What's reasonable for normal brake wear and tear?

[pete5000]

My 2004 Acura TSX is a nice car. I like almost everything about it. EXCEPT the brakes.

When the odo hit 40,000km, the rears were basically gone. I had to have them replaced for a safety check. It was my first try at a non-Honda shop, so it was less expensive, but I'll admit, probably not the best plan, I just wanted the safety done.

Now I'm at 55,000km and the fronts sound like a lathe at anything over 60kph. The rotors must be totally warped.

I'm not that hard on brakes - I swear! I'm much more of a coaster to stops than a slammer. I also don't use the car in rallies, races or hill climbs. (although I'm thinking of a Grand Canyon jump with rockets)

Usage: about city/highway 80%/20%.

Shouldn't brakes last at least 60,000km? Possibly more?

[new_vr]

My 2004 Acura TSX is a nice car. I like almost everything about it. EXCEPT the brakes.

When the odo hit 40,000km, the rears were basically gone. I had to have them replaced for a safety check. It was my first try at a non-Honda shop, so it was less expensive, but I'll admit, probably not the best plan, I just wanted the safety done.

Now I'm at 55,000km and the fronts sound like a lathe at anything over 60kph. The rotors must be totally warped.

I'm not that hard on brakes - I swear! I'm much more of a coaster to stops than a slammer. I also don't use the car in rallies, races or hill climbs. (although I'm thinking of a Grand Canyon jump with rockets)

Usage: about city/highway 80%/20%.

Shouldn't brakes last at least 60,000km? Possibly more?
I think it really depends on how hard you drive, and what type of brakes are on the car. My front brakes lasted 160K km on my Golf, but it was a lot of hwy driving. The first set of rears only last 60K km, the set I replaced them with, which were better brakes, lasted another 140K
Also, if you service the brakes they can last a lot longer. Without that they can stick, and wear down a lot faster.

[liorsyncro]

It depends on a lot of factors. The rears should outlast the fronts by quite a margin because 75% of the braking is done by the front brakes. If you had to replace your rears at 50,000 you should definitely have it looked into. Maybe you have a sticking caliper. Or maybe Acura brake pads are just garbage. I doubt it, but you never know. Maybe it was defective parts.

I wouldn't necessarily jump on the OEM wagon like some people would suggest because as is evident in your case, OEMs can sometimes wear quicker than the aftermarkets, and from personal experience I've seen aftermarkets that outlast OEMs.

[macnut]

It depends on a lot of factors. The rears should outlast the fronts by quite a margin because 75% of the braking is done by the front brakes.

True, but one of the downsides of 4-wheel disc brakes is that the rears are in a much more inhospitable environment than the fronts.

Never was a problem with rear drums, of course, because they are virtually enclosed.

So with rear discs, depends on the car, individual circumstances, city/highway mix, etc., but I'm hearing quite a few cases where they wear out first -
maybe even without the calipers getting stuck, just all that grit playing a role.

[gman]

My 2004 Acura TSX is a nice car. I like almost everything about it. EXCEPT the brakes.

When the odo hit 40,000km, the rears were basically gone. I had to have them replaced for a safety check. It was my first try at a non-Honda shop, so it was less expensive, but I'll admit, probably not the best plan, I just wanted the safety done.

Now I'm at 55,000km and the fronts sound like a lathe at anything over 60kph. The rotors must be totally warped.

I'm not that hard on brakes - I swear! I'm much more of a coaster to stops than a slammer. I also don't use the car in rallies, races or hill climbs. (although I'm thinking of a Grand Canyon jump with rockets)

Usage: about city/highway 80%/20%.

Shouldn't brakes last at least 60,000km? Possibly more?

Did you do any brake work with the car before this? Such as change brake pad?

[new_vr]

It depends on a lot of factors. The rears should outlast the fronts by quite a margin because 75% of the braking is done by the front brakes. If you had to replace your rears at 50,000 you should definitely have it looked into. Maybe you have a sticking caliper. Or maybe Acura brake pads are just garbage. I doubt it, but you never know. Maybe it was defective parts.

Some cars use EBD so that braking is actually rear biased under normal conditions. This keeps the nose from diving.

[Pete_Coach]

My 2004 Acura TSX is a nice car. I like almost everything about it. EXCEPT the brakes.

When the odo hit 40,000km, the rears were basically gone. I had to have them replaced for a safety check. It was my first try at a non-Honda shop, so it was less expensive, but I'll admit, probably not the best plan, I just wanted the safety done.

Now I'm at 55,000km and the fronts sound like a lathe at anything over 60kph. The rotors must be totally warped.

I'm not that hard on brakes - I swear! I'm much more of a coaster to stops than a slammer. I also don't use the car in rallies, races or hill climbs. (although I'm thinking of a Grand Canyon jump with rockets)

Usage: about city/highway 80%/20%.

Shouldn't brakes last at least 60,000km? Possibly more?
The way I understand is that you replaced the back but not the front at 40K? Your fronts should have been changed at the same time. Having said that, 55 k on stock brakes in a car with traction control and stability control is not completely out of line. Both these programs use the brakes to provide the effect. You often don't feel it when the computer applies the brakes.
I also don't understand your comment of your fronts sounding like a lathe and the relationship to warped rotors. The "scraping" sound you hear may be surface rust wearing off the rotors as you brake but it should go away after a few applications. If not, then you may be down to the wear pad. If the rotors were warped, your brake pedal would vibrate every time you applied the brakes. Even a slight touch of the brake will transmit the vibration.
In my experience, the brakes need to be replaced together, front and rear.

[mr_raider]

What does mileage have to do with brakes? Brake life depends on how often you stop, not how far you drive.

At any rate, some of the car makers are really cheaping out on brakes and rotors these days. It seems to me brakes need changing more often now, and cost more than ever.

[zoolander]

I have 2 Acuras. Sedan required changing at around 50,000km, had them all done.
Just had the MDX checked, still good at 65,000km.

Yes, that's strange, usually fronts before backs.

[phillbert]

and note, oem honda pads are organic based. they wear out faster than metallic ones.

[pete5000]

Did you do any brake work with the car before this? Such as change brake pad?

No, I simply didn't expect a car with 40k km's on it to need brake service.

The way I understand is that you replaced the back but not the front at 40K?

It was a quick fix to get the safety. The fronts passed.

What does mileage have to do with brakes?

I'd say it's fairly common for mileage (kilometrage?) to be an indication for any service to a car. The user manual is chock full of what to do at certain mileage intervals. I was just using it as an indication of the current state of my car though.

and note, oem honda pads are organic based. they wear out faster than metallic ones.

Hmmm. I think mine may have been made out of tomatoes then!

After some research, it appears Honda isn't the best for brakes.

[zivan56]

Mine need to be replaced every 25k kms...but they are very high performance ones. Perhaps look into non-OEM ones if you are willing to sacrifice a bit of braking distance...

[gman]

No, I simply didn't expect a car with 40k km's on it to need brake service.


Honda is pretty 'famous' about its brake. I had a honda and it was standard transmission (less use of brake than automatic). I more or less needed to do a brake job every 2 years if not less since I bought the car new. I drove about 12000KM per year. If I could get 40K km, I would have been laughing.

[galanz]

I just did the brakes on my Acura this fall at 145,000KM. They really didn't need to be done, there was still about half the pad left before the wear indicator. They would have been good for well over 200,000.
A lot of it depends on how you drive, whether you drag your brakes etc.

[88notch]

I leased an 05 Accord and gave it back after 4 years with 90,000km on it. It never needed brakes. I'm in a Civic now with 20,000km on it, and hopefully these ones will last as long...

[eastwood]

As others have said it is all about how you drive. My 2002 with 62000kms has had 3 brake jobs done. But I am 90% stop and go city driving. A friend who drives from Brantford to Toronto every day gets 90000kms+ out of his brakes.