Re: [MV] Fw: Basic M35 info- Now Silicone vs regular fluid

From: Dave Cole (DavidCole@tk7.net)
Date: Wed Jul 10 2002 - 16:29:54 PDT


I know what you are saying, however I have several other vehicles besides an MV
and I have had the benefit (?) of having them for a long period of time, a few in excess of 20 years.

I have found that regular brake fluid does absorb moisture and that if the vehicles are not driven regularly, like almost daily, moisture
saturates the brake fluid and the brake system fails from the inside out. Cylinders rust in their bores. As do master cylinders.

And about every 10 years I end up replacing a large percentage of the brake systems.

I suppose that if I flushed the brake systems every year of two this might be avoided,
however if I could simply replace the fluid with silicone I might be able to ignore this problem for in excess of
10 years, which would really be nice.

Dave

7/9/2002 11:42:32 AM, "R. A. Moir aka RAM" <cyclopsram@starband.net> wrote:

>You answered your own query.... You like whatever works and that is
>good enough for me.... By the way, GE Formula DOT 5 Silicone is available
>at most of the East Coast Rallies for $15 a gallon.......My approach is to
>live with whatever is in the system of the vehicle, for fluid that is,
>unless it is severely contaminated....They have lasted the 40 or 50 years
>without a never ending thread on a mailing list and they will last another
>40 unless we over-engineer the cure and kill the patient. RAM I have
>DOT 5 and DOT 3 on my shelf... :)
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dave Cole" <DavidCole@tk7.net>
>To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:41
>Subject: Re: [MV] Fw: Basic M35 info- Now Silicone vs regular fluid
>
>
>>
>>
>> Silicone vs non-Silicone brake fluid has been discussed on this list for
>quite a while. Personally I'd really like to see some scientific data on
>the pros and cons
>> of Silicone vs conventional fluid.
>>
>> Dot 5 fluid costs a fortune. About $75/gallon at the local Napa store. I
>have it in my M51 dump and have had virtually no brake related problems with
>this 40
>> year old vehicle. The brakes work fine. I have locked up all 6 sets of
>wheels on a hard dirt road with a full load in the back. So there seems to
>be plenty of
>> "margin" in the brake system. Also, I have noted that there is no
>corrosion inside of the master cylinder.
>>
>> I have several old vehicles that I keep that are not MVs. What I have
>seen with conventional fluid is that the fluid aborbs moisture ouf of the
>air and at some
>> point it must reach saturation, and then everything inside of the brake
>system begins to rust almost from the inside out. If you change out the
>brake fluid
>> every few years or drive the hell out of the car/truck, this doesn't seem
>to happen.
>>
>> Is that because the moisture is driven out by braking heat? Or?
>>
>> Let's say that moisture does get into a brake system with Silicone fluid.
>Does the water truly collect in the lowest part of the system. (ie.
>Silicone fluid is lighter
>> than water?)
>>
>> If it does collect in system what ramifications does that have? Does
>the metal begin to corrode in the presence of water and silicone fluid?
>>
>> Is this better or worse than water saturated conventional fluid?
>>
>> If a hygroscopic fluid is saturated with water and heated, won't the water
>that has been absorbed by the fluid flash to steam?
>>
>> I know that silicone fluid is used a lot in race cars due to it's higher
>boiling point, however someone in the military must have done some research
>on this
>> subject and concluded that silicone was superior than conventional fluid.
>Does anyone know where that study is?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 7/6/2002 11:21:35 PM, "W. J. Buzz Szarek" <buzz@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Most brake fluids are hygroscopic. They attract and retain water. This
>> >causes the brake components to rust, especially if neglected.
>> >
>> >Dot 5 is not hygroscopic.
>> >It has a lower boiling point and is more elastic (compressible) so in
>heavy
>> >duty applications it's not recommendend.
>> >
>> >It's taken the modern world by storm simply because it protects brake
>> >components from rust. In a vehicle that isn't used often this is a major
>> >plus. If the vehicle is used often and in severe environments where
>every
>> >ounce of stopping ability is required then it's ill advised unless the
>brake
>> >system is specifically designed to accommodate its elasticity (additional
>> >margin required in the design).
>> >
>> >Does that help?
>> >
>> >-=-
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>> >To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>> >To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
>> >To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
>> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 16 2002 - 11:24:21 PDT