2003 accord break pads replaced at 16000kms?

[Alex Moloney]

hi

took my 2003 accord (got it in jan 2003) to get its second maintenence done
at the dealer
after i dropped it off they called and said my rear pads were at 15% and
should get them replaced
i don't know much about cars and the mechanics of them, but asked a friend
who is a mechanic and he said that the fronts always wear out quicker than
the rear - my fronts were at 60/70%.

the dealer said it all depends on how you drive
most of the driving i do is highway and my last car (aztek) had over 40000
without needing the brake pads replaced.

my accord has under 16000 kms on it - i paid for them to replace the pads as
i don't want to have an accident with something thats costs $120 (can) .
i think either the pads were inferior or they ripped me off

any tips/ advice ?
thanks
alex

 

[James M. Kelly]

There had to be a reason why they wore out? One of my teenagers took my
2001 EX V6 and hit something. There was a dent in the rear floor that your
head would fit in. The rear control arm was bent and pushing on the
emergency brake cable--in effect putting the brakes on. I got 200,000 miles
on my 88 Accord LXI rear brakes and only 160, on the second set because I
used the emergency brake to slow down to conserve the front brakes.

Dealerships are a rip off unless you know the guys behind the counter. I do
37,000 miles a year and get an oil change every six weeks. I pay to have
the tires rotated and tip the same mechanic everytime, and xmas cards+ $50
to the service manager and service adviser. But it is a small dealership and
they need the service work.

 

[Bill B. Johnson]

hi

took my 2003 accord (got it in jan 2003) to get its second maintenence done
at the dealer
after i dropped it off they called and said my rear pads were at 15% and
should get them replaced
i don't know much about cars and the mechanics of them, but asked a friend
who is a mechanic and he said that the fronts always wear out quicker than
the rear - my fronts were at 60/70%.

the dealer said it all depends on how you drive
most of the driving i do is highway and my last car (aztek) had over 40000
without needing the brake pads replaced.

my accord has under 16000 kms on it - i paid for them to replace the pads as
i don't want to have an accident with something thats costs $120 (can) .
i think either the pads were inferior or they ripped me off

any tips/ advice ?
thanks
alex

I advise you to take it to a private mechanic or other Honda Service
Center. This could be a rip off. I am fairly certain that the 2003 Accord
does NOT have brake pads but instead has disk brakes.

 

[E. Meyer]

I advise you to take it to a private mechanic or other Honda Service
Center. This could be a rip off. I am fairly certain that the 2003 Accord
does NOT have brake pads but instead has disk brakes.

What? Disk brakes use brake pads. Drum brakes have shoes. You should save
that good booze for later in the day.

 

[Bill B. Johnson]

What? Disk brakes use brake pads. Drum brakes have shoes. You should save
that good booze for later in the day.

I'll be honest--I have never changed disk brakes but instead have paid
mechanics to do it for me. However, I have changed drum brakes. I do
recall that pads were mounted on the drums. I recall checking those pads
mounted on those drums every time I had to change a tire.