Brake system flush

[Steve_S]

Sounds more like scare tactics to me. Millions of vehicles on the road use silicon fluid. If you aren't comfortable with it, there is plenty of dot 4 to go around.

 

[Basil]

Sounds more like scare tactics to me. Millions of vehicles on the road use silicon fluid. If you aren't comfortable with it, there is plenty of dot 4 to go around.

I think it really does boil down to personal choice and what works for you. However, not being an expert on this topic (understatement) in any way shape or form, I did the logical thing - I called a very good friend of mine, Bruce, who is a Jag mechanic. He is not only a factory-trained Jaguar mechanic, he is a Master Mechanic and has won their "Master Mechanic" award so many times that the company named him a "Master of Master's" for life. If this man says it, I believe it and will abide his recommendations. When I asked him his opinion, I had no dog in this debate and had no idea where he stood on the issue, but I was curious. He was emphatic that he would not use Silicon ever in a passinger car under any circumstances. He related a litney of reasons that I won't go into, but it was enough to convice me that, even though I have used silicon in the past with no ill effect, I will in all likelyhood use the "other stuff" that he recommends when I finally get my brake system rebuild finished on my EType.

I still think it boils down to personal choice, but for me, I will probably take Bruce's advice to heart if only because I've known him for a very long time and trust his judgement.

 

[Dave Richards]

I wonder how many cars have had their engines damaged by silicone reverting to silica via the brake booster? Now that would be an interesting statistic.

And it is precisely because we live in a litigious society that Lockheed and others have to be so limiting, that, and it is easy to pander to paranoia...

 

[PAUL161]

As stated before, I use silicone in the 72 "B" with good results and most of us know that year didn't have power or boosted brakes, meaning, no vacuum lines to the engine from the brake system. But on the same note, one of the few things I did to the 79 before selling it was to rebuild the master cyl. and booster as the brakes on it were non existent. When opening up the booster, it had a lot of brake fluid in it. I have no clue how much got sucked into the engine. It was DOT3 fluid. For that reason, I personally wouldn't use it in a car with vacuum boosted brakes. JMHO.

 

[Guest]

Silica damage statistic? That would depend upon the perspecuity of such victim in their ability to connect those dots. It doesn't really matter how many. It is a sad note after one of my $7-8K engine restorations, though. So one engine destroyed that way is too many. Glycol, on the other hand, burns harmlessly in the combustion chamber and goes through the engine.

Too big a difference as far as I'm concerned to be too lazy to flush the brakes with fresh glycol every 2 years. Consider the big picture regarding the LBC .... there is always something needed to be done. How hard is this flush to do, anyway? :hammer:

 

[Guest]

Please elaborate as to Bruce's reasons... they just might be prejudicial! :laugh:

 

[Steve_S]

MGAs have no brake boosters and therefore no way for any brake fluid to enter the engine. They do however have tandem master cylinders that are known to leak. These cylinders are located on a painted shelf, which gets eaten and rusted away by leaking fluid. Using Dot 3/4 is not a good idea.

 

[Guest]

I respect your right to your opinions and the factors that have influenced them...And the fact that you made the decision you have. And I have mine. And I've explained my position on this matter and others. It is similar to the warnings on alcohol and tobacco. At least folks make an INFORMED decision. :thumbsup:

 

[RonMacPherson]

Okay folks, can I request a stop to the bickering....

I agree with Sherman on the need to flush Dot3/4 every two to three years, (or more frequently if you live in a high humidity environment, Gulf Coast anyone).

I do disagree with him on the usage of Dot5, in MOST instances... It is a valuable product for people who do not compete with their cars, for paint preservation. And a good back bleed with solve every clutch bleed problem, and some brake bleed problem...

Everything in it's own usage. For the purposes needed. Their is no ONE best brake fluid... Depends on what you need.


Sadly the vast majority of American auto owners/drivers do NOT replace their brake fluid frequently enough...

So, where does this lead us. Take better concerns with the maintenance aspect of your vehicle no matter which brake fluid you endorse.

 

[Steve_S]

Everything in it's own usage. For the purposes needed. Their is no ONE best brake fluid... Depends on what you need.

Precisely!

I respect your right to your opinions and the factors that have influenced them...And the fact that you made the decision you have. And I have mine. And I've explained my position on this matter and others.

Didn't realize I struck a nerve. I'm not arguing the point, just presenting facts for others to determine what is best for their application. I couldn't care less what other people decide is best for their own cars, so long as it isn't unsafe.

I run both Dot 4 and Dot 5 Silicon in my cars, and have done so for 20 years. Never had a single problem with either. Both have pros and cons and both can damage a braking system if not maintained properly.

 

[tony barnhill]

Call an end to it, guys....we're beating this dead horse in 2 different forums! Enough already!

 

[sparkydave]

Agreed! No more brake fluid holy wars! As much as I support silicone and think there's a lot of anecdotes both good and bad, let's give it a rest.

 

[Guest]

I live in the Gulf coast... Houston, by GOD, Texas.... and I own a small auto repair shop. You make a valid point about a vast majority of Americans not flushing their glycol fluid. That goes to neglect, not the fault of the fluid. You don't blame the oil if some Bozo goes 12,000 miles on it and spins a rod bearing. He/she should have known better. I do more brake repairs than any other single job. And I use the test strips on fluid that shows the percentage of copper present in the fluid. This results from moisture contamination. It surprises me how few fluid tests fail... on some vehicles as old as 10 yrs old and having excess of 100,000 miles on the clock. So, I really wonder just how crappy glycol fluid actually is.... or is the quality of parts in these LBC's the real culprit. Perhaps the real issue is the junk the British cars really are/were. After all, back in the day when these cars were current, I worked on them in the shop. They broke very often then. Especially compared to Fords, Toyotas, etc. Many people kept the LBC's a short time or relegated them to the storage barn.

In the grand scheme of things, I get into my 2008 F-150 or 1999 4-Runner to run an errand or take a trip...not my TR6. The TR is way more likely to break down. Does silicone brake fluid really matter when the engine fails?

 

[GregW]

But wait! We haven't even begun to add <span style="color: #FF0000">DOT 5.1</span> to the mix.

 

[Scott_Hower]

I'll add only one thing ... it's SILICONE fluid, not silicon. Silicon is beach sand.

 

[angelfj1]

Just for the sake of closure, I drove to Watkins Glen and back and experienced NO brake or clutch issues. The pedal feel on both is rock solid. In the final analysis it was multiple bleeding and then waiting a couple of days in between that made all of the difference.