeak yet-but I did buy the anti squeal stuff-kept in ready in case the squeal demon shows up. Looks like I will get about 80K out of the $12 AZ pads, got 113 out of first set of OEM pads-course they cost about 4X the AZ pads.

  0
• isellhondas Member Posts: 20,342

  July 2003

  You are a prudent driver!
  
  I'm pretty careful myself but I'll probably need front pads around 60,000 miles.
  
  Course, there are lots of hills around here too!

  0
• gsleve Member Posts: 183

  July 2003

  The reason for this is that the rear pads are a made of a composite material which is organic these pads are utilized by the manufacturer because they are less intrusive on the rear rotor due to the fact that these rotors are usually non vented and if you were to use a semi-metallic pad it would cause excessive wear on the rotor, thereby needing a new rotor at every brake pad replacement. I think the mindset was that most of the braking occurs up front, yet if disc brakes are utilized in the rear in order to make this implementation cost effective coupled with perhaps a weight factor, the trade off is non vented rotors and organic pads these being replaced sooner than front pads.

  0
• mikek37 Member Posts: 411

  July 2003

  What do you mean by "Vented"?

  0
• bburton3 Member Posts: 185

  July 2003

  Seems strange to me they generally wear out so much quicker than front pads-those I have worked on had much thinner pads-wonder if the engineers ever think about designing them to wear out at about the same time. Will probably get at least 200K out of my rear brake shoes-now why would I want rear pads if I have to replace them every 50K or so??? And rear disc brakes are supposedly an upgrade-hmmmmm.

  0
• tblazer503 Member Posts: 620

  July 2003

  =o)
  They don't get affected as much as drums in foul weather, and are much easier to change than shoes..

  0
• 0patience Member Posts: 1,712

  July 2003

  I know it sounds like a sales pitch, but Hondas are finicky cars and to use less than Honda parts is asking for troubles.
  Very few aftermarket parts will meet the quality of certain OEMs.

  0