Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

Comparing models: 2000 & 2002 Braking differences. Need opinion/thoughts.

4K views 17 replies 8 participants last post by  nakamichidenon 
#1 ·
Hey Guys:

I own a silver 2000 w210 e55 with about 144k on the clock. I purchased the car form the original owner whom of which I know. The car has basically been pampered and serviced at the dealer its whole life.

My close friend/boss loved my car so much, I convinced him to purchase one. I found him a 2002 e55 designo edition (dark brown/camel interior) with about 105k. After a dealer inspection, i flew to Kansas to pick up the car and drove it back to KY.

One huge difference that I noticed right away was the brakes. The 2002 brakes felt amazing and were a lot more sensitive/powerful than mine. My 2000 has a inch or two of dead space (in the pedal) before the brakes engage and when they do, it is gradual and does not feel very strong. I will also mention that I feel as if I have to use extra force when pressing the pedal and the 2002, I did not.

When I first purchased my car (2000), I questioned the braking power. But I had them checked (everything normal) and I eventually just got use to them. After driving 2002, It raised questions. As far as I know, there are zero differences in the braking systems in the facelifted e55's.

I will give you a little info on each car as I compared them:

2000 e55with weaker brakes)
-Brake system stock/OEM- has been serviced by dealer
-Brake fluid good
-Front pads-need to be replaced soon. 20+% left? Sensors have not gone off.
-Rear pads good...maybe 40+%?
-Rotors OK all around. Meets thickness requirements. No vibration.Tiny lip on fronts but still ok.

2002 Designo e55
-Brake system stock/OEM (mechanic's words)
-Brake fluid was really dirty
-Front pads very low. Sensor has not gone off. Mechanic said recommends pads/rotors.
-Rear pads are good. Not sure of the percetage but i would imagine over 50%. My mechanic said they are not as worn as mine*


What had me scratching my head is that the 2002 had dirty fluid, worn front pads, and still felt a lot better than mine?? What could this be?

-Maybe that I have moisture in my lines?
-Maybe that my rear pads are more worn down than his? We both have low fronts. Is it possible since all four of mine are worn, the pedal has to travel more?
-I guess it could be possible that the 2002 has updated brake lines but I doubt it.

I am having trouble figuring it out. Not only is there a difference in the pedal travel. But there is also a vast difference in braking power and sensitivity.

Is there a differences in the '00 and '02 braking systems?

Recommendations? Where to start? How is your braking performance?

I know that I could flush the fluid, change all four pads and rotors, add SS lines, etc, etc to investigate the issue but I wanted to get your opinions and obviously didn't want to dump tons of money into the brakes without asking first. Thanks a lot for reading and giving your opinions.



BTW: It has been awesome driving the two and comparing little things. A couple of differences I noticed and or was aware of:


-MPH read out on screen
-One touch Sun roof
-2002 Alarm siren is MUCH louder than mine???
-2002 beeps when you lock and unlock the car?? (Norway setting?)

Thanks again for the help!
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I can't speak to mechanical differences, though I doubt there are any. My 1999 brakes just fine, no mushiness, and it should be identical to both the cars you refer to.

My 2000 has a inch or two of dead space (in the pedal) before the brakes engage and when they do, it is gradual and does not feel very strong.
THis is a major red flag for me. Sounds alot like air, not moisture, in the system. I would definitely get the system bled, and check the master cylinder is working properly as well.
 
#3 · (Edited)
I'm going to say your 2000 has some aftermarket metallic brake pads! My OEM brake pads grabbed like hell, but I couldn't go 10 miles without a tremendous amount of brake dust. When I replaced my pads for a more metallic pad, virtually no dust but it doesn't grab like before. Your pedal could be going down more because the pads and rotors are worn more than the 02, it's natural for the brake pedal to be lower rather than higher with new or newer pads and rotors. When you replace your pads, go with OEM and have the system flushed and bleed (it's recommended every two years anyway) You'll most likely get the performance you're looking for, but be prepared for some dirty wheels!
 
#4 ·
I've got a 99 and 2002 E55 , OEM Brake set up is the same on both cars. Cant speak on the Lines , pedal travel will vary depending on the life of the pads and rotors , condition and life of the fluid. Bite will vary depending the the condition , and type of pads and rotors. condition of calipers and pistons etc. Ive done rotors and pad on both cars recently , On the 99 i have Hawk pads and OEM rotors , On the 02 i have Akebono Euro-Ceramic pads and OEM rotors. Pedal travel is about the same , Bite is better on the 02 with the Akebono's. Give her a bake job and see if that changes , then eliminate things one by one, Fresh fluid , Lines , etc.
 
#8 ·
I'd question the 2002 brakes. Dirty fluid might mean he has a clog or may result in malfunctioning brakes. Maybe his rear caliper(s) are frozen. The front brakes would then get more breaking power and it might feel like it has a harder pedal and better stopping. This might make the pedal feel harder. I've never had dirty fluid on my '00 and I also run ceramic akebono's and my brakes are great. It's the comparison rightly so that is making you wonder. Beyond that maybe the rotors are glazed over on your '00 or the pads weren't bedded correctly or you need a fluid flush due to air in your lines. But his brakes should definitely be checked. His brakes are suspect.
 
#13 ·
I forgot to mention that the 2002 had dirty fluid when I picked it up but have since flushed the fluid and had the brakes looked over. Everything is normal on it accept that it need front pads soon. Brakes felt great with dirty fluid and the same after the flush.
 
#9 ·
I wanted to try the Akebono pads. Do you all like them even thought they are not as good as the OEM? I wanted to try and avoid getting new rotors for now and start with pads and a brake flush. Does anyone have any experience with new OEM lines or SS lines? Improvements? Worth it?

Thank you for all of the responses.
 
#16 ·
Agree that Akebono Euro pads are very good, and have them on 2 of my 3 cars will definitely buy again.

My G500 has Porterfield pads and I have to say they have been the longest lasting pads I can ever remember on a car (especially considering the weight of that truck !).

Both brands work well, little fade when hot, and very low dust. If you want a pad that "bites" harder you are more than likely going to also have a lot of dusting ... kind of the way it works unfortunately.
 
#17 ·
There should be no difference in the 2000 and 2002. Same braking systems.

I don't think there is a frozen rear rotor as you would get a differential pressure DTC.

Although I have not tried Akebono pads, I have never come across aftermarket, non-OEM compound pads that have the same light-pedal feel as the OEM setup. Yes they create tons of dust but I like the light pedal.

If you want the light-pedal, go with OEM pads (Jurid makes them too). It could also be air or water in the hydraulic fluid. I would recommend a flush if the pad change doesn't do it.

Also, make sure the front guide pins and guide pin bushings look OK.
 
#18 ·
who has those 0-60 and 60-0 times with oem vs akebono

hearsay is all im reading... Sure sx with a supermodel is hot...! How hot? hahahha know what I mean guys... im on my second set of front pads... off brand...sure less dust but for sure doesn't brake as hard.. wheres my proof? exactly...but im not getting better results so..who cares..
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top