[reaquino]

Hello,

Based on your own personal experience. What is the ratio of rear brake wear to front break wear?

That is, how many rear brakes did you go through before the front pads were replaced?

Jay (Canadian 2006 EXL 4 cyl)

 

[04-6MT]

Well.. I am not sure about the ratio but i have 2004 6speed and my rear pads and rotors are almost gone at 57K. My front ones still look decent. Rear pads tend to go quicker then front. Honda issue....

 

[Cleankill]

It's perfectly normal the rear to wear down faster due to EBD... (More force apply to the rear to avoid nose dive)
Look at how skinny the rear pad is comparing to the front...
So expect 2 time rear per 1 time front replacement ratio!

 

[reaquino]

Simultaneous end of life on front and rear pads is what I am hoping. I intend to do a brake fluid flush at that moment as well as try to properly bed all the new pads.

On my prev car, this cured all brake issues (all pad replacement, machining, cleaning of calipers and fluid flush).

You can sort of see why it would. It's pricey but only economic when all the pads go at the same time.

Jay

 

[Fredsvt]

I agree with Cleankill.

usually 2:1, however, in mainly city driving with lots of light braking, expect possibly 3:1. Highway driving about 1:1. I've seen a few make it about 50k, on all 4 at once.

I have noticed that upon replacing pads, using Honda replacements on 4 cyl Gen 7s, that the pads on the rear will wear evenly on both inner and outer pads.

Gen 8s 4 cylinders are another animal, 10k to 12k seems to be not uncommon for rear pads to go. I've got a few out there with Honda replacements and they seem to be holding up better than the factory pads.

My 6 speed is wearing all 4 fairly equally since I've switched to EBC Yellows. I'm not so concerned with longevity though. If I get 20 to 30k out of them, I'd be happy. Especially since my shuddering problem is GONE. YEAH!

 

[BLCKFLSH]

On my 03 V6 sedan I changed the rears at 47k, and the fronts at 60k miles. They were not down to the wear indicators yet, but they were close. The chances of the rears lasting as long as the front in very slim. If you change the front pads when the rears are worn out, you will be wasting a lot of pad up front. All I did was change the pads, and didn't even have the rotors turned, and have no problems with them.

 

[Fredsvt]

Blckflsh,

Your pad change seems to jive for the other V6 cars I've done. I guess they have more front braking on the V6 due to the weight. The last car had about 60k and all were worn out at the same time.

Just replacing pads is perfectly fine, as long as you have no shake, and there's no deep grooves on the rotors.

I wish they'd be like the old gen 6s, most V6 cars are consistent at 90k to 100k per all 4 wheels on highway, but about 40k to 60k on local driving.

 

[nolefan32]

This is odd, considering that rear brakes aren't supposed to do that much work compared to the front brakes. The primary function of the rear brakes is to keep the car from lurching forward in hard braking, it's the fronts that actually stop the car. Hence why a lot of carmakers opt for less efficient drum brakes in the rear, but pretty much everyone puts discs up front. Really, you should be wearing out your front brakes at a rate of 2-3 sets of fronts for every set of rears.

 

[Fredsvt]

That is true, but that's not the way Honda has set up the braking system on Gen 7s and up.

When the rear rotors warped on my car early on, just the slightest touch would bring on the shake. Just as if you pulled up the parking brake while moving.

On light braking, I'd say about 60% of the braking comes from the rears, only until you actually apply 'real' pedal pressure do the front brakes really start to come on. When I was having the issues with the ABS modulator that Honda did eventually change, I used an infrared non contact thermo. Light braking produces about 350*F of heat in the rear brakes vs 200 or so in the fronts.

When I did several very hard stops from 60 mph, I got temps of 450*F rears, and then around 500*F. I could easily get them hotter, the rears seem to steady at around 500 and the fronts I could get even hotter under heavy braking only. Repeated light braking, however let the fronts cool and the rears maintain their temp.

The drum brake Accords don't have the same bias setup as the disc cars.

 

[rszappa1]

I cannot coment yet . I have a 07 with 82500 on it and still have OEM brakes front and rear...4 wheel disc....

 

[SatinSilver]

I cannot coment yet . I have a 07 with 82500 on it and still have OEM brakes front and rear...4 wheel disc....

Must have lots of hwy miles on it. At that rate you will hit 200k in no time.

 

[RinconVTR]

That is true, but that's not the way Honda has set up the braking system on Gen 7s and up.

On light braking, I'd say about 60% of the braking comes from the rears, only until you actually apply 'real' pedal pressure do the front brakes really start to come on. When I was having the issues with the ABS modulator that Honda did eventually change, I used an infrared non contact thermo. Light braking produces about 350*F of heat in the rear brakes vs 200 or so in the fronts.

The drum brake Accords don't have the same bias setup as the disc cars.

While the rear brakes do come on earlier and hold pressure a bit longer than the fronts, bias is always greater on the front wheels for passenger cars and trucks.

Temp doesn’t equate to bias percentage. The simple explanation is the obvious one. The rears being solid disc vs larger (twice the material) and vented in the front could easily explain the high rear disc temps in certain situations.

Wear percentage front to rear in my experience on the Accord has actually depended on the pad. i just checked the pads last week during an OC, and the rears still looked new while the fronts showed enough to say they aren’t brand new. Strangely, the rear rotors did not look great. Not bad...just not a very clean swept pad area.

 

[rszappa1]

they are mostly highway miles...Heck i got 82,000 out of the OEM Michelins also...Just replaced them a month ago with Michelin Primacy...

 

[EXL_ent_V6]

Just replaced rear brakes on Monday.... 23,000 miles!
They looked like they had some life left, but I heard some squealing and I will have NONE OF THAT! :thumbsdow

Visually inspected the fronts and they look like plenty of meat left on them. I'm hoping not to have to replace them... (Lease is up in 10 months)

Someone mentioned tires on the other hand.... well mine are starting to look a little low on life.... But I'm sure I can get another 12k miles out of them. (And I rotate them every oil change, which is about 5-6k miles)

 

[ezshift5]

..at 75,000 miles now.......

.....with tire rotation coming up,

Local Honda dealer indicates OEM new front pad thickness as 10MM; rear:6mm





When tire guys have the four wheels are off, can I lay a MM ruler on the pads and measure backing plate to disc?


Previously, they've just eyeballed the four pads and indicated "No prob"..........

But I'm interested in any system that has such apparent longivity (yes, I use the freeway and yes I DON'T brake all that much - - - following distance applies here).

FredSVT - your comments always appreciated by this sailor.


all the best, ez....

 

[wizputer]

At slower speeds the rear brakes don't seem to be used all that much... I'm only making an inference so I may be wrong per what FredSVT said...

My inference is based on:
1) Driving from home to store (fastest speed I usually brake from is 35mph) and it's a 1.3mi drive with a bunch of stop signs. The front brakes are noticeably hotter than the rear (from being stone cold before leaving).
2) As I have slotted/dimpled front rotors you can hear when the pads touch the rotors with any pressure. The slightest press of the brake pedal and you can hear this change.
3) I park on an incline and when I come to a stop, I pull the parking brake and then let go of the brake pedal and I lurch (slightly) backwards. So it seems the front brakes let go before the parking brake grabs.
4) When I replaced my front pads/rotors there was 3mm less pad left on the front than the rear

Perhaps the rears go faster because of less surface area?

 

[12153]

Perhaps the rears go faster because of less surface area?

You are DEAD WRONG. :thumbsdow

In terms of weight distribution, most any Sedan is "front biased." About 80 percent of the stopping power is produced by the FRONT brakes. This is the principal reason the front rotors and pads tend to be larger than the rears. Because the majority of the (powertrain) weight is positioned over the front wheels, the proportioning valve directs most of the hydraulic force to the FRONT brakes, hence they tend to wear faster.

In terms of a mid-engine or rear-engine configured vehicle, respective to brakes, that involves a different Physics lesson.

 

[BlueBlahBleh]

... directs most of the hydraulic force to the FRONT brakes, hence they tend to wear faster.

Except Wizputer was talking about the rear brakes wearing out faster than the front brakes, (which they do in some cases with newer Accords.) Wizputer is supposing that the extra rear brake bias (due to current EBD function/design) in combination with the rear pads being thinner than the front is a possible cause. What do you think?

:dunno:

 

[reaquino]

This is what I have noticed...we have a long downhill here where no matter what you need to gear down or step on the brakes. If I step on the brakes eventually the rears will start groaning (I have some warpage). It appears at least in longer braking the rears seem to bear most of the load. No irregular brake behavior in city driving.

 

[wizputer]

You are DEAD WRONG. :thumbsdow

In terms of weight distribution, most any Sedan is "front biased." About 80 percent of the stopping power is produced by the FRONT brakes. This is the principal reason the front rotors and pads tend to be larger than the rears. Because the majority of the (powertrain) weight is positioned over the front wheels, the proportioning valve directs most of the hydraulic force to the FRONT brakes, hence they tend to wear faster.

In terms of a mid-engine or rear-engine configured vehicle, respective to brakes, that involves a different Physics lesson.

I understand that it should be front biased. Each of my points are what lead me to infer that as well.
I would have also ventured to only guess (definitely am no expert in physics/engineering) that car should be front biased for the same reason you stated.

My reasoning behind that statement/question is based on the wild assumption that all 4 brakes are dispelling the same ratio of energy to pad surface area, that each full rotation of the rotor uses say 0.001g of pad material to expel that energy, therefore it would require more depth per rotation on the rear pads to equal that same amount of mass that the front pads would need.

I know that is definitely a gross over simplification of the physics..

Except Wizputer was talking about the rear brakes wearing out faster than the front brakes, (which they do in some cases with newer Accords.) Wizputer is supposing that the extra rear brake bias (due to current EBD function/design) in combination with the rear pads being thinner than the front is a possible cause. What do you think?

Actually I was saying the opposite. My rear pads were 3mm thicker than my front pads.