After owning the car for 1 1/2 years, the brake light came on so I took it to the dealer to have it checked out (assuming if anything was wrong it would be covered under my four year/50,000
mile warranty). They told me the rear brake pads had to be replaced at my expense.
I'm dumbfounded that a car this new whether driven in the city or the country, has to have new brake pads. Volvo corporation has offered to do nothing except to explain that it is because of inferior fabrication (less asbestos content). Why then, do they use these types of brake pads? I'm beginning to see that Volvo, like most every other big company now is full of hype.
I LOVED my Honda and will probably go back to Honda with my next auto purchase.
We just had to replace the rear brakes on our 2000 V40 (yes, at our cost) after only 1 year and 16,000 miles. We like the car but are very disappointed with it's reliability. It has had about 12 warranty issues - some stemming from the fact that the battery died inexplicably.
Yes - we too have a Volvo V40 - purchased with reliability in mind. Ours lasted to about 27,000 miles. Volvo told us some garbage about the governmental regulations being the reason. A responsible thing for Volvo to do would be to recognize the problem and engineer a fix - perhaps retro fit larger pads or something like that. People will not put up with an over rated vehicle with under rated brakes - for very long.
Note: A Comments RSS Feed is available. New comments appear in the Members Area before the main site