I have a 98 accord with 142k original miles and original owner. Believe it or not, I have checked out my rear brakes this past weekend and the shoes STILL have 2.0mm of padding left!!!! That means these shoes have 142k miles on them and can go more. Perhaps another 20k. UNBELIVABLE. I have cleaned then off every 40k with brake cleaner. The front brakes have been replaced 3 times with NEW rotors once. This is hard to believe! I know that most braking occurs on the front of the car, but 142k miles and 8 years later the ORIGINAL shoes are still kicking strong is hard to believe. Can anyone explain?????

 

It's really quite simple. Even during light brake applications, the Front brakes perform 75 to 85% of the braking effort. During harder brake applications, it can actually rise to contribute over 90% of the total braking effort because of weight transfer.
This is done on purpose. You don't want the rears to apply harder (Lock up earlier) than the front b'cuz you'd loose directional stability

I've three Honda's in the driveway, 450,000 miles between them. None have required rear brakes.

P

 

your avatar shows your true expression for this issue

 

My front pads have 150,000 miles on them. I keep checking em and I keep saying, "Maybe another 10,000". Honda pads

 

150k miles on front is even HARDER to believe. You must drive like a GRANDMA!

 

You have made good comments. I was told by a Honda expert that shoes in general wear slower than pads. Design could be another reason. If I had 4-wheel disk brakes on my car (pads instead of shoes) would they be worn out at 142k miles? Maybe someone on this forum with an EX model (4 wheel disk brakes) could answer that question? Prior to 1970 many cars had shoes at each wheel. Also, semi trucks use them because they last. Man, 142k miles and original shoes is still quite IMPRESSIVE!!!

 

My 01 EX 4DR 4cyl got about 50k out of the rear pads. The front pads are still kicking but will get replaced soon, I'm just a few k past changing the rears.

 

Mine is a 92 EX. I bought front and rear pads last year when the fronts only had about 115,000 miles on them. I bought them over the internet. The rears fit. The fronts were for a later generation honda and would require a little 'fitting' to get them in the caliper. My side grinder was at work that day so I didn't do the fronts. I have done alot of front end work throughout the last year and have been able to keep an eye on them. They still have probably 3/16 of an inch to go and they still stop great. I've been waiting because I want to have time to do the rotors too. Maybe in the back of my mind I'm hoping to get into the rotors to force me to have to do the job. Anyway, I am just as amazed as anyone on the longevity of the front pads. Believe me, I'm no grandma. I use the brakes hard. Memphis traffic sucks.

 

Hey P-Adams. How can you explain what OldMrAccord just said about his rear pads wearing out at 50k???????????

 

anyone feel like replacing my rear shoes? lol they havent been replaced at all i dont think 94 accord 142k -

 

Hum...
Actually, The brake balance (effect front rear) should remain the same (85/15 F/R) to (90/10 F/R) depending on stopping effort and weight transfer; so there shouldn't be any difference. There shouldn't be any reason what-so-ever if all conditions were equal (but they are not).
If you consider:
1) Although they appear smaller, the drum brake system has a larger 'swept area' (shoes make a larger contact patch against the drum.) (larger area, less wear)
2) Although the Drum system operates at a higher Hydraulic Pressure (smaller diameter pistons in the cylinders as opposed to Calipers), they require less apply pressure shoes/drum to generate the same stopping force. (Less Pressure, less Wear)
3) Drum brakes are better 'sealed' against contamination and corrosion. No sliders, no boots to crack and no binding to cause uneven wear.
4) Emergency Brake system.
A drum brake systems' ebrake system involves less parts and a simpler design (a pivoting lever, a cable and a link)
A Disc brake system utilizes a more complicated system which is prone to binding from lack of use. It involves a threaded piston, a corresponding threaded shaft, a keyed lever, a cable and the required additional seals. If it binds in the applied position, it would accelerate brake pad wear.

If I can think of others, I'll chime up again

P

 

On my 92EX the pads wore close to evenly. The rear pads were worn a little less than the front. Changed front and rear twice in 137,000 miles. They could have lasted longer. Almost 70,000 miles on a set of pads doesn't seem too bad to me. My 80 Monte Carlo used to eat brake pads a lot quicker, maybe 40,000 miles.

 

I think that longivity is definitely an advantage for DRUM brakes. But, braking effectiveness is probably better with rear pads. I guess it's a trade-off. I'm still amazed and happy I bought an LX with rear drums.