My family owns 4 2003 Honda Accords (V6 and V4). All 4 cars rear brake pads needed to be replaced, over 80% worn (milage range between 20K-25K). Front pads are still in excellent condition. This has to be a design problem with the car braking system. Isn't it true that on most cars the rear brakes are changed only after the front haven been changed a few times. Can anyone shed some light on this? Thanks.

I has the same experience on my 2001 Accord EX V6. I changed the brake pads for the first time at about 57,000 miles. The front pads could have been used another 10,000 miles or so but the rear pads were nearly to the wear limit.

I has the same experience on my 2001 Accord EX V6. I changed the brake pads for the first time at about 57,000 miles. The front pads could have been used another 10,000 miles or so but the rear pads were nearly to the wear limit.
Thanks for the reply. I can live with changing brakes every 50K, but at 20K, this is very unusaul and not acceptable. I've leased a few acccords over the years, never have I changed the brakes (30K+ miles). This is definately a design issue with Honda. Just wondering if other 2003 Accord owners have experienced the same problem.

It's quite possible that your pads are not in properly and are being caused to wear excessivly. From what I've heard, the rears tend to go out before the fronts.

On my 2002 EX the parking brake cable was so tight that the rear brakes were on a little all the time. I found it because its a 5sp and would eventually stop when coasting down hill. I pulled up on the lever as hard as I could and haven't had anymore problems. My rears did wear out first, but the fronts weren't far behind.

somtimes if you drive and tap on the breaks alot it can wear break pads down, but 20k-25k, hm...thats weird