On Sat, 8 Jul 1995 Johnmowog@aol.com wrote:
About Ken Streeter's article...
> Your included file failed to mention that DOT3 fluids will EAT the rubber
> parts of most lbcs.
I already posted another separate message before I came across this
post. Bottom line...today's DOT 3 is NOT anything like the brake
fluids sold 20/30/40 years ago for US automobiles. Whatever
may have been the case of domestic (USA) brake fluids destroying
seals, etc. of UK car's hydraulic systems just isn't
the case anymore...assuming it even was that bad back in the
60's which, from personal experience I have never personally
seen such failures...at least since owning a TR since 1965.
> Also that DOT5 conversion not only requires rebuilding of
> system, but also a very complete flushing of all lines, with 99% alcohol
> being the only really safe medium.
That's exactly what the "experts" recommend, but others have
converted to DOT 5 by simply flushing the existing system
with ;ots of DOT 5. I did that on a TR-250 about 10 years ago
and drove the vehicle several years after the conversion with
no problem at all. To be sure, flushing with alcohol
is THE recommended method.
> Also that 5 and 4 won't mix.
Correct.
> "if it works for you, use it" is terrible advice for telling people what to
> use in something as vital as brakes, Especially since the damage done by
> wrong fluids and poor techniques is generally long term.
Given the damage done to our cars by most of the "prior owners"
I don't see anything in Ken's article that is of such dire consequences.
I would, however, add the flush with alcohol if converting to DOT5.
> Further, your file
> contradicts this by saying, properly so, that fluid should be changed every
> couple of years. Knowing that DOT3 is death to the rubber, you MUST change
> what you use or you Will break it.
DOT 3 is not death to rubber today.
> DOT5 isn't used in racing because it absorbs 15% air, as opposed to 5% in
> regular fluid.
> All in all, your included article made some good points, all of which were
> covered in agonizingly painstaking detail on this list last month. It also
> contains some potentially FATAL information.,
> Please do not present info like this article when you yourself admit that
> you don't have the knowledge to verify its' accuracy. After all, the brakes
> that fail may be on the car aimed at yours!
The article was not printed on the page of the NY Times. This
email list is now doing exactly what it should...providing the
fine tuning to Ken's article. Please Ken, DO continue posting,
articles as we all learn from the process. Why else do we
have this list?
In ending, I don't mean anything as a flame to John, but I'd
just ask John to take this list and the activity and messages
that appear here as the interactive discussion group it is
meant to be, not that every word that appears here must
necessarily be final copy ready for print in a factory
manual.
Cheers,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl K2UNK (Budd lake, New Jersey) (billsohl@planet.net)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|