Brakes ... Honda 98 V6 accord

sallyfish

Sorry if this in a mis-placed question but I
didn't want to get into the Honda vs. all other
vehicle Quality thread and the other Honda Brake
thread is close. (posted a q on the Brake thread
and now it seems to have vanished)

I've just taken my vehicle in for a dealer 30,000
mi. service and found out that the rear brakes were
reported to be at 15% (while the front were at
25%). Dealer recommends replacement at 20%.

I'm curious if a rear brake service after a short
30,000 miles (I've got 29,900 actually) is normal?
I thought this was a front wheel drive and
expected most of the wear to occur in the front.

30,000 seems very early to me. I'm no expert
since my point of comparison being a standard trans
'84 supra I drove till '98 and put 150,000 miles
on, never having to replace the brakes. Was I
living in a fantasy world?!
Thanks in advance.

robr2

Perhaps we have the same dealer - I am in MA.

I have a 98 EX 4 cylinder auto and just had the rear brakes done at 30K as well. I was surprised when the dealer called me and said that the brakes would need to be done within 3K miles.

I asked how the front brakes were and was told they were fine. I accepted that as possible because when I had the 15K service done (different dealer), they had replaced the front rotors under warranty and I presumed the pads were replaced at the same time. I later checked my 15K paperwork and the pads were not listed (doesn't mean they did not change them). Alas, I authorized the rear brake work a week later.

I know how uou must have felt re brakes at 30K. My previous car was a 91 Accord 5 sp which needed only front pads at 112K. I know I drive this automatic much harder, but traffic here in Boston has become much heavier thanks to the great economy.

sallyfish

I'm in CA. I purchased the vehicle in So Cal and had no complaints with the dealer there other than I couldn't get out of the 'trim package' when I bought the car. They were going to put pinstripes on the car (in addition to door trim, etc.). I ultimately accepted the package but insisted they omit the pinstripes. Good grief!

Anyway, I'm in No Cal now, different dealer, for the 30K service. I'm still pretty frustrated with this whole thing. No one's been able to give me any more information and I'm left feeling that I got things stuck to me by the dealer.

Maybe no one else with this vehicle's (besides you) has put this many miles are their car yet? I find that hard to believe.

butch11

Never over 400K+ had Accord rear brake shoes to wear out before front pads. In my opinion, this could happen only one of 3 ways-somebody is driving with the parking brake engaged, something is wrong with the device that balances the braking effort between front and back and the last and most likely-the service techs are being paid to find as much wrong as they can and they have a financial incentive to do so.

I have 106K on my front pads and estimate they will be good till at least 150K. One reason these techs maybe replacing the rear shoes is that it is relatively hard to see how much is left on the shoes. I would also suggest asking for the shoes they took off the car-yeah there is a core charge of maybe $5-if they are real crooks-and I suspect they are-they will show you a set of worn out shoes and not yours.

Still remember showing a neighbor of mine how to change the oil on his 2 year old Accord-it still had the original filter on it-was so stuck had to use a filter wrench to get it off the car-the local Atlanta Honda dealer had been doing his service. Be careful-there are some real crooks out there.

robr2

I too have never had to replace rear brake shoes before on any car I ever owned and didn't expect to do these yet. But, both of these Accords have rear disk brakes - maybe disks take more abuse that brake shoes or braking action is split more evenly??? I have no idea.

Here's hoping these last me longer.

guitarzan

I assume that is right, that a '98 V6 has disks, just like the brand new ones do. Knowing that, I say keep this in mind: rear disk brakes are a relatively new design, number one. Number two, disk brakes overall provide superior stopping power to drum brakes. This combination, plus my experience with Honda's rear brakes tells me that yes, this is somewhat normal, for rear disks to be very worn at 30,000 miles.

I believe they have used 2 different materials for the rear brakes also, but I don't know what has been used on the Accord specifically. I do know that my '98 CL uses non-metallic pads. I suspect, although I don't know, that these pads mean there is less overall wear on the brake system. Result? With my heavy braking, I still have not replaced anything going on 46,000 miles. In contrast, my Integra, which had metallic pads btw, had the rears chewed up completely by 30,000k, and needed new rotors and pads. One way to tell which you have: Do your brakes grind slightly every single morning when you first hit them? Then they are metallic.

purina1_us

we were told by a dealer that the rears had 15% left and the fronts had 20% left at 29,000 miles. after another ~3,000 miles, the fronts began to "squeak". the car was taken to an independent shop, where the fronts were replaced (rotors not turned) and the rears were reported to have about 50% left or good to ~55,000 miles. so far no issues w/ the brakes. now if we can get the check engine light to stay off and the car to idle smoother....

ashera1

We have a great topic here in which this conversation would fit right in - here is a link:

Honda Accord Problems (Topic #1398)

You may or may not have noticed, but we are having a lot of problems with out host software recently, and keeping similar discussions all in one place may help. Besides, there is an experienced Honda tech hanging out in that topic who has been a great help to all of our Honda owning members.

So please, follow that link and let's continue this discussion there.

Pat
Community Leader/Maintenance & Repair Conference