I have had to replace the brakes 4 times, they seem to have constant problems and that is why I am selling the car. The computer went out causing my car to stop in the middle of the road and was very expensive to fix. The passenger window came off the tracks.
This is a fast comfortable car. Very expensive to maintain. The brakes seemed to not be so great. Other reports I've read on-line say the same thing. The ABS light is on all the time even though I just replaced the braking system seems to be a short somewhere because when I go trough water it comes on.
I've actually never heard of any brake problems on an 03. Are you using O.E. pads? This is a must; the pads have been updated numerous times by GM, and are usually improved compared to what your car came with. 33,000 on mine, the pads haven't worn at all.
As I commented on one of the other reviews, it blows my mind to read of people having to replace brake pads before 60,000 or 70,000 miles at the very earliest. I've owned a lot of cars (I'm 58) and I have NEVER replaced the brake pads on any of them before 80,000 miles. One of my cars went 240,000 miles with just two brake jobs during that time. I just checked the pad wear on my 2001 Grand Am at 51,000 miles and they have at least half of the pad material left. I don't anticipate having to replace them before at least 90,000 miles, probably 100,000. I honestly think shops and dealer service departments are telling people they need new pads when they don't in order to bilk them out of more money. The only way I could even imagine wearing even a cheap "soft" set of pads out in 20,000 miles would be driving at all times with your foot on the brakes.
Yes, I second that opinion.
Seems as though a lot of people can't get the foot off the flipping brake pedal, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out! Maybe that is why so many people have burnt out brake lamps and poor gas mileage. Uhhhh...yeah.
Note: A Comments RSS Feed 
is available. New comments appear in the Members Area before the main site