2005 Honda Civic - rear brakes 80% worn after 20,000 miles

Is this normal? I just brought my Honda Civic in for it's 20,000 mile
service. I purchased this car 9/7/2005 so, it's only a year old. I
drive mostly highway. They tell me the front brake pads are at 60% left
and the rear are at 20% left. I have never had a car that worn the
brakes so fast. I do very little city driving.

Thanks,

Roland

 

Are you sure the shop did not reverse the wear findings,
and, in fact, it is the fronts that are worn more? Which
Civic do you have? I see the LX has brake pads in front and
brake shoes in the wear. Brake shoes do not wear quickly at
all. So what you report would be particularly surprising.

Honda brake pads OTOH are known to wear quickly. But they
also are less noisy, less dusty, and are less likely to
overly wear the brake rotors than aftermarket pads.

 

I have a Civic LX. It's type written.

 

I hope you're no driving with the left foot on the brake, if you brake
with Left foot, that might be the problem, keep the foot away from the
pedal.
Bg

 

Get a second opinion. Any brake shop will do. Just don't let
them re-line the brakes (= new pads in fronts, new shoes in
back) unless they use OEM.

Or, if you're a little handy, you can go measure what are
called the "brake linings" (in your Civic's case, pads in
front, shoes in rear) yourself.

For the rears, this amount of wear in this amount of time is
bizarre.

 

I am going on 80,000 miles on my Civic, and just thinking about checking the
linings for wear. The only thing I know that would wear rear brakes that
fast is leaving the parking brake on.

Earle

 

yep, exactly. driving with parking brake on will do the trick.

 

Check to see if it has EBD. If it does it will eat rear brakes for lunch. My
2005 Accord has it and I'm about 35% left on the rears and 60% on the
fronts. The best part of EBD is the fact when you brake aggressively the
front end doesn't nose dive as much as a car without it.

 

No, I always use my right foot. I had a 1991 Honda Civic DX (that I
bought new) and the brakes wore out after about 25,000 miles.

 

Rear drum brakes on any front disk brake car should go well past 100K...

JT

 

"cinerama" wrote

I, too, had a '91 Civic, and my brakes lasted a lot longer than that. After
some 20,000 miles on my '04 Accord, my dealer's service man was amazed at
how much brake pad it still has: "negligible wear." Apparently I brake with
a light foot, and it's lots of in-town stop and start driving. I suggest
you, stay conscious of your braking behavior and see if you can "lighten
up." Maybe you brake with a heavy foot?

 

It depends on how the brakes are sized.

 

I have not had this problem with other cars I have owned. The brakes
last at least 50,000 miles on them. I received a phone call from the
Honda dealer last night asking if the service was OK. I complained
about the brakes and they said they would forward it to their
management.

 

Did they check for a stuck adjuster?

 

I *was* going to avoid this one on account of the strong troll odor, but...

My first and only question: Do you have rear discs or drums?

 

Mine lasted well past 200,000 miles. The first set of pads on the front went at
about 80,000.

1993 Civic DX HB AT

 

If the adjuster was stuck (not rotating), the brakes would not wear...

 

All 2005 Civics had rear drums.