triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Brake Fluid

Subject: Re: Brake Fluid
From: Randall <randallyoung@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:53:00 -0800
Cc: spitfires@autox.team.net, triumphs@autox.team.net
References: <3.0.6.32.20000127060029.008fb2f0@pacbell.net>
I've got two (minor) comments :

1) The DOT 3/4 rating is not as important as whether the fluid is made
by Girling.  Girling DOT 3 (no longer available ?) will not 'eat'
natural rubber seals, but Wagner DOT 4 will.  BTDT, threw the entire set
of 6 month old seals away.

2) Silicone DOT 5 also will not damage natural rubber seals (or
synthetic ones for that matter).  Although there are plenty of horror
stories around about how you shouldn't use DOT 5, I use it in all my
cars (and motorhome) and have never had a problem with it.  It also does
not deteriorate, attract moisture or attack paint the way DOT 3/4/5.1
fluid does.

Randall
59 TR3A daily driver

Barry Schwartz wrote:
> 
> >"top the reservoir with Castrol Girling Amber Brake Fluid, or a fluid
> >which conforms to specification SAE 70 R3. It is vital that no other
> >type of brake fluid is used. Use of a non-standardfluid will result in
> >brake failure caused by the perishing of the special seals in the master
> >and brake cylinders."
> ***********************************
> I've Cc'd the triumphs list as well, as this also applies -
> 
> This is referring (basically) to Girling DOT 4 fluid.  The seals in TR's
> (as well as almost all Girling brakes at one time) were of a natural rubber
> compound, and anything other than DOT 4 would destroy the seals in short
> order (ask anybody with an AMC, they also used Girling cylinders)  Use DOT
> 4, Girling brake fluid and you won't have any trouble.  Use DOT 3 at your
> own risk, if it has Original type Girling seals it WILL fail in time, if it
> has other more modern synthetic seals, then you might be ok.  But why take
> a chance - Girling DOT 4 Fluid is widely available, costs not much more if
> any than DOT 3, and is a better all around fluid ([fluif], sorry I couldn't
> help it, as this is THE FLUIF that started this anyway) -

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>