I did, although it ended up having to do with the timing belt in an indirect way. The mechanic who did my timing belt change (it was not my normal mechanic) tightened the belts too tight. This caused a failure in the bearings in my A/C unit and caused bearing whine only on startup or intermittently when using the A/C.
Hopefully your problems lie elsewhere, otherwise it might be a somewhat costly fix. Unless of course you get the mechanic at fault to comp you
I find it interesting that this fellow has been continually dismissed as a troll and that absolutely no credence is given to his complaint. This link clearly shows that his complaint is valid:
Why do some posters feel that they must function as apologists for Honda? Why is any negative comment taken as a trolling outrage? The suggestions that have been made are unacceptable to most reasonable people. Replacing the seats with aftermarket products would clearly compromise safety for the occupants. Selling a car is always possible, but should not be listed as the "fix" for this problem.
Well, lots of folks react when someone posts essentially the same thing several times. Some people here did sincerely try to help and if their suggestions aren't workable, then he shouldn't take them up on it.
I think everyone here has offered - sincerely or not - any thought they might have had to help. There's only so much any one group of people can offer and berating them several times isn't going to get the problem fixed.
I know that several folks here - myself included - feel very bad for the situation. But it sounds like a pretty unsolvable problem at least by this group. We certainly have no way to get Honda to buy the car back. I think we've done all that we can do.
All of that said, we aren't here to talk about each other at all. So no more personal stuff, please.
I don't think we need to open up this seat thing again unless someone has something new and productive (not a slam nor sarcasm) to add.
My dealer says that my 2004 Accord EX-V6 sedan needs the rear brake pads replaced. I have approx. 22,500 miles on mostly (approx 90%) highway miles, with very little "stop and go", or heavy braking. I am wondering if this might be unusually too early for brake pads to wear out? Furthermore, he wants to charge me approx $100 for just the rear pads. Is this about right? It seems to me it would be very easy to make extra money this way as a dealer -- "If you don't replace them now, your rotors will be damaged". Sounds like a great sale or guilt trip expense. Am I off on this?
If they say that your REAR pads need replacement, I'd be cautious. The rear pads can outlast the front pads almost two to one. That's because when you brake, the vehicle's weight shifts forward, making the front pads wear more quickly. Get another opinion.
This poster has posted the same thing in several forums.
You are correct. The rear pads actually wear out FASTER than the fronts which usually isn't the case. I'm a prudent driver and I had to replace my rears at 45,000 miles.The original front pads still had lots of life left.
Two does not equal several. If someone posts in the general discussion as well as the P&S discussion, it's really not a big deal. Many folks read both but some read only one or the other. When someone is having a problem it seems perfectly understandable that the person would want to cover all the bases in looking for help.
If you find that a message annoys you for whatever reason, your best course is to skip it and move on.
Anyone else notice that the above mentioned discussion group is now gone. HMMM Wonder if Honda has something to do with that. They have ALLDATA claming up.. What's Next
Las time I had 15K maintanenance, I was told by my dealer that my front pad has 75% left and rear pad has 50% left. Mine was an 03 LX V6.
I was told that the braking force is 50-50 front and rear for 4-wheel disc brake. And the rear pad is thinner than front pad by design. This was given to me as the reason that rear pad has less lef than the front.
Since most of the weight is in the front of the car in a static state. And when you brake even more transfers to the front of the car. I'm sure much more braking force is done applied to the front brakes of the car.
Agreed, and I'm pretty sure this was said before. Also, I believe it was said that the rear pads were changed to be less beefy and thus wore out much faster than they used to, even assuming the disparity in driving styles. There was even discussion that they had been made too thin and were prone to wearing out TOO QUICKLY. This makes much more sense to me than any explanation that tries to assert somehow more force or even equal force is being exerted on the rear brakes as compared with the fronts. Unless everyone is doing a lot of high speed reverse driving, this will never be the case for current autos.
I don't think it's 50/50 either but here's my theory:
The rear pads are thinner so that the fronts and rear brakes will wear out at appx the same time. This way you are doing a complete brake job instead of fronts this year, back next year, et al.
My '03 EX-L (5 speed manual) needs it's 30K service. My driving falls between the severe and normal schedules. I have been changing my oil & filter every 5K. What should be done to the car and what can I generally expect to pay for this service? I know that dealers typically try and add uneeded items to a service. Thanks.
Follow advice in your Owner's Manual that came with the car. The people who built it know more about how it should be serviced than anyone else ........Richard
slawenda - same thing for me about 25k miles, except that the squeaking sound started! I just cannot believe it but when I went to the dealer, I told him that my front disc are worn out - but he said that he is 90% sure it was the rear disc.
He told me that this is his experience to most of the V6 rear disc... Never happened to my previouse vehicles, it is always the front disc first... but I guess this is something new for me.
I was not thrilled that the rear went out after I consider still low mileage.. but it happened. Just thinking what stuff Honda puts in... My dealer though was kind enough to listen to my other complain of front break vibration, and they resurfaced and replaced it under warranty! So I ended up just paying for the rear.
[QUOTE ... by johnr007] When the low fuel warning light comes on in the '04 sedan (17.1 gal tank), how much fuel is left? [UnQUOTE]
Your result may differ due to the low fuel sensor setting but it should be relatively close to my 2005 Honda Accord 4cyl AT PZEV EXL Sedan.
I put in my 1st TANK OF GAS last Thursday, May 19th @ Costco! (Sunnyvale - $2.389 per gal.)
Traveled:... 341 miles (4.5 on odometer when I took delivery 5/6/05) Filled:..... 13.424 gals. (3.676 gals. remaining - light just turned on in Costco parking lot) --------------------- FYI: My MPG:........ 25.4 AVG (break-in miles, mostly city w/some HY going to work = approx. 10.4 miles each way)
I just had semi-metallic front and rear brakes installed on a 2004 EX-V-6 Accord. The front rotors were badly weathered and pitted, and needed to be resurfaced twice. Now the car takes "forever" to stop with steady braking--both on city streets (30mi/h -> zero) and at highway speeds (60 mi/h -> zero). Is this just because the brakes are new? Do they need to be bedded-in (and what are the steps to take)? Or do the rotors need to be replaced?
On 2003-2005 Accords the low fuel indicator is designed to come on when the gauge reads just under a 1/4 tank and when there is approximately 3-4 gallons of fuel left.
I must qualify this, these are the instructions as I remember them from the factory service manual for my Nissan. After pad replacement, to bed them in the book says to make 6-10 fairly hard stops from 30-35 MPH. Then drive around for a while to let the brakes cool down.
It could be that your pads are glazed from improper bedding. Did you do the work yourself, or have a shop do it? If you had someone do it, it's worth a try to tell them about it and have them try to fix it. There shouldn't be a significant difference in stopping distance with new pads.
I have an 05 Accord with XM. My other car has a Garmin 2610 in it, which I use an external antenna for better accuracy. I want to put the 2610 in the Accord from time to time, so I mounted a base on the dash and before wiring in another antenna, I got to looking on ebay at some Accords with both GPS and XM and realized they had only the single antenna on the roof.
As I have XM, I obviously have this antenna - my question is - does anyone know how this interfaces on Accords with BOTH units - ie: Is there a Y adapter for the antenna (can it even be used that way?), or are there 2 antenna elements and cables in those models or what? What I would like to do if at all possible is avoid putting another antenna and running another cable up to the front of the car (which will end up coming up the front of the dash).
Anyone know what the cabling looks like behind the dash and if my thought is possible? I'd rather avoid tearing out the dash if I don't have to.
I don't believe that the antenna for the GPS is intergrated at all with the XM one. If you look at other Honda products with GPS only, there isn't a visible antenna.
Don't have a Honda but I have OnStar. I believe the gps is under the rear package shelf. I believe I found that when reading the service manuals that I bought for the car.
The antenna that you see on the rear of the roof of your vehicle is solely for your XM Satellite Radio reception.
My 2004 Accord Coupe came equipped with XM Satellite Radio, as well as with Honda's OEM Navigation System (full two-way voice command). Its Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) antenna is located inside the rear windshield, under the rear parcel shelf.
You cannot interface your aftermarket navigation system with an XM Radio antenna.
Since you stated that your rotors "...needed to be resurfaced twice" I am concerned that your "forever" stopping distances are being caused by rotors that are now too-thin. If so, they may be overheating too quickly, thus increasing your stopping distances.
The brakes on my 2003 Accord LX 4-cyl are starting to squeak. It has 30,000 miles on it. This is my first Honda, and I wanted to know if 30K is normal for brakes wearing out.
Brake squeal is caused by the vibration of the brake pads against the rotating brake disc when they are applied. Brake shims and high-temp grease usually will dampen or eliminate the squeal however sometimes the sound may not be able to be eliminated all together.
If the squealing is abnormally loud it is recommended that the brakes be inspected. It is possible that your brakes do not have enough usable life remaining or the shims/grease may need replaced.
As always, refer to your owner's manual for recommended brake inspection and service intervals. Keeping up on regular maintenance can help keep your brake repairs to a minimum.
You may just be hearing the brake wear indicator, a small thin piece of metal that rubs on a non-braking part of the rotor when the pads begin to show signs of becoming too thin. It's designed to make a squeal sound as a warning or reminder to check your pad thickness.
I live in powell TN and now own my first honda a 1979 honda accord lx cvcc. It is much better than any older car I have EVER owned. Unfortunately we will have to sell it. According to NADA vintage value it is worth approx 1700-3600. It is very clean (almost perfect inside) with a very straight body and the motor runs great and the five speed trans is fine too. Any thoughts on where on the web to advertise to be able to sell it in order for another honda fan to enjoy it? I can't find them listed anywhere for sale in all of the common places and know nothing about clubs and or forums out there (just bumped into this one)
Thanks for your help (please no flames...... really want some help here.... next car and many more ALL HONDA)
My 2005 Accord EX V6 is the first car that I've had with ABS brakes . When I was taught to drive 32 years ago I was taught to pump the brakes.
My uncle was following me the other day and he commented to me how much I pump the brakes.. He told me that I should not pump the brakes but to just apply a steady pressure and don't let the pedal up.
He said pumping the brakes was the old way of braking and said that pumping them will make them ineffective.
Basically what the ABS system does is pump the brakes for you when it senses that one or more wheels is locked up (in slippery conditions); otherwise the brakes behave as they normally do. The advantage to this is that ABS lets you "stomp and steer"--in other words, you can stomp on the brake pedal in an emergency and still have some steering control since none of the wheels are locked up. You will feel the pedal vibrate and a pulsing sound when the ABS kicks in.
There is no harm in manually pumping the brakes, but the ABS system can do it more quickly than a human can.
Even 30 years ago pumping the brakes was not necessary. Steady pressure (without riding the brakes) until just before lock up is what is needed. Now with ABS, you can do the same but don't have to worry about lock up.
Over a very long period, pumping might be detrimental. The brake components (pistons in calipers, brake lines, etc.) are being subjected to un-necessary pressure changes.
Comments
nice day
femi
Hopefully your problems lie elsewhere, otherwise it might be a somewhat costly fix. Unless of course you get the mechanic at fault to comp you
Even if it is a Honda belt, maybe something is wrong with it.
Anyway, a little squeal is noting to fret about.
http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_2004/article.html
Why do some posters feel that they must function as apologists for Honda? Why is any negative comment taken as a trolling outrage? The suggestions that have been made are unacceptable to most reasonable people. Replacing the seats with aftermarket products would clearly compromise safety for the occupants. Selling a car is always possible, but should not be listed as the "fix" for this problem.
I think everyone here has offered - sincerely or not - any thought they might have had to help. There's only so much any one group of people can offer and berating them several times isn't going to get the problem fixed.
I know that several folks here - myself included - feel very bad for the situation. But it sounds like a pretty unsolvable problem at least by this group. We certainly have no way to get Honda to buy the car back. I think we've done all that we can do.
All of that said, we aren't here to talk about each other at all. So no more personal stuff, please.
I don't think we need to open up this seat thing again unless someone has something new and productive (not a slam nor sarcasm) to add.
Thanks.
As I replied to you in another forum,
If they say that your REAR pads need replacement, I'd be cautious. The rear pads can outlast the front pads almost two to one. That's because when you brake, the vehicle's weight shifts forward, making the front pads wear more quickly. Get another opinion.
Not always - the rear pads are about 1/2 the thickness of the fronts and may wear out equally or sooner.
http://world.honda.com/news/1998/c980819b.html
They also sell the Euro Accord (TSX) there that's built in Japan.
You are correct. The rear pads actually wear out FASTER than the fronts which usually isn't the case. I'm a prudent driver and I had to replace my rears at 45,000 miles.The original front pads still had lots of life left.
If you find that a message annoys you for whatever reason, your best course is to skip it and move on.
What makes you think I was annoyed? I wasn't.
Let's just move on.
Get a Mac;-).
I was told that the braking force is 50-50 front and rear for 4-wheel disc brake. And the rear pad is thinner than front pad by design. This was given to me as the reason that rear pad has less lef than the front.
I don't think it is 50-50 either, but that was what the service advisor told me.
My own belief was that manufacturers cut corners on rear brake. I always put the hand brake down before going so it should not be the culprit.
The rear pads are thinner so that the fronts and rear brakes will wear out at appx the same time. This way you are doing a complete brake job instead of fronts this year, back next year, et al.
He told me that this is his experience to most of the V6 rear disc... Never happened to my previouse vehicles, it is always the front disc first... but I guess this is something new for me.
I was not thrilled that the rear went out after I consider still low mileage.. but it happened. Just thinking what stuff Honda puts in... My dealer though was kind enough to listen to my other complain of front break vibration, and they resurfaced and replaced it under warranty! So I ended up just paying for the rear.
When the low fuel warning light comes on in the '04 sedan (17.1 gal tank), how much fuel is left?
[UnQUOTE]
Your result may differ due to the low fuel sensor setting but it should be relatively close to my 2005 Honda Accord 4cyl AT PZEV EXL Sedan.
I put in my 1st TANK OF GAS last Thursday, May 19th @ Costco! (Sunnyvale - $2.389 per gal.)
Traveled:... 341 miles (4.5 on odometer when I took delivery 5/6/05)
Filled:..... 13.424 gals. (3.676 gals. remaining - light just turned on in Costco parking lot)
---------------------
FYI: My MPG:........ 25.4 AVG (break-in miles, mostly city w/some HY going to work = approx. 10.4 miles each way)
Phil
Mileage: 25,750
It could be that your pads are glazed from improper bedding. Did you do the work yourself, or have a shop do it? If you had someone do it, it's worth a try to tell them about it and have them try to fix it. There shouldn't be a significant difference in stopping distance with new pads.
Dave
I have an 05 Accord with XM. My other car has a Garmin 2610 in it, which I use an external antenna for better accuracy. I want to put the 2610 in the Accord from time to time, so I mounted a base on the dash and before wiring in another antenna, I got to looking on ebay at some Accords with both GPS and XM and realized they had only the single antenna on the roof.
As I have XM, I obviously have this antenna - my question is - does anyone know how this interfaces on Accords with BOTH units - ie: Is there a Y adapter for the antenna (can it even be used that way?), or are there 2 antenna elements and cables in those models or what? What I would like to do if at all possible is avoid putting another antenna and running another cable up to the front of the car (which will end up coming up the front of the dash).
Anyone know what the cabling looks like behind the dash and if my thought is possible? I'd rather avoid tearing out the dash if I don't have to.
Thanks.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The antenna that you see on the rear of the roof of your vehicle is solely for your XM Satellite Radio reception.
My 2004 Accord Coupe came equipped with XM Satellite Radio, as well as with Honda's OEM Navigation System (full two-way voice command). Its Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) antenna is located inside the rear windshield, under the rear parcel shelf.
You cannot interface your aftermarket navigation system with an XM Radio antenna.
Since you stated that your rotors "...needed to be resurfaced twice" I am concerned that your "forever" stopping distances are being caused by rotors that are now too-thin. If so, they may be overheating too quickly, thus increasing your stopping distances.
If the squealing is abnormally loud it is recommended that the brakes be inspected. It is possible that your brakes do not have enough usable life remaining or the shims/grease may need replaced.
As always, refer to your owner's manual for recommended brake inspection and service intervals. Keeping up on regular maintenance can help keep your brake repairs to a minimum.
You may just be hearing the brake wear indicator, a small thin piece of metal that rubs on a non-braking part of the rotor when the pads begin to show signs of becoming too thin. It's designed to make a squeal sound as a warning or reminder to check your pad thickness.
Thanks for your help (please no flames...... really want some help here.... next car and many more ALL HONDA)
George
onecrownjewel@yahoo.com
My uncle was following me the other day and he commented to me how much I pump the brakes.. He told me that I should not pump the brakes but to just apply a steady pressure and don't let the pedal up.
He said pumping the brakes was the old way of braking and said that pumping them will make them ineffective.
Is this true?
Thanks.
There is no harm in manually pumping the brakes, but the ABS system can do it more quickly than a human can.
Over a very long period, pumping might be detrimental. The brake components (pistons in calipers, brake lines, etc.) are being subjected to un-necessary pressure changes.