ROBHWAL Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 I have a 2001 seville sls ,I purchased a year ago with 16000 miles. I took it in for lube, oil and filter today.The dealer informed me the front brake pads were almost gone. About 4000/5000 more miles left on them. The car has about 27000 miles on it now.I saw the pads and he was right. I had the pads replaced and they turned the rotors,the bill came to about $225.00. My question is the 01 sls harder on brakes than the older sls. I had a 97 sls and didn't have to replace the pads until almost 48000 miles .Has anybody else seen this problem? THANKS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDK Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 ROBHWAL, I would guess that the first driver (who put the 16,000-miles on it before you) may have been the definitive factor in this case. If anything, Caddy increased the rotor and pad sizes for a greater swept area from '97 to 01 in the same given model and options. Assuming the car weight did not increase significantly (which I also doubt), then it seems to me that the newer cars would always have "better" brakes than an older car. Again, I think the previous driver drove with both feet on both pedals. Be happy you don't have his mileage. Add power to leave problems behind. Most braking is just - poor planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadillac Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Yes, a 3-4 year old car, with 16,000 miles, is definitely a city car. Alot of stop and go. That puts alot of the mileage, on the brake pedal. Do not be concerned with the short pad life. If you do more highway driving, your pads should last at least twice the mileage as the old ones. Don "Modern warriors saddle iron horses of chrome." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.