nsadhal

After 30k miles on my dad's 2001 Accord EX V6, the brake pads are pretty much metal to metal. The piston side has also worn a lot more than the caliper side.
Now, we've been accustomed to rear brakes lasting forever. My '93 Civic had 175k miles on it when I changed the rear shoes... and they probably could've gone longer. After 200k miles on my uncle's '86 Legend, the rear brake pads (discs) were still not worn.
My Dad thinks the caliper is sticking or something... cause he says a lot of brake dust comes off the rear when he washes the car... more than the front... usually the fronts wear first, don't they?
We called the dealer to ask about it and they said we were "lucky" to get 30k out of them as the average is like 18k. This, to me, is bizarre... They claim it's because the front has metallic pads while the rear has organic pads... But i've used organic pads ($10 at autozone) on my Civic every time I've done the brakes... they last like 70k (or thereabouts) in the front.
So I'm thinking the dealer's BSing us and the rear caliper really is sticking... but I don't know.

TypeSH

Well, I've put a bit over 30k on my 94 accord since I bought it, and I havent changed the pads at all. The fronts still have a bit of life, and the rears are still decent. They weren't new when I bought the car either, so figure in some more miles on them.

The pads look like organic pads, dont know if they are OEM or not... but I think my driving style gives it more life. I rarely brake hard, always brake early when I see a red/know a red will hit.

You might want to try an aftermarket set of pads. Maybe the OEM ones werent designed w/ much mileage so the dealer gets more business for service?

nsadhal

Yeah, I thought about that too... but the uneven wearing and the excessive brake dust at the rear is rather weird too.
I'm mostly just wondering if the dealer is BSing about 18k tho...

Mike P.

aiite thanx well want da car to look alil high class with da wood dash

H23 Power

did i mention you're gay?

anyway...
when car n driver did a long term test on the 98 or 99 4 cyl accord...they estimated pad life at 100,000+ miles...for both front and back

pads wearing at 30k is definitly a sign of a heavy braking foot...does he drive with two feet? that always wears em out nice n quick

nsadhal

No, he drives normally (first automatic in like 20 yrs for him... so I think two foot driving would be a hard habit to pick up).
So then this would probably confirm our suspicions about the brakes sticking right? I really don't want to bleed them... and the dealer would definitely be BSing us about "average is 18k"... also note that the fronts still have plenty of pad left.

ArchAngel Sabastian

18k? dats gay... my feet are made of lead and mine last longer than that...


maybe there the new improved 6th gen 18k pads

Gennady

My rear pads were changed at around 119,000. My front pads were changed around 122,000. I have 131,000 now and they both need changing ASAP.

CmptchAV6

I dont think so my rear pads for my V6 lasted for 35000 miles. something sounds messed up if they are only lasting 18K

Stew Pidasso

Maybe the E-Brake is adjusted too tight?

nsadhal

That's actually a little comforting... it's not ours that are lasting 18k... 18k is what the dealer called "average"... ours were 30k... close to your 35k.
Still... I'd like some sort of consensus on what most people have been getting w/ 2001 V6's...
I hope the E-Brake isn't adjusted too tight, but now that you mention it that might be the case... seems sort of dumb cause the car is only a year old... never touched the e-brake adjustment.

Gennady

It depends on what kind of driving you do. For the record, if you drive on a street that is also a route, and the traffic lights are 1/2 mile apart, that is not city driving. City driving is having to touch your brakes every 5 seconds like I do.