pointman

Awesome. Thanks. I am contemplating giving the brake change a shot. Never did it myself.

nlpamg

sti_jl, CHILL. stop trying to get into arguments all the time.

searching the forum is good.

55fanatic

easy to do... dont be intimidated

khom

here's a pretty good DIY guide http://www.petefagerlin.com/ML/brakes.htm

JML430

What criteria do you use to decide whether or not to replace or turn the rotors? I have a slight lip (~ 1/8") on the front rotors, nothing on the rear. Was hoping to just put new pads on and hope they seat? If that's just going to cause problems will bite the bullet and replace the rotors as well.

Thnx

sosh

Rotors are NOT to be turned. Thats ban absolut no no. They must be miced and be above the minimum thickness ot replaced. Simple as that.

Mike's ML

I also got about 40K miles out of my brakes in my 98ML but my 05ML is another story. The 98ML's did Not have the stability program where as my 05 ML Has the stability program that tends to eat brakes.
Mike

sosh

The 98 is also a much lighter vehicle that requires less braking to stop. I think that it may be more of that than the lack of the stability system

Mike's ML

My 05ML eats rear brakes 2 times more more than the front brakes, which is just the opposite of the 98ML. That is due to driving style and mostly the stability program. The ML500 brakes are much bigger and also have fixed calipers which more than compensates for the increase in weight. Also the later ML utilize the rear brakes more in straight line braking than normal brake systems as part of the stability program operation.
Mike

mihir_d

Mike I have 2 cars (including the ML) both of which have ESP & 4 channel independent EBFD (Electronic Brake Force Distribution). At least with EBFD, you would think, that the brake pad wear between the fronts & the rears would even out, but still, on both, my front pads wear quicker than the rears..

I think, the primary contributing factor for longer brake life on your 98 ML was its lighter weight. It could also be that the newer MLs use even softer brake pad material for improved braking and handling...

sosh

I agree with you re the vehicle weight. The 98 also did have the traction control which applied braking when activated. On the 98 that I had when traded had 44000 with the original brakes, The 02 ML500 I had had 40K with the original brakes. I also feel that the W164 brakes are better from the standpoint of no squeal and life expectancy. I currently have just about 30K on my 06 and at inspection a couple of weeks ago I still have over 50% left.The W164 brakes are a redesign from the W163.
The late W163's were substancially heavier than the 98's. Weight and driving habits are the biggest factor in brake life. Remember the ESP in the later W163's is only activated with wheel slip or vehicle sliding like on ice.

Mike's ML

I would hope that the Mercedes ESP systems work long before wheel slip. ESP is usually activated by inputs such as steering angle sensor and yaw rate sensors and is supposed to correct for understeer or oversteer.
The 4ETS traction control in the 98ML and 05ML is what limits wheel slip.
And yes, I do understand that ESP and 4ETS are incorporated into the same electronic system but provide very different functions.
Mike

sosh

You are correct and both use braking of a wheel to accomplish their job. However most of the brake application comes from the 4ETS system as that comes into play more often than ESP in normal driving conditions and also icy conditions. Thus most of the "phantom" brake wear is from the 4ETS which is on the 98.

Mike's ML

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Mike

hawgwild1

found this is forum search, just so u know it still is useful to newer members.