Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
brake line rust
517 views
Skip to first unread message
George
Aug 25, 2012, 9:27:21 AM8/25/12
to
I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
lines are starting to rust. So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
but it will get worse.
Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
Thanks,
George
lines are starting to rust. So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
but it will get worse.
Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
Thanks,
George
m6onz5a
Aug 25, 2012, 10:46:11 AM8/25/12
to
the rust off. They have rust preventive sprays, but the lines can
still rust from the inside out if moisture is in your system. for
replacement lines we sell a coated brake line that is supposed to
prevent rust, but I've heard mixed reviews on these coated lines.
thepenns...@gmail.com
Aug 25, 2012, 10:50:03 AM8/25/12
to
If it's just surface, it will take years to go through completely. Unless you want to sand them, you can just take some Rust-Oleum and coat them good. That will greatly lengthen their life. The other is, keep an eye on them and replace when needed.
JR
Aug 25, 2012, 10:50:17 AM8/25/12
to
The only best way to handle that is to replace the brake lines with new ones. Back in the late 1970s I bought a 1954 Ford truck. One morning when I started that truck up and I mashed the brake pedal, the pedal went all the way to the floor. The right rear side brake line had rusted out. Don't take chances with your brakes.
m6onz5a
Aug 25, 2012, 12:24:39 PM8/25/12
to
On Aug 25, 10:50 am, JR <dhiad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only best way to handle that is to replace the brake lines with new ones. Back in the late 1970s I bought a 1954 Ford truck. One morning when I started that truck up and I mashed the brake pedal, the pedal went all the way to the floor. The right rear side brake line had rusted out. Don't take chances with your brakes.
See? that brake line lasted over 20 years.. We get people coming in
> The only best way to handle that is to replace the brake lines with new ones. Back in the late 1970s I bought a 1954 Ford truck. One morning when I started that truck up and I mashed the brake pedal, the pedal went all the way to the floor. The right rear side brake line had rusted out. Don't take chances with your brakes.
today with cars 5-10 years old with rusted brake lines now.
I think my Corvair went about 30 years before a brake line went.
Nowadays they purposely make them last a certain amount so you'll
have to purchase more in the future. Just like everything else I
guess. :(
Vic Smith
Aug 25, 2012, 7:12:00 PM8/25/12
to
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:27:21 -0400, George <gbec...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Depends on what you consider practical.
You hear about people applying protective coatings, and that makes
sense if you find maintaining that practical.
Here's my anecdotal experience from salt country with car I suspect
are similar in brake quality to yours.
'90 Corsica - rusted through rear brake line. 19-20 years old.
Replaced that line only, since I was about to junk it because of other
issues.
'97 Lumina - failed wheel cylinder seal - a month ago.
Replaced both rear cylinders, shoes and drums. Lines okay.
'93 Grand Am - rusted through rear line - last week.
Replaced that line only.
Here's my general rule. A rusty brake line (actual severe pitting) on
my highway cars gets replaced before a trip. Hasn't happened yet.
My highway cars just never get old enough.
For my local beaters, I only change a brake line when it fails.
It can look bad, but go for years, well beyond where you'll junk it
anyway. These cars have dual systems on diagonally opposed wheels,
so unless you're moving fast, you should be okay to get it home when a
single line fails. Won't be a comfortable ride though, for one main
reason that you should look into. Unless you keep on top of the drum
self adjusters, you'll be mostly or entirely braking with one front
caliper.
That's another subject, but I suggest you check your rear shoes/drums.
An easy way is just jack up the back, have somebody press the brakes
down hard, and see if you can turn the tire by hand.
You might be surprised.
This is assuming your '04 has self-adjusting drums and not tophat
discs. I don't know.
wrote:
You hear about people applying protective coatings, and that makes
sense if you find maintaining that practical.
Here's my anecdotal experience from salt country with car I suspect
are similar in brake quality to yours.
'90 Corsica - rusted through rear brake line. 19-20 years old.
Replaced that line only, since I was about to junk it because of other
issues.
'97 Lumina - failed wheel cylinder seal - a month ago.
Replaced both rear cylinders, shoes and drums. Lines okay.
'93 Grand Am - rusted through rear line - last week.
Replaced that line only.
Here's my general rule. A rusty brake line (actual severe pitting) on
my highway cars gets replaced before a trip. Hasn't happened yet.
My highway cars just never get old enough.
For my local beaters, I only change a brake line when it fails.
It can look bad, but go for years, well beyond where you'll junk it
anyway. These cars have dual systems on diagonally opposed wheels,
so unless you're moving fast, you should be okay to get it home when a
single line fails. Won't be a comfortable ride though, for one main
reason that you should look into. Unless you keep on top of the drum
self adjusters, you'll be mostly or entirely braking with one front
caliper.
That's another subject, but I suggest you check your rear shoes/drums.
An easy way is just jack up the back, have somebody press the brakes
down hard, and see if you can turn the tire by hand.
You might be surprised.
This is assuming your '04 has self-adjusting drums and not tophat
discs. I don't know.
gregz
Aug 25, 2012, 7:30:35 PM8/25/12
to
Something should be done before that. I don't think rust converter would
hurt. Then some paint. Having news lines put on would be worth the
investment.
Greg
gregz
Aug 25, 2012, 7:30:35 PM8/25/12
to
Steve W.
Aug 25, 2012, 9:39:56 PM8/25/12
to
PIA you could use a pressure washer to blow all
the crud and dirt off. Then use a sprayer to apply some rust converter
on the lines, soak them pretty well and let it dry,
Then apply some paint. A couple coats should slow the rusting down. I
would use rustoleum or POR type product.
For brushes you might need to get creative to get everywhere. Wouldn't
hurt to pressure wash the entire chassis and
paint all the steel with undercoat, treat any rust before coating or use
POR.
--
Steve W.
Nate Nagel
Aug 26, 2012, 10:03:16 AM8/26/12
to
rusting as well.
Even Krylon is better than nothing, though - and likely better than some
parts get from the factory (e.g. the diff covers on my Jeep didn't have
any paint on them when I got it while the axles themselves still had a
decent coating on them.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
AMuzi
Aug 26, 2012, 2:17:12 PM8/26/12
to
often rust from the inside out. Once I've replaced the lines
on my cars, I purge the brake fluid completely once a year
which also saves mater cylinders etc. My cars are all 1965
so I can't comment on new equipment; YMMV.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
bob urz
Aug 26, 2012, 5:09:18 PM8/26/12
to
accelerates brake line rust. My 98 Taurus has a plastic shield
under the drivers door that did jut that. Rotted from the OUTSIDE
in. Got luck and got some junkyard lines that were not in too
bad of shape. Cavaliers are the same
I took the junkyard lines, cleaned them up, and spray painted them.
Hopefully, the rest of the car will rot before the lines go again
bob
m6onz5a
Aug 26, 2012, 9:39:16 PM8/26/12
to
changed, it is likely it'll rust more often from the inside out
Vic Smith
Aug 26, 2012, 10:36:14 PM8/26/12
to
Even then I only replace what the bleeding replaces.
Whether you change brake fluid as part of a maintenance program is a
different argument. I might see doing it with expensive ABS systems,
but I've never done it. Decide on a car by car basis and my decision
has always been "don't do it."
Every leaking brake line I've replaced has been rusted badly on the
outside. Pitted deeply, rust scaling, etc. Every single one.
Water and salt and oxygen are always working on the outside.
Whatever "moisture" gets into the fluid can't compare. Not even close
in my experience. Might work different in the desert.
Here's a real good link on manufacturer engineers' views on changing
brake fluid. Unless you don't agree with it.
http://www.aa1car.com/library/procut3b.htm
jim
Aug 27, 2012, 8:55:28 AM8/27/12
to
Vic Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:39:16 -0700 (PDT), m6onz5a
> <cor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 26, 2:17Â pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> On 8/25/2012 9:46 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Aug 25, 9:27 am, George <gbecc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >> I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
> >> >> lines are starting to rust. Â So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
> >> On 8/25/2012 9:46 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Aug 25, 9:27 am, George <gbecc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >> I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
> >> >> but it will get worse.
> >>
> >> >> Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> George
> >>
> >> > todays cars brake lines don't last. if it's surface rust lightly sand
> >> > the rust off. They have rust preventive sprays, but the lines can
> >> > still rust from the inside out if moisture is in your system. Â for
> >>
> >> >> Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> George
> >>
> >> > todays cars brake lines don't last. if it's surface rust lightly sand
> >> > the rust off. They have rust preventive sprays, but the lines can
> >> > replacement lines we sell a coated brake line that is supposed to
> >> > prevent rust, but I've heard mixed reviews on these coated lines.
> >>
> >> A manageable but daunting experience. I've seen them more
> >> often rust from the inside out. Once I've replaced the lines
> >> on my cars, I purge the brake fluid completely once a year
> >> which also saves mater cylinders etc. My cars are all 1965
> >> so I can't comment on new equipment; YMMV.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew Muzi
> >> Â <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> >> > prevent rust, but I've heard mixed reviews on these coated lines.
> >>
> >> A manageable but daunting experience. I've seen them more
> >> often rust from the inside out. Once I've replaced the lines
> >> on my cars, I purge the brake fluid completely once a year
> >> which also saves mater cylinders etc. My cars are all 1965
> >> so I can't comment on new equipment; YMMV.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew Muzi
> >> Â Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> >
> >yep since brake fluid absorbs moisture, and the fluid seldom gets
> >changed, it is likely it'll rust more often from the inside out
>
> I never change brake fluid unless I'm replacing a brake component.
> Even then I only replace what the bleeding replaces.
> Whether you change brake fluid as part of a maintenance program is a
> different argument. I might see doing it with expensive ABS systems,
> but I've never done it. Decide on a car by car basis and my decision
> has always been "don't do it."
> Every leaking brake line I've replaced has been rusted badly on the
> outside. Pitted deeply, rust scaling, etc. Every single one.
That would be on cars that are used frequently. Vehicles that
> >yep since brake fluid absorbs moisture, and the fluid seldom gets
> >changed, it is likely it'll rust more often from the inside out
>
> I never change brake fluid unless I'm replacing a brake component.
> Even then I only replace what the bleeding replaces.
> Whether you change brake fluid as part of a maintenance program is a
> different argument. I might see doing it with expensive ABS systems,
> but I've never done it. Decide on a car by car basis and my decision
> has always been "don't do it."
> Every leaking brake line I've replaced has been rusted badly on the
> outside. Pitted deeply, rust scaling, etc. Every single one.
are left sitting for long periods tend to be the ones that the
brake lines rust from the inside.
The leak will be at the lowest point in a stretch of line.
-jim
Vic Smith
Aug 27, 2012, 10:35:06 AM8/27/12
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:55:28 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Vic Smith wrote:
>> Every leaking brake line I've replaced has been rusted badly on the
>> outside. Pitted deeply, rust scaling, etc. Every single one.
>
>That would be on cars that are used frequently. Vehicles that
>are left sitting for long periods tend to be the ones that the
>brake lines rust from the inside.
>The leak will be at the lowest point in a stretch of line.
>
You talking about museum cars?
The Grand Am brake line I replaced last week - rusty as hell on the
outside - gets driven about 200 miles a year.
Sits in driveway 99.9% of the time.
In the rain or humid air, sometimes after being driven on salty
streets.
So unless you're talking about museum cars, inside rust is
inconsequential.
I don't buy the water settling at a low point either.
Since much is made about brake fluid being hygroscopic you would think
water wouldn't separate out at low points, but diffuse throughout the
fluid.
In fact, if you believed the "hygroscopic" claims, master cylinders
would be overflowing from sucking up water.
I've never seen brake fluid levels increase in any car I had.
What brake fluid gets tested when somebody is anal enough to test
brake fluid? Master cylinder reservoir brake fluid.
I've argued about this before, and the "brake fluid changers" never
convinced me that water is an issue with the brake systems I've had.
That link I posted
http://www.aa1car.com/library/procut3b.htm
says Ford, GM and Chryco don't recomment changing brake fluid except
on the Metro or Tracker. I don't have one.
"Ford said they measured the water content in 7 to 10 year old Ford
vehicles and found that the water content was actually quite low: only
1 to 1-1/2 percent. So based on their findings and the design target
of 3 percent water, they see no need to change the fluid for
preventive maintenance."
Anyway, I've always said that "hygroscopic" nonsense is just an excuse
for people to use a big word, break off bleeders and generally get
themselves all confused.
But if somebody wants to change brake fluid, have at it.
wrote:
>
>
>Vic Smith wrote:
>> Every leaking brake line I've replaced has been rusted badly on the
>> outside. Pitted deeply, rust scaling, etc. Every single one.
>
>That would be on cars that are used frequently. Vehicles that
>are left sitting for long periods tend to be the ones that the
>brake lines rust from the inside.
>The leak will be at the lowest point in a stretch of line.
>
The Grand Am brake line I replaced last week - rusty as hell on the
outside - gets driven about 200 miles a year.
Sits in driveway 99.9% of the time.
In the rain or humid air, sometimes after being driven on salty
streets.
So unless you're talking about museum cars, inside rust is
inconsequential.
I don't buy the water settling at a low point either.
Since much is made about brake fluid being hygroscopic you would think
water wouldn't separate out at low points, but diffuse throughout the
fluid.
In fact, if you believed the "hygroscopic" claims, master cylinders
would be overflowing from sucking up water.
I've never seen brake fluid levels increase in any car I had.
What brake fluid gets tested when somebody is anal enough to test
brake fluid? Master cylinder reservoir brake fluid.
I've argued about this before, and the "brake fluid changers" never
convinced me that water is an issue with the brake systems I've had.
That link I posted
http://www.aa1car.com/library/procut3b.htm
says Ford, GM and Chryco don't recomment changing brake fluid except
on the Metro or Tracker. I don't have one.
"Ford said they measured the water content in 7 to 10 year old Ford
vehicles and found that the water content was actually quite low: only
1 to 1-1/2 percent. So based on their findings and the design target
of 3 percent water, they see no need to change the fluid for
preventive maintenance."
Anyway, I've always said that "hygroscopic" nonsense is just an excuse
for people to use a big word, break off bleeders and generally get
themselves all confused.
But if somebody wants to change brake fluid, have at it.
Heron
Aug 27, 2012, 12:25:05 PM8/27/12
to
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tjvm38h2bmlj2brqs...@4ax.com...
witnessed) seems to corrode and pit mainly at the bottom of its
radius, a likely result of entrained moisture in the brake fluid.
Heron
Aug 27, 2012, 12:34:02 PM8/27/12
to
"Heron" <McKe...@news.com> wrote in message
news:k1g70k$igv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> And yet the interior of every aged steel wheel cylinder (that I've
> witnessed) seems to corrode and pit mainly at the bottom of its
> radius, a likely result of entrained moisture in the brake fluid.
I probably should amend to "entrained and later precipitated" ...
news:k1g70k$igv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> And yet the interior of every aged steel wheel cylinder (that I've
> witnessed) seems to corrode and pit mainly at the bottom of its
> radius, a likely result of entrained moisture in the brake fluid.
Vic Smith
Aug 27, 2012, 1:47:49 PM8/27/12
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:34:02 -0500, "Heron" <McKe...@news.com>
wrote:
Don't know. I should have pulled the pistons on the 2 wheel cylinders
I just replaced, one of which had a leaky seal. Didn't think of it
because I didn't care about it. 7 buck part.
Might have been rust that worked in from the outer boot that finally
did it in. "invaded from the outside and later pooled by gravity."
Or not pooled. Didn't look.
I've seen pics of rusty caliper pistons which rusted from the outside.
Rust all around the perimeter. Can't explain what you've seen.
In almost 50 years of driving I've replaced only 2 wheel cylinders, a
couple masters long ago, and no calipers. Maybe 4 externally rusted
out lines.
I never changed my brake fluid. And I drive old cheap cars that I
suspect never ever had their brake fluid changed.
But like I said, to each his own. I've got nothing against brake
fluid changes. Even thought about doing it, but said "nah."
Wouldn't change because I was afraid of water, but maybe other
corrosive causes, like copper. Replace the corrosion inhibitors.
It's all voodoo, mostly from those selling brake fluid flushes.
Pick your witch doctor.
I'll just go with manufacturer's maintenance schedule and leave it at
that, unless I'm here arguing about.
wrote:
I just replaced, one of which had a leaky seal. Didn't think of it
because I didn't care about it. 7 buck part.
Might have been rust that worked in from the outer boot that finally
did it in. "invaded from the outside and later pooled by gravity."
Or not pooled. Didn't look.
I've seen pics of rusty caliper pistons which rusted from the outside.
Rust all around the perimeter. Can't explain what you've seen.
In almost 50 years of driving I've replaced only 2 wheel cylinders, a
couple masters long ago, and no calipers. Maybe 4 externally rusted
out lines.
I never changed my brake fluid. And I drive old cheap cars that I
suspect never ever had their brake fluid changed.
But like I said, to each his own. I've got nothing against brake
fluid changes. Even thought about doing it, but said "nah."
Wouldn't change because I was afraid of water, but maybe other
corrosive causes, like copper. Replace the corrosion inhibitors.
It's all voodoo, mostly from those selling brake fluid flushes.
Pick your witch doctor.
I'll just go with manufacturer's maintenance schedule and leave it at
that, unless I'm here arguing about.
jim
Aug 27, 2012, 4:49:34 PM8/27/12
to
Vic Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:55:28 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Vic Smith wrote:
>
> >> Every leaking brake line I've replaced has been rusted badly on the
> >> outside. Pitted deeply, rust scaling, etc. Every single one.
> >
> >That would be on cars that are used frequently. Vehicles that
> >are left sitting for long periods tend to be the ones that the
> >brake lines rust from the inside.
> >The leak will be at the lowest point in a stretch of line.
> >
>
> You talking about museum cars?
> The Grand Am brake line I replaced last week - rusty as hell on the
> outside - gets driven about 200 miles a year.
> Sits in driveway 99.9% of the time.
> In the rain or humid air, sometimes after being driven on salty
> streets.
> So unless you're talking about museum cars, inside rust is
> inconsequential.
> I don't buy the water settling at a low point either.
year or more that when put back into service blew out a brake line
and it was always at the low point in the line. In some there was no
visible outside rust where the line blew. Leave one of your old
cars sit for 3 years and it is almost guaranteed it will blow out
a brake line as soon as you start to drive it again.
> Since much is made about brake fluid being hygroscopic you would think
> water wouldn't separate out at low points, but diffuse throughout the
> fluid.
world brake slave and master cylinders will tend to get pitted
at the lowest spot also. I would guess it has to do with
fine particles that settle out of the fluid and form sort
of mud sediment which must be corrosive. It's common for
drum wheel cylinders to be pitted in the middle at the bottom.
Often doesn't bother anything because that middle part of the
cylinder isn't used.
> In fact, if you believed the "hygroscopic" claims, master cylinders
> would be overflowing from sucking up water.
to the fluid sitting undisturbed.
-jim
gregz
Aug 27, 2012, 9:01:20 PM8/27/12
to
know why I'm not reminded of this. Bought new car once, with maintenance
manual. Wrote down all the stuff your supposed to do at intervals.
Replacing fluid was something like 25k or some time interval. Why are they
still using that old stuff.
Greg
Vic Smith
Aug 28, 2012, 11:04:16 AM8/28/12
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:49:34 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:
>
master cylinder is mostly useless. But I don't know how much fluid
actually circulates when brakes undergo normal use. Also says that
brake lines should be flushed before long tern storage. I googled
long term auto storage and by the third hit ran across recommendations
that all fluids should be changed and topped, including brake fluid.
Fits your observations.
>> Since much is made about brake fluid being hygroscopic you would think
>> water wouldn't separate out at low points, but diffuse throughout the
>> fluid.
>
>I don't know about your water theories but in the real
>world brake slave and master cylinders will tend to get pitted
>at the lowest spot also. I would guess it has to do with
>fine particles that settle out of the fluid and form sort
>of mud sediment which must be corrosive. It's common for
>drum wheel cylinders to be pitted in the middle at the bottom.
>Often doesn't bother anything because that middle part of the
>cylinder isn't used.
>
>
>
>> In fact, if you believed the "hygroscopic" claims, master cylinders
>> would be overflowing from sucking up water.
>
>Don't know if water has anything to do with it. Its related
>to the fluid sitting undisturbed.
>
According to the "hygroscopists" brake fluid gets loaded with water.
Your views closely align with mine. It's corrosives other than water
that does the internal damage - maybe copper, from what I've read.
In any case, I still find no compelling reason to change brake fluid.
Unless prepping for long term storage since you pointed that out.
That's just my personal view. I've got nothing against it, and it's
surely beneficial from a fluid chemistry/sediment standpoint.
Just don't see the risk/labor/reward balance as being right.
Which is in line with what the manufacturers said in the link I
posted.
wrote:
>
>I have seen at least a half dozen vehicles that were parked for a
>year or more that when put back into service blew out a brake line
>and it was always at the low point in the line. In some there was no
>visible outside rust where the line blew. Leave one of your old
>cars sit for 3 years and it is almost guaranteed it will blow out
>a brake line as soon as you start to drive it again.
>
No thanks. If your observations are correct then testing fluid at the
>year or more that when put back into service blew out a brake line
>and it was always at the low point in the line. In some there was no
>visible outside rust where the line blew. Leave one of your old
>cars sit for 3 years and it is almost guaranteed it will blow out
>a brake line as soon as you start to drive it again.
>
master cylinder is mostly useless. But I don't know how much fluid
actually circulates when brakes undergo normal use. Also says that
brake lines should be flushed before long tern storage. I googled
long term auto storage and by the third hit ran across recommendations
that all fluids should be changed and topped, including brake fluid.
Fits your observations.
>> Since much is made about brake fluid being hygroscopic you would think
>> water wouldn't separate out at low points, but diffuse throughout the
>> fluid.
>
>I don't know about your water theories but in the real
>world brake slave and master cylinders will tend to get pitted
>at the lowest spot also. I would guess it has to do with
>fine particles that settle out of the fluid and form sort
>of mud sediment which must be corrosive. It's common for
>drum wheel cylinders to be pitted in the middle at the bottom.
>Often doesn't bother anything because that middle part of the
>cylinder isn't used.
>
>
>
>> In fact, if you believed the "hygroscopic" claims, master cylinders
>> would be overflowing from sucking up water.
>
>Don't know if water has anything to do with it. Its related
>to the fluid sitting undisturbed.
>
Your views closely align with mine. It's corrosives other than water
that does the internal damage - maybe copper, from what I've read.
In any case, I still find no compelling reason to change brake fluid.
Unless prepping for long term storage since you pointed that out.
That's just my personal view. I've got nothing against it, and it's
surely beneficial from a fluid chemistry/sediment standpoint.
Just don't see the risk/labor/reward balance as being right.
Which is in line with what the manufacturers said in the link I
posted.
Heron
Aug 29, 2012, 9:49:42 AM8/29/12
to
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l1lp38505ucgqdef6...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:49:34 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
> No thanks. If your observations are correct then testing fluid at the
> master cylinder is mostly useless. But I don't know how much fluid
> actually circulates when brakes undergo normal use. Also says that
> brake lines should be flushed before long tern storage. I googled
> long term auto storage and by the third hit ran across recommendations
> that all fluids should be changed and topped, including brake fluid.
> Fits your observations.
>
> wrote:
>
> No thanks. If your observations are correct then testing fluid at the
> master cylinder is mostly useless. But I don't know how much fluid
> actually circulates when brakes undergo normal use. Also says that
> brake lines should be flushed before long tern storage. I googled
> long term auto storage and by the third hit ran across recommendations
> that all fluids should be changed and topped, including brake fluid.
> Fits your observations.
>
> According to the "hygroscopists" brake fluid gets loaded with water.
> Your views closely align with mine. It's corrosives other than water
> that does the internal damage - maybe copper, from what I've read.
> In any case, I still find no compelling reason to change brake fluid.
> Unless prepping for long term storage since you pointed that out.
> That's just my personal view. I've got nothing against it, and it's
> surely beneficial from a fluid chemistry/sediment standpoint.
> Just don't see the risk/labor/reward balance as being right.
> Which is in line with what the manufacturers said in the link I
> posted.
Clean brake fluid, both hygroscopic and hydrophilic, in
> Your views closely align with mine. It's corrosives other than water
> that does the internal damage - maybe copper, from what I've read.
> In any case, I still find no compelling reason to change brake fluid.
> Unless prepping for long term storage since you pointed that out.
> That's just my personal view. I've got nothing against it, and it's
> surely beneficial from a fluid chemistry/sediment standpoint.
> Just don't see the risk/labor/reward balance as being right.
> Which is in line with what the manufacturers said in the link I
> posted.
the absence of water is not a concern in the environment
of a sealed system as without the latter, the former does
not promote the formation of corrosives that attack metal
surfaces, a clear example being new product, although now
mainly found in polyethylene bottles, formerly underwent
long term storage without incident in metal containers.
The main constituent of the sediment commonly found
in the system is hydrophobic zinc stearate, a byproduct
of the interaction of zinc oxide and the otherwise largely
benign stearic acid that permeates from the rubber seals.
Vic Smith
Aug 29, 2012, 11:57:43 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:49:42 -0500, "Heron" <McKe...@news.com>
wrote:
>
>Clean brake fluid, both hygroscopic and hydrophilic, in
>the absence of water is not a concern in the environment
>of a sealed system as without the latter, the former does
>not promote the formation of corrosives that attack metal
>surfaces, a clear example being new product, although now
>mainly found in polyethylene bottles, formerly underwent
>long term storage without incident in metal containers.
>
>The main constituent of the sediment commonly found
>in the system is hydrophobic zinc stearate, a byproduct
>of the interaction of zinc oxide and the otherwise largely
>benign stearic acid that permeates from the rubber seals.
>
I've yet to see any cogent analysis of brake system chemistry.
Probably too many different metals used by various manufacturers to
make it worthwhile. Different seals. Different heat with different
systems too.
I'd guess manufacturers give suppliers some acceptable range in the
alloys, so there's more differences.
I have seen mention of copper leached from brake lines reacting
with other brake systems metals causing corrosion.
Don't think water had to be an agent in that corrosion, but can't
swear to that.
Also seen mention of chemical reaction with seals being a cause of
corrosion. There's all kinds of stuff about it on the net, most of it
looking like haphazard speculation to me.
Anyway, the reason the "hygroscopists" usually give for doing brake
fluid changes has nothing to do with corrosion. It's nearly always
"your water contaminated fluid will boil leading to brake fade."
That's clearly ridiculous to me, and always has been.
I can buy the "change to prevent corrosion" argument.
Not enough to do brake fluid changes, but it's a valid argument.
Won't keep wheel cylinders/caliper pistons from rusting due to water
intrusion past the outer seals either.
And it doesn't change the fact that all my brake line failures have
been due to external rust.
Since I'm "almost" a fluid change freak - only because I do sometimes
think about it - I'm a little jealous of those who change their brake
fluid. But not jealous enough.
wrote:
>
>Clean brake fluid, both hygroscopic and hydrophilic, in
>the absence of water is not a concern in the environment
>of a sealed system as without the latter, the former does
>not promote the formation of corrosives that attack metal
>surfaces, a clear example being new product, although now
>mainly found in polyethylene bottles, formerly underwent
>long term storage without incident in metal containers.
>
>The main constituent of the sediment commonly found
>in the system is hydrophobic zinc stearate, a byproduct
>of the interaction of zinc oxide and the otherwise largely
>benign stearic acid that permeates from the rubber seals.
>
Probably too many different metals used by various manufacturers to
make it worthwhile. Different seals. Different heat with different
systems too.
I'd guess manufacturers give suppliers some acceptable range in the
alloys, so there's more differences.
I have seen mention of copper leached from brake lines reacting
with other brake systems metals causing corrosion.
Don't think water had to be an agent in that corrosion, but can't
swear to that.
Also seen mention of chemical reaction with seals being a cause of
corrosion. There's all kinds of stuff about it on the net, most of it
looking like haphazard speculation to me.
Anyway, the reason the "hygroscopists" usually give for doing brake
fluid changes has nothing to do with corrosion. It's nearly always
"your water contaminated fluid will boil leading to brake fade."
That's clearly ridiculous to me, and always has been.
I can buy the "change to prevent corrosion" argument.
Not enough to do brake fluid changes, but it's a valid argument.
Won't keep wheel cylinders/caliper pistons from rusting due to water
intrusion past the outer seals either.
And it doesn't change the fact that all my brake line failures have
been due to external rust.
Since I'm "almost" a fluid change freak - only because I do sometimes
think about it - I'm a little jealous of those who change their brake
fluid. But not jealous enough.
Heron
Aug 29, 2012, 1:32:52 PM8/29/12
to
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:spcs38hjeai5q3ha4...@4ax.com...
http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
DOT 3 brake fluid is not less than 401°F, the minimum
wet ERBP is 284°F, a temperature easily attained during
rigorous braking. Less than 4% water inclusion is sufficient
for DOT 3 fluid's boiling point to fall below the federal limit.
Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.116
Vic Smith
Aug 29, 2012, 2:56:09 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:32:52 -0500, "Heron" <McKe...@news.com>
wrote:
>
>Brake Fluid Sediment Caused by Rubber Cups
>http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
>
Don't think I'll buy that book.
>The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
>DOT 3 brake fluid is not less than 401°F, the minimum
>wet ERBP is 284°F, a temperature easily attained during
>rigorous braking. Less than 4% water inclusion is sufficient
>for DOT 3 fluid's boiling point to fall below the federal limit.
>
Nothing new there. In that link I posted Ford tested brake fluid in
their vehicles (unspecified) and found water was 1-1.5% after 7-10
years.
http://www.aa1car.com/library/procut3b.htm
Looks like their main reason for recommending brake fluid changes not
being a maintenance item is MC sediment getting in the ABS unit.
That synopsis is a decade old. I think they dropped those symposiums.
Here's from the next year. Some differences.
http://www.aa1car.com/library/procut02.htm
>Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids
>http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.116
>
Thanks. Pretty detailed test procedure. 85,000 strokes. In a
"simulated" brake system. Useful for DOT to set the standard for new
brake fluid performance, but doesn't tell you anything about what's
happening in your car's internals.
I really hope DOT is leaving most of that testing of new brake fluid
to the QC departments of the producers.
The gov inspector that watched me package nitrogen infused soup mix
powder for the military was mostly dead weight.
I can't recall him ever catching anything amiss. Maybe because his
presence kept me on my toes.
I'll never know. And I won't know what's happening inside my brake
systems until something gives up.
wrote:
>
>Brake Fluid Sediment Caused by Rubber Cups
>http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
>
>The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
>DOT 3 brake fluid is not less than 401°F, the minimum
>wet ERBP is 284°F, a temperature easily attained during
>rigorous braking. Less than 4% water inclusion is sufficient
>for DOT 3 fluid's boiling point to fall below the federal limit.
>
their vehicles (unspecified) and found water was 1-1.5% after 7-10
years.
http://www.aa1car.com/library/procut3b.htm
Looks like their main reason for recommending brake fluid changes not
being a maintenance item is MC sediment getting in the ABS unit.
That synopsis is a decade old. I think they dropped those symposiums.
Here's from the next year. Some differences.
http://www.aa1car.com/library/procut02.htm
>Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids
>http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.116
>
"simulated" brake system. Useful for DOT to set the standard for new
brake fluid performance, but doesn't tell you anything about what's
happening in your car's internals.
I really hope DOT is leaving most of that testing of new brake fluid
to the QC departments of the producers.
The gov inspector that watched me package nitrogen infused soup mix
powder for the military was mostly dead weight.
I can't recall him ever catching anything amiss. Maybe because his
presence kept me on my toes.
I'll never know. And I won't know what's happening inside my brake
systems until something gives up.
jim
Aug 29, 2012, 3:27:15 PM8/29/12
to
reacting/dissolving in brake fluid was the source of
corrosive sediment. But is there evidence this has
anything to do with water?
AMuzi
Aug 29, 2012, 5:38:27 PM8/29/12
to
not bother either. But they don't so I do.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Heron
Aug 30, 2012, 8:53:05 AM8/30/12
to
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:-a6dnSqfnb-K8KPN...@bright.net...
Heron wrote:
>
> Brake Fluid Sediment Caused by Rubber Cups
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
Yes it has always been my suspicion that the rubber
reacting/dissolving in brake fluid was the source of
corrosive sediment. But is there evidence this has
anything to do with water?
>
> The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
> DOT 3 brake fluid is not less than 401�F, the minimum
> wet ERBP is 284�F, a temperature easily attained during
> rigorous braking. Less than 4% water inclusion is sufficient
> for DOT 3 fluid's boiling point to fall below the federal limit.
>
> Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids
> http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.116
*******************
Water can and does oxidize brake fluid. In addition, water,
when added to many acids, (up to a point) commonly
potentiates (as elevated temperatures also increase the
rate of ) its corrosive effects. Moisture in the system is
detrimental for multiple reasons. But it isn't my goal, nor do
I have an interest in attempting, to convince those unwilling
to accept these facts and I accordingly won't continue to
needlessly repeat and provide support for them after this:
"Brake fluids are composed of many combinations of base
lubricants, solvents and inhibitors. In current fluids base
lubricants are generally polyglycols or castor oil derivatives;
solvents are glycols, glycolethers, or alcohols; inhibitor
combinations include alkaline materials and antioxidants.
Upon storage, the corrosion inhibitors may interact,
deteriorate, o.- become depleted by contact with metals
in the containers, by presence of water and oxidation
products in the fluid, or by fluctuating temperatures. If
the inhibitors are consumed, corrosion may then take
place." http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/736861.pdf
news:-a6dnSqfnb-K8KPN...@bright.net...
Heron wrote:
>
> Brake Fluid Sediment Caused by Rubber Cups
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
Yes it has always been my suspicion that the rubber
reacting/dissolving in brake fluid was the source of
corrosive sediment. But is there evidence this has
anything to do with water?
>
> The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
> DOT 3 brake fluid is not less than 401�F, the minimum
> wet ERBP is 284�F, a temperature easily attained during
> rigorous braking. Less than 4% water inclusion is sufficient
> for DOT 3 fluid's boiling point to fall below the federal limit.
>
> Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids
> http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.116
Water can and does oxidize brake fluid. In addition, water,
when added to many acids, (up to a point) commonly
potentiates (as elevated temperatures also increase the
rate of ) its corrosive effects. Moisture in the system is
detrimental for multiple reasons. But it isn't my goal, nor do
I have an interest in attempting, to convince those unwilling
to accept these facts and I accordingly won't continue to
needlessly repeat and provide support for them after this:
"Brake fluids are composed of many combinations of base
lubricants, solvents and inhibitors. In current fluids base
lubricants are generally polyglycols or castor oil derivatives;
solvents are glycols, glycolethers, or alcohols; inhibitor
combinations include alkaline materials and antioxidants.
Upon storage, the corrosion inhibitors may interact,
deteriorate, o.- become depleted by contact with metals
in the containers, by presence of water and oxidation
products in the fluid, or by fluctuating temperatures. If
the inhibitors are consumed, corrosion may then take
place." http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/736861.pdf
jim
Aug 30, 2012, 8:38:17 PM8/30/12
to
may happen. That implies they aren't sure if they do. In
the case of undisturbed sediment, corrosion inhibitors may
get used up locally in the sediment and as long as fluid
isn't stirred up corrosion can take place.
The facts seem to be that sediment settles and corrodes
wherever or whenever there is no movement of the fluid
in parts of the system. Obviously the age of the fluid and
probably the age of the rubber components is a factor, but I
haven't seen any evidence that water plays any significant
factor. A sealed system that sits for a couple years isn't
much different than fluid sealed in a can, except that the
fluid that has been in use for a while has dissolved rubber
that will settle out and gravitate to the lowest point
when it sits for a long time.
Heron
Aug 31, 2012, 9:47:42 AM8/31/12
to
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news:Q46dnThUv_3mmt3N...@bright.net...
********************************
I'll violate my above promise, but just this one time, as I
don't care to be corrected by such a clearly incompetent
assessment. But sans any documented evidenced to the
contrary, I won't again respond nor further comment.
You'll kindly forgive me for explicitly stating that which is
so glaringly conspicuous, but you quite obviously don't
begin to understand even the most basic fundamentals of
chemistry, and would appear to have substantial difficulty
not only synthesizing knowledge from those spoonfed to
you but also in comprehending what you read.
"Effect of Water on Oxidation Stability of Brake Fluids -
Twelve brake fluids meeting Federal Specification VV-B-
680 were subjected to the oxidation stability test outlined
in paragraph 4.5.14 of Federal Specification VV-B-680
except that it, one test 0.5% Benzoyl Peroxide tvas added
to the broke fluid and in the second test 0.5% Benzoyl
Peroxide and 5% water was added. In the specification
test, only 0.2% Benzoyl is added. Th,; excess peroxide
decreased the stability to borderline values so that the
effect of water would be more evident and more
pronounced. The test specimen! were visually examined
for evidence of corrosion (pitting. etching, discoloration)
after ten days stnrage at 158*F."
"Effect of Water on Oxidation Stability of Brake Fluids
- Water greatly reduces the oxidation stability of brake
fluids, as shown in Table V. In the tests recorded in
Table V, the level of Benzoyl Peroxide was raised to
the point where one of twelve brake fluids exhibited
excessive corrosion of test specimens. Several of the
other fluids were borderline. With added water, three
fluidsshowed excessive corrosion of test specimens and
nine of the twelve fluids showed inrreased corrosion
over the cests without water."
"The problem of brake fluid stability is also becoming
increasingly evident. During the past few years large
numbers of reports have been filed concerning gumming
and corrosion of brake parts in military vehicles. This
report shows that the chemical breakdown of the brake
fluid Is accelerated by the presence of water and studies
toward the solution of this specific area of difficulty
should continue."
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/633035.pdf
news:Q46dnThUv_3mmt3N...@bright.net...
I'll violate my above promise, but just this one time, as I
don't care to be corrected by such a clearly incompetent
assessment. But sans any documented evidenced to the
contrary, I won't again respond nor further comment.
You'll kindly forgive me for explicitly stating that which is
so glaringly conspicuous, but you quite obviously don't
begin to understand even the most basic fundamentals of
chemistry, and would appear to have substantial difficulty
not only synthesizing knowledge from those spoonfed to
you but also in comprehending what you read.
"Effect of Water on Oxidation Stability of Brake Fluids -
Twelve brake fluids meeting Federal Specification VV-B-
680 were subjected to the oxidation stability test outlined
in paragraph 4.5.14 of Federal Specification VV-B-680
except that it, one test 0.5% Benzoyl Peroxide tvas added
to the broke fluid and in the second test 0.5% Benzoyl
Peroxide and 5% water was added. In the specification
test, only 0.2% Benzoyl is added. Th,; excess peroxide
decreased the stability to borderline values so that the
effect of water would be more evident and more
pronounced. The test specimen! were visually examined
for evidence of corrosion (pitting. etching, discoloration)
after ten days stnrage at 158*F."
"Effect of Water on Oxidation Stability of Brake Fluids
- Water greatly reduces the oxidation stability of brake
fluids, as shown in Table V. In the tests recorded in
Table V, the level of Benzoyl Peroxide was raised to
the point where one of twelve brake fluids exhibited
excessive corrosion of test specimens. Several of the
other fluids were borderline. With added water, three
fluidsshowed excessive corrosion of test specimens and
nine of the twelve fluids showed inrreased corrosion
over the cests without water."
"The problem of brake fluid stability is also becoming
increasingly evident. During the past few years large
numbers of reports have been filed concerning gumming
and corrosion of brake parts in military vehicles. This
report shows that the chemical breakdown of the brake
fluid Is accelerated by the presence of water and studies
toward the solution of this specific area of difficulty
should continue."
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/633035.pdf
jim
Aug 31, 2012, 10:27:33 PM8/31/12
to
earlier Ford did tests and found that moisture content in
the fluid of 7-10 year old cars was negligible.
All you have demonstrated is that if you intentionally
add water to your fluid you will have corrosion problems.
So don't add water.
I still haven't seen any evidence that water has anything to
do with the corrosion to brake lines when a car is left to
sit a long time.
-jim
jim beam
Sep 1, 2012, 12:23:54 PM9/1/12
to
On 08/25/2012 09:24 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
> On Aug 25, 10:50�am, JR<dhiad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only best way to handle that is to replace the brake lines with new ones. Back in the late 1970s I bought a 1954 Ford truck. One morning when I started that truck up and I mashed the brake pedal, the pedal went all the way to the floor. The right rear side brake line had rusted out. Don't take chances with your brakes.
>
> See? that brake line lasted over 20 years.. We get people coming in
> today with cars 5-10 years old with rusted brake lines now.
>
> I think my Corvair went about 30 years before a brake line went.
>
> Nowadays they purposely make them last a certain amount so you'll
> have to purchase more in the future. Just like everything else I
> guess. :(
indeed. i knew a manufacturer who made copper/nickel tube that was very
strong and highly corrosion resistant - ideal for brake lines. they
tried to sell it to the auto industry, but they weren't interested. it
wasn't price, it was simply the fact that it would last too long. and
the industry said so!
--
fact check required
> On Aug 25, 10:50�am, JR<dhiad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only best way to handle that is to replace the brake lines with new ones. Back in the late 1970s I bought a 1954 Ford truck. One morning when I started that truck up and I mashed the brake pedal, the pedal went all the way to the floor. The right rear side brake line had rusted out. Don't take chances with your brakes.
>
> See? that brake line lasted over 20 years.. We get people coming in
> today with cars 5-10 years old with rusted brake lines now.
>
> I think my Corvair went about 30 years before a brake line went.
>
> Nowadays they purposely make them last a certain amount so you'll
> have to purchase more in the future. Just like everything else I
> guess. :(
indeed. i knew a manufacturer who made copper/nickel tube that was very
strong and highly corrosion resistant - ideal for brake lines. they
tried to sell it to the auto industry, but they weren't interested. it
wasn't price, it was simply the fact that it would last too long. and
the industry said so!
--
fact check required
jim beam
Sep 1, 2012, 12:24:56 PM9/1/12
to
On 08/25/2012 04:12 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:27:21 -0400, George<gbec...@verizon.net>
> You hear about people applying protective coatings, and that makes
> sense if you find maintaining that practical.
> Here's my anecdotal experience from salt country with car I suspect
> are similar in brake quality to yours.
> '90 Corsica - rusted through rear brake line. 19-20 years old.
> Replaced that line only, since I was about to junk it because of other
> issues.
>
> '97 Lumina - failed wheel cylinder seal - a month ago.
> Replaced both rear cylinders, shoes and drums. Lines okay.
>
> '93 Grand Am - rusted through rear line - last week.
> Replaced that line only.
>
> Here's my general rule. A rusty brake line (actual severe pitting) on
> my highway cars gets replaced before a trip. Hasn't happened yet.
> My highway cars just never get old enough.
>
> For my local beaters, I only change a brake line when it fails.
> It can look bad, but go for years, well beyond where you'll junk it
> anyway. These cars have dual systems on diagonally opposed wheels,
> so unless you're moving fast, you should be okay to get it home when a
> single line fails. Won't be a comfortable ride though, for one main
> reason that you should look into. Unless you keep on top of the drum
> self adjusters, you'll be mostly or entirely braking with one front
> caliper.
> That's another subject, but I suggest you check your rear shoes/drums.
> An easy way is just jack up the back, have somebody press the brakes
> down hard, and see if you can turn the tire by hand.
> You might be surprised.
not a valid test on many cars - they have load compensators as part of
the brake proportioning system. if the compensator works, it'll cut
line pressure to zero if the wheels are off the ground.
> This is assuming your '04 has self-adjusting drums and not tophat
> discs. I don't know.
--
fact check required
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:27:21 -0400, George<gbec...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
>> lines are starting to rust. So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
>> but it will get worse.
>>
>> Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> George
>
> Depends on what you consider practical.
>
>> I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
>> lines are starting to rust. So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
>> but it will get worse.
>>
>> Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> George
>
> You hear about people applying protective coatings, and that makes
> sense if you find maintaining that practical.
> Here's my anecdotal experience from salt country with car I suspect
> are similar in brake quality to yours.
> '90 Corsica - rusted through rear brake line. 19-20 years old.
> Replaced that line only, since I was about to junk it because of other
> issues.
>
> '97 Lumina - failed wheel cylinder seal - a month ago.
> Replaced both rear cylinders, shoes and drums. Lines okay.
>
> '93 Grand Am - rusted through rear line - last week.
> Replaced that line only.
>
> Here's my general rule. A rusty brake line (actual severe pitting) on
> my highway cars gets replaced before a trip. Hasn't happened yet.
> My highway cars just never get old enough.
>
> For my local beaters, I only change a brake line when it fails.
> It can look bad, but go for years, well beyond where you'll junk it
> anyway. These cars have dual systems on diagonally opposed wheels,
> so unless you're moving fast, you should be okay to get it home when a
> single line fails. Won't be a comfortable ride though, for one main
> reason that you should look into. Unless you keep on top of the drum
> self adjusters, you'll be mostly or entirely braking with one front
> caliper.
> That's another subject, but I suggest you check your rear shoes/drums.
> An easy way is just jack up the back, have somebody press the brakes
> down hard, and see if you can turn the tire by hand.
> You might be surprised.
not a valid test on many cars - they have load compensators as part of
the brake proportioning system. if the compensator works, it'll cut
line pressure to zero if the wheels are off the ground.
> This is assuming your '04 has self-adjusting drums and not tophat
> discs. I don't know.
--
fact check required
jim beam
Sep 1, 2012, 12:25:48 PM9/1/12
to
On 08/25/2012 06:39 PM, Steve W. wrote:
needs to be the right grade. and frankly, there are better materials
for this application. heck, even ordinary steel lines are ok if they're
plated properly - but that's hardly ever these days.
> BUT since that is also a
> PIA you could use a pressure washer to blow all
> the crud and dirt off. Then use a sprayer to apply some rust converter
> on the lines, soak them pretty well and let it dry,
> Then apply some paint. A couple coats should slow the rusting down. I
> would use rustoleum or POR type product.
it's pointless trying to use rustoleum /and/ converter - rustoleum
contains its own converter already.
> For brushes you might need to get creative to get everywhere. Wouldn't
> hurt to pressure wash the entire chassis and
> paint all the steel with undercoat, treat any rust before coating or use
> POR.
>
--
fact check required
> George wrote:
>> I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
>> lines are starting to rust. So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
>> but it will get worse.
>> Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
>> Thanks,
>> George
>
>
>
>> I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
>> lines are starting to rust. So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
>> but it will get worse.
>> Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
>> Thanks,
>> George
>
>
>
> Well the BEST solution is new stainless lines,
not all stainless is good against salt corrosion - ask a sailor. it
needs to be the right grade. and frankly, there are better materials
for this application. heck, even ordinary steel lines are ok if they're
plated properly - but that's hardly ever these days.
> BUT since that is also a
> PIA you could use a pressure washer to blow all
> the crud and dirt off. Then use a sprayer to apply some rust converter
> on the lines, soak them pretty well and let it dry,
> Then apply some paint. A couple coats should slow the rusting down. I
> would use rustoleum or POR type product.
contains its own converter already.
> For brushes you might need to get creative to get everywhere. Wouldn't
> hurt to pressure wash the entire chassis and
> paint all the steel with undercoat, treat any rust before coating or use
> POR.
>
fact check required
jim beam
Sep 1, 2012, 12:29:06 PM9/1/12
to
changing the brake fluid on a car because they don't want to car to last
too long anyway. particularly when it causes expensive maintenance that
is a source of part sales income when it's out of warranty.
but in the real world, water still diffuses into the hygroscopic brake
fluid regardless of the materials they say their lines and seals are
made from. this moisture saturates the brake fluid, and if left
unchanged, causes corrosion and reduces the working lifetime of parts.
regular fluid replacement, typically on a two year schedule, will keep
the moisture content of the fluid down to a level that the fluid can
neutralize. and which won't cause boiling on heavy use. if you extend
beyond the two year absorption time, all bets are off. and in the
context of the safety issue, that's insane.
--
fact check required
jim beam
Sep 1, 2012, 12:29:21 PM9/1/12
to
not a matter for debate or opinion, it's a matter of fact.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_fluid#Boiling_point>
>
>
>>
>>> I've never seen brake fluid levels increase in any car I had.
>>> What brake fluid gets tested when somebody is anal enough to test
>>> brake fluid? Master cylinder reservoir brake fluid.
>>> I've argued about this before, and the "brake fluid changers" never
>>> convinced me that water is an issue with the brake systems I've had.
>>> That link I posted
>>> http://www.aa1car.com/library/procut3b.htm
>>> says Ford, GM and Chryco don't recomment changing brake fluid except
>>> on the Metro or Tracker. I don't have one.
>>> "Ford said they measured the water content in 7 to 10 year old Ford
>>> vehicles and found that the water content was actually quite low: only
>>> 1 to 1-1/2 percent. So based on their findings and the design target
>>> of 3 percent water, they see no need to change the fluid for
>>> preventive maintenance."
>>> Anyway, I've always said that "hygroscopic" nonsense is just an excuse
>>> for people to use a big word, break off bleeders and generally get
>>> themselves all confused.
>>> But if somebody wants to change brake fluid, have at it.
>>>
>>>
>
fact check required
jim beam
Sep 1, 2012, 12:30:53 PM9/1/12
to
what else might qualify.
> It says things
> may happen.
whatsoever.
> That implies they aren't sure if they do.
there's no uncertainty in the paper cited.
> In
> the case of undisturbed sediment, corrosion inhibitors may
> get used up locally in the sediment and as long as fluid
> isn't stirred up corrosion can take place.
stability of fluid in storage. again, it doesn't seem that you're
reading the same paper as everyone else.
>
>
> The facts seem to be that sediment settles and corrodes
> wherever or whenever there is no movement of the fluid
> in parts of the system. Obviously the age of the fluid and
> probably the age of the rubber components is a factor, but I
> haven't seen any evidence that water plays any significant
> factor.
> A sealed system that sits for a couple years isn't
> much different than fluid sealed in a can,
reservoir, and the hoses and seals in a system offer significantly more
surface for diffusion than the small amount of polymer in the lid of a can.
> except that the
> fluid that has been in use for a while has dissolved rubber
> that will settle out and gravitate to the lowest point
> when it sits for a long time.
and that wear product can be held in suspension [like the fat in milk]
or it can sediment out [like tea leaves].
--
fact check required
jim beam
Sep 1, 2012, 12:31:07 PM9/1/12
to
--
fact check required
jim beam
Sep 1, 2012, 12:33:52 PM9/1/12
to
within the average first owner's possession of the vehicle and thus they
could dispense with the service recommendations that might cost them money.
second owners don't get the same warranty rights of course, so they
don't count and frod are happy to sell them replacement braking systems
all day long.
>
> All you have demonstrated is that if you intentionally
> add water to your fluid you will have corrosion problems.
> So don't add water.
impossible to stop. and it's definitely not deliberate.
>
> I still haven't seen any evidence that water has anything to
> do with the corrosion to brake lines when a car is left to
> sit a long time.
facts that contradict what are simply your underinformed dogmas.
fact check required
Nate Nagel
Sep 1, 2012, 3:04:01 PM9/1/12
to
flush a brake system regularly is up to you, but don't make the mistake
of thinking that any manufacturer (or at least any of the mass-market
ones) cares what happens to a car after it's 10+ years old. Their
design decisions or service recommendations simply don't expect people
to drive vehicles older than 10 years old and do not accommodate them in
any way, shape, or form. I am sure that they'd rather that people
simply replaced vehicles after they reach a certain age.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Nate Nagel
Sep 1, 2012, 3:06:10 PM9/1/12
to
http://www.fedhillusa.com/
At one time only steel was acceptable per NHTSA/DOT but apparently that
has changed. The fear I'm sure was that typical copper alloys would
work harden, fatigue, and crack - a real possibility.
Nate Nagel
Sep 1, 2012, 3:09:21 PM9/1/12
to
On 09/01/2012 12:25 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 08/25/2012 06:39 PM, Steve W. wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>> I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
>>> lines are starting to rust. So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
>>> but it will get worse.
>>> Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
>>> Thanks,
>>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> Well the BEST solution is new stainless lines,
>
> not all stainless is good against salt corrosion - ask a sailor. it
> needs to be the right grade. and frankly, there are better materials
> for this application. heck, even ordinary steel lines are ok if they're
> plated properly - but that's hardly ever these days.
>
>
>> BUT since that is also a
>> PIA you could use a pressure washer to blow all
>> the crud and dirt off. Then use a sprayer to apply some rust converter
>> on the lines, soak them pretty well and let it dry,
>> Then apply some paint. A couple coats should slow the rusting down. I
>> would use rustoleum or POR type product.
>
> it's pointless trying to use rustoleum /and/ converter - rustoleum
> contains its own converter already.
Cite? My understanding is that rustoleum is simply regular paint with a
> On 08/25/2012 06:39 PM, Steve W. wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>> I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
>>> lines are starting to rust. So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
>>> but it will get worse.
>>> Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
>>> Thanks,
>>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> Well the BEST solution is new stainless lines,
>
> not all stainless is good against salt corrosion - ask a sailor. it
> needs to be the right grade. and frankly, there are better materials
> for this application. heck, even ordinary steel lines are ok if they're
> plated properly - but that's hardly ever these days.
>
>
>> BUT since that is also a
>> PIA you could use a pressure washer to blow all
>> the crud and dirt off. Then use a sprayer to apply some rust converter
>> on the lines, soak them pretty well and let it dry,
>> Then apply some paint. A couple coats should slow the rusting down. I
>> would use rustoleum or POR type product.
>
> it's pointless trying to use rustoleum /and/ converter - rustoleum
> contains its own converter already.
dose of fish oil and other ingredients designed to make the paint
waterproof - NOT to convert any of the various iron oxides to something
else. Or were you referring to their "Rust Reformer" and not to their
paint and/or "Rusty Metal Primer?"
jim
Sep 1, 2012, 3:29:28 PM9/1/12
to
jim beam wrote:
>
> On 08/30/2012 05:38 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Heron wrote:
> >>
> >> "jim"<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
> >> news:-a6dnSqfnb-K8KPN...@bright.net...
> >>
> >> Heron wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Brake Fluid Sediment Caused by Rubber Cups
> >>> http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
> >>
> >> Yes it has always been my suspicion that the rubber
> >> reacting/dissolving in brake fluid was the source of
> >> corrosive sediment. But is there evidence this has
> >> anything to do with water?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
> >>> wet ERBP is 284�F, a temperature easily attained during
some didn't.
"there was no discernable pattern regarding commonality of
failure under these test conditions"
In other words they had no specific explanation for
the failures.
>
> > It says things
> > may happen.
>
> no, it observes the facts of what /does/ happen - there's no ambiguity
> whatsoever.
>
> > That implies they aren't sure if they do.
>
> it doesn't look like you read the same paper as everyone else, because
> there's no uncertainty in the paper cited.
>
> > In
> > the case of undisturbed sediment, corrosion inhibitors may
> > get used up locally in the sediment and as long as fluid
> > isn't stirred up corrosion can take place.
>
> the paper doesn't address sediment corrosion in use, just long term
> stability of fluid in storage. again, it doesn't seem that you're
> reading the same paper as everyone else.
lines might corrode internally.
>
> >
> >
> > The facts seem to be that sediment settles and corrodes
> > wherever or whenever there is no movement of the fluid
> > in parts of the system. Obviously the age of the fluid and
> > probably the age of the rubber components is a factor, but I
> > haven't seen any evidence that water plays any significant
> > factor.
>
> then you're not looking.
>
> > A sealed system that sits for a couple years isn't
> > much different than fluid sealed in a can,
>
> not true. most brake fluid systems are open to atmosphere above the
> reservoir, and the hoses and seals in a system offer significantly more
> surface for diffusion than the small amount of polymer in the lid of a can.
be open to the atmosphere.
The study made no claim that water was getting into
stored brake fluid. To test the effects of water on
fluid that had been stored for 5 years they had to first
add water.
jim
Sep 1, 2012, 3:45:49 PM9/1/12
to
jim beam wrote:
>
> On 08/31/2012 07:27 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Heron wrote:
> >>
> >> "jim"<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> >> news:Q46dnThUv_3mmt3N...@bright.net...
> >>
> >> Heron wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "jim"<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:-a6dnSqfnb-K8KPN...@bright.net...
> >>>
> >>> Heron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Brake Fluid Sediment Caused by Rubber Cups
> >>>> http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
> >>>
> >>> Yes it has always been my suspicion that the rubber
> >>> reacting/dissolving in brake fluid was the source of
> >>> corrosive sediment. But is there evidence this has
> >>> anything to do with water?
> >>>
> >>>> The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
> >>>> wet ERBP is 284�F, a temperature easily attained during
> >>>> rigorous braking. Less than 4% water inclusion is sufficient
> >>>> for DOT 3 fluid's boiling point to fall below the federal limit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids
> >>>> http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.116
> >>> *******************
> >>> Water can and does oxidize brake fluid. In addition, water,
> >>> when added to many acids, (up to a point) commonly
> >>> potentiates (as elevated temperatures also increase the
> >>> rate of ) its corrosive effects. Moisture in the system is
> >>> detrimental for multiple reasons.
> >
> > Moisture may well be detrimental. But as Vic pointed out
> > earlier Ford did tests and found that moisture content in
> > the fluid of 7-10 year old cars was negligible.
>
> no, frod did tests that determined that no serious failures occurred
> within the average first owner's possession of the vehicle and thus they
> could dispense with the service recommendations that might cost them money.
Usually the customer would pay ford for fluid changes.
> >>>> for DOT 3 fluid's boiling point to fall below the federal limit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids
> >>>> http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.116
> >>> *******************
> >>> Water can and does oxidize brake fluid. In addition, water,
> >>> when added to many acids, (up to a point) commonly
> >>> potentiates (as elevated temperatures also increase the
> >>> rate of ) its corrosive effects. Moisture in the system is
> >>> detrimental for multiple reasons.
> >
> > Moisture may well be detrimental. But as Vic pointed out
> > earlier Ford did tests and found that moisture content in
> > the fluid of 7-10 year old cars was negligible.
>
> no, frod did tests that determined that no serious failures occurred
> within the average first owner's possession of the vehicle and thus they
> could dispense with the service recommendations that might cost them money.
They quantified the amount of water and it was well below the point
that brake fluid can tolerate without being harmful.
Brent
Sep 1, 2012, 4:22:17 PM9/1/12
to
On 2012-09-01, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> second owners don't get the same warranty rights of course, so they
> don't count and frod are happy to sell them replacement braking systems
> all day long.
Second owners have exactly the same warranty rights for the duration of
> second owners don't get the same warranty rights of course, so they
> don't count and frod are happy to sell them replacement braking systems
> all day long.
the warranty that remains from the time they purchase the vehicle.
Nate Nagel
Sep 1, 2012, 7:54:33 PM9/1/12
to
On 09/01/2012 03:29 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 08/30/2012 05:38 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Heron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "jim"<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:-a6dnSqfnb-K8KPN...@bright.net...
>>>>
>>>> Heron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Brake Fluid Sediment Caused by Rubber Cups
>>>>> http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
>>>>
>>>> Yes it has always been my suspicion that the rubber
>>>> reacting/dissolving in brake fluid was the source of
>>>> corrosive sediment. But is there evidence this has
>>>> anything to do with water?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
>>>>> DOT 3 brake fluid is not less than 401�F, the minimum
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 08/30/2012 05:38 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Heron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "jim"<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:-a6dnSqfnb-K8KPN...@bright.net...
>>>>
>>>> Heron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Brake Fluid Sediment Caused by Rubber Cups
>>>>> http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
>>>>
>>>> Yes it has always been my suspicion that the rubber
>>>> reacting/dissolving in brake fluid was the source of
>>>> corrosive sediment. But is there evidence this has
>>>> anything to do with water?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
>>>>> wet ERBP is 284�F, a temperature easily attained during
vent hole, some have the little rubber diaphragm thing that supposedly
separates the top of the fluid from the atmosphere. The latter isn't a
perfect solution, but it's nice to see someone making an effort.
Heron
Sep 1, 2012, 8:26:34 PM9/1/12
to
"Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:k1u77...@news3.newsguy.com...
yet he confidently and (ultimately embarrassingly, should
he possess that capacity) proudly proclaims never having
witnessed so much as a single application bearing one. His
unfamiliarity with them only serves to provide even further
proof that he clearly doesn't begin to have a clue as to what
he's talking about. Of course, the below again won't change
his mind an iota, as there's precious little chance that he will
understand what he is reading or viewing this time either.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/8n8n4nw & http://preview.tinyurl.com/8qsby3c
http://lbcunited.com/earlyford2/popup_image.php/pID/6800
http://www.centrevilletrailer.com/parts/images_parts/1982trailerpart.jpg
http://www.teambuick.com/reference/years/51/images/8-4.jpg
http://www.chicagocorvette.net/item.php?item=13484&rc=1853
http://image.classictrucks.com/f/26027491/0911clt_15_z+single_master_cylinder+cap.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x160/oemtech/RV%20Brakes/mastercylcap00.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x160/oemtech/RV%20Brakes/mastercylcap01.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x160/oemtech/RV%20Brakes/mastercylcap02.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x160/oemtech/RV%20Brakes/mastercylcap03.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~coolviewer/Corvette/Master%20Cylinder%20Cap%20Gasket.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/nassau66427/emblem%20shots/mcgasket001.jpg
news:k1u77...@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>> A sealed system that sits for a couple years isn't
>>>> much different than fluid sealed in a can,
>>>
>>> not true. most brake fluid systems are open to atmosphere above the
>>> reservoir, and the hoses and seals in a system offer significantly more
>>> surface for diffusion than the small amount of polymer in the lid of a
>>> can.
>>
>> I have not seen any brake fluid reservoirs that were designed to
>> be open to the atmosphere.
>
> It's about 50/50 in my experience. Some (mostly older vehicles) have a
> vent hole, some have the little rubber diaphragm thing that supposedly
> separates the top of the fluid from the atmosphere. The latter isn't a
> perfect solution, but it's nice to see someone making an effort.
>
> nate
Vented master cylinders are legion and easy to find, and
>>>> much different than fluid sealed in a can,
>>>
>>> not true. most brake fluid systems are open to atmosphere above the
>>> reservoir, and the hoses and seals in a system offer significantly more
>>> surface for diffusion than the small amount of polymer in the lid of a
>>> can.
>>
>> I have not seen any brake fluid reservoirs that were designed to
>> be open to the atmosphere.
>
> It's about 50/50 in my experience. Some (mostly older vehicles) have a
> vent hole, some have the little rubber diaphragm thing that supposedly
> separates the top of the fluid from the atmosphere. The latter isn't a
> perfect solution, but it's nice to see someone making an effort.
>
> nate
yet he confidently and (ultimately embarrassingly, should
he possess that capacity) proudly proclaims never having
witnessed so much as a single application bearing one. His
unfamiliarity with them only serves to provide even further
proof that he clearly doesn't begin to have a clue as to what
he's talking about. Of course, the below again won't change
his mind an iota, as there's precious little chance that he will
understand what he is reading or viewing this time either.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/8n8n4nw & http://preview.tinyurl.com/8qsby3c
http://lbcunited.com/earlyford2/popup_image.php/pID/6800
http://www.centrevilletrailer.com/parts/images_parts/1982trailerpart.jpg
http://www.teambuick.com/reference/years/51/images/8-4.jpg
http://www.chicagocorvette.net/item.php?item=13484&rc=1853
http://image.classictrucks.com/f/26027491/0911clt_15_z+single_master_cylinder+cap.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x160/oemtech/RV%20Brakes/mastercylcap00.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x160/oemtech/RV%20Brakes/mastercylcap01.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x160/oemtech/RV%20Brakes/mastercylcap02.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x160/oemtech/RV%20Brakes/mastercylcap03.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~coolviewer/Corvette/Master%20Cylinder%20Cap%20Gasket.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/nassau66427/emblem%20shots/mcgasket001.jpg
jim
Sep 2, 2012, 8:32:58 AM9/2/12
to
You still have nothing but hand-waving innuendo.
You haven't shown any evidence water plays any role
to cause the corrosion that occurs wherever sediments
settle inside brake systems.
And yes now that you mention it, I do remember seeing single piston
master cylinders from the 50's with no diaphragm under the lid.
The lid of course always needs a vent. The diaphragm wouldn't work
if the cap above it wasn't vented.
-jim
You haven't shown any evidence water plays any role
to cause the corrosion that occurs wherever sediments
settle inside brake systems.
And yes now that you mention it, I do remember seeing single piston
master cylinders from the 50's with no diaphragm under the lid.
The lid of course always needs a vent. The diaphragm wouldn't work
if the cap above it wasn't vented.
-jim
Ashton Crusher
Sep 2, 2012, 7:13:16 PM9/2/12
to
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:36:14 -0500, Vic Smith
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:39:16 -0700 (PDT), m6onz5a
><cor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 26, 2:17�pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2012 9:46 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:39:16 -0700 (PDT), m6onz5a
><cor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 26, 2:17�pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2012 9:46 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Aug 25, 9:27 am, George <gbecc...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> >> I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
>>> >> lines are starting to rust. �So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
>>> >> but it will get worse.
>>>
>>> >> Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
>>>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> George
>>>
>>> >> I was under our car ('04 Cavalier) recently, and noticed that the brake
>>> >> lines are starting to rust. �So far, it looks to be just on the surface,
>>> >> but it will get worse.
>>>
>>> >> Is there anything practical to do, to prevent further deterioration?
>>>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> George
>>>
20+ year old cars. I've got a 69 Pontiac that still has all of it's
original brake lines that run along the underside of the car. That's
40+ years without rusting out.
Ashton Crusher
Sep 2, 2012, 7:17:09 PM9/2/12
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:35:06 -0500, Vic Smith
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:55:28 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>wrote:
>>are left sitting for long periods tend to be the ones that the
>>brake lines rust from the inside.
>>The leak will be at the lowest point in a stretch of line.
>>
>
>You talking about museum cars?
>The Grand Am brake line I replaced last week - rusty as hell on the
>outside - gets driven about 200 miles a year.
>Sits in driveway 99.9% of the time.
>In the rain or humid air, sometimes after being driven on salty
>streets.
>So unless you're talking about museum cars, inside rust is
>inconsequential.
>I don't buy the water settling at a low point either.
fluid and changing it and he said that the regular brake fluid will
relatively quickly (in about a year) absorb up to 2 to 3% water but
after that unless you are always opening up the system for some reason
it won't absorb much more. He said he didn't think there was any
reason to worry about it and to just do the flush that should be done
whenever you have new pads/shoes put on.
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:55:28 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Vic Smith wrote:
>
>>> Every leaking brake line I've replaced has been rusted badly on the
>>> outside. Pitted deeply, rust scaling, etc. Every single one.
>>
>>That would be on cars that are used frequently. Vehicles that
>>
>>
>>Vic Smith wrote:
>
>>> Every leaking brake line I've replaced has been rusted badly on the
>>> outside. Pitted deeply, rust scaling, etc. Every single one.
>>
>>are left sitting for long periods tend to be the ones that the
>>brake lines rust from the inside.
>>The leak will be at the lowest point in a stretch of line.
>>
>
>You talking about museum cars?
>The Grand Am brake line I replaced last week - rusty as hell on the
>outside - gets driven about 200 miles a year.
>Sits in driveway 99.9% of the time.
>In the rain or humid air, sometimes after being driven on salty
>streets.
>So unless you're talking about museum cars, inside rust is
>inconsequential.
>I don't buy the water settling at a low point either.
>Since much is made about brake fluid being hygroscopic you would think
>water wouldn't separate out at low points, but diffuse throughout the
>fluid.
>water wouldn't separate out at low points, but diffuse throughout the
>fluid.
>In fact, if you believed the "hygroscopic" claims, master cylinders
>would be overflowing from sucking up water.
>would be overflowing from sucking up water.
>I've never seen brake fluid levels increase in any car I had.
>What brake fluid gets tested when somebody is anal enough to test
>brake fluid? Master cylinder reservoir brake fluid.
>I've argued about this before, and the "brake fluid changers" never
>convinced me that water is an issue with the brake systems I've had.
>That link I posted
>http://www.aa1car.com/library/procut3b.htm
>says Ford, GM and Chryco don't recomment changing brake fluid except
>on the Metro or Tracker. I don't have one.
>"Ford said they measured the water content in 7 to 10 year old Ford
>vehicles and found that the water content was actually quite low: only
>1 to 1-1/2 percent. So based on their findings and the design target
>of 3 percent water, they see no need to change the fluid for
>preventive maintenance."
>Anyway, I've always said that "hygroscopic" nonsense is just an excuse
>for people to use a big word, break off bleeders and generally get
>themselves all confused.
>But if somebody wants to change brake fluid, have at it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I read an article where they interviewed a Ford engineer about brake
>What brake fluid gets tested when somebody is anal enough to test
>brake fluid? Master cylinder reservoir brake fluid.
>I've argued about this before, and the "brake fluid changers" never
>convinced me that water is an issue with the brake systems I've had.
>That link I posted
>http://www.aa1car.com/library/procut3b.htm
>says Ford, GM and Chryco don't recomment changing brake fluid except
>on the Metro or Tracker. I don't have one.
>"Ford said they measured the water content in 7 to 10 year old Ford
>vehicles and found that the water content was actually quite low: only
>1 to 1-1/2 percent. So based on their findings and the design target
>of 3 percent water, they see no need to change the fluid for
>preventive maintenance."
>Anyway, I've always said that "hygroscopic" nonsense is just an excuse
>for people to use a big word, break off bleeders and generally get
>themselves all confused.
>But if somebody wants to change brake fluid, have at it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
fluid and changing it and he said that the regular brake fluid will
relatively quickly (in about a year) absorb up to 2 to 3% water but
after that unless you are always opening up the system for some reason
it won't absorb much more. He said he didn't think there was any
reason to worry about it and to just do the flush that should be done
whenever you have new pads/shoes put on.
Ashton Crusher
Sep 2, 2012, 7:29:20 PM9/2/12
to
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:04:01 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
wrote:
>On 09/01/2012 12:33 PM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 08/31/2012 07:27 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Heron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "jim"<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Q46dnThUv_3mmt3N...@bright.net...
>>>>
>>>> Heron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim"<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:-a6dnSqfnb-K8KPN...@bright.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> Heron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brake Fluid Sediment Caused by Rubber Cups
>>>>>> http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it has always been my suspicion that the rubber
>>>>> reacting/dissolving in brake fluid was the source of
>>>>> corrosive sediment. But is there evidence this has
>>>>> anything to do with water?
>>>>>
>>>>>> The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
>>>>>> DOT 3 brake fluid is not less than 401?F, the minimum
>>>>>> wet ERBP is 284?F, a temperature easily attained during
Seems to me that what some people keep ignoring is that in the real
world, very very few people seem to be having problems related to
water in the brake fluid. That experience base combined with
manufactures research suggests that absent some unusual operating
conditions for your vehicle, there is really no reason to bother with
"maintenance" fluid flushes.
wrote:
>On 09/01/2012 12:33 PM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 08/31/2012 07:27 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Heron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "jim"<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Q46dnThUv_3mmt3N...@bright.net...
>>>>
>>>> Heron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim"<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:-a6dnSqfnb-K8KPN...@bright.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> Heron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brake Fluid Sediment Caused by Rubber Cups
>>>>>> http://books.google.com/books/about/Brake_Fluid_Sediment_Caused_by_Rubber_Cu.html?id=KanpNwAACAAJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it has always been my suspicion that the rubber
>>>>> reacting/dissolving in brake fluid was the source of
>>>>> corrosive sediment. But is there evidence this has
>>>>> anything to do with water?
>>>>>
>>>>>> The minimum dry Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point for
>>>>>> wet ERBP is 284?F, a temperature easily attained during
world, very very few people seem to be having problems related to
water in the brake fluid. That experience base combined with
manufactures research suggests that absent some unusual operating
conditions for your vehicle, there is really no reason to bother with
"maintenance" fluid flushes.
Brent
Sep 3, 2012, 1:07:26 AM9/3/12
to
On 2012-09-02, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote:
> I live in the desert and I've never had a brake line rust out even on
> 20+ year old cars. I've got a 69 Pontiac that still has all of it's
> original brake lines that run along the underside of the car. That's
> 40+ years without rusting out.
That's because you live in the desert.
> I live in the desert and I've never had a brake line rust out even on
> 20+ year old cars. I've got a 69 Pontiac that still has all of it's
> original brake lines that run along the underside of the car. That's
> 40+ years without rusting out.
Here in salt country they rust from the outside in. Every time I've
looked into why a brake line failed it was in a spot hidden from view
where dirt and salt could build up or was inside a wheel well where it
got blasted with salt and dirt. And usually those lines didn't fail
until I had to take a wrench to them for another reason. Bottom of the
line, top of the line, low point in the system higher up in the
system... didn't matter.
However, lines last surprisingly long after they start looking bad.
Brent
Sep 3, 2012, 1:12:24 AM9/3/12
to
> Seems to me that what some people keep ignoring is that in the real
> world, very very few people seem to be having problems related to
> water in the brake fluid. That experience base combined with
> manufactures research suggests that absent some unusual operating
> conditions for your vehicle, there is really no reason to bother with
> "maintenance" fluid flushes.
Most people never have the brake fluid flushed. Ever. Do they get
> world, very very few people seem to be having problems related to
> water in the brake fluid. That experience base combined with
> manufactures research suggests that absent some unusual operating
> conditions for your vehicle, there is really no reason to bother with
> "maintenance" fluid flushes.
optimal performance? Probably not. Do they have any greater instance of
stuck calipers etc? Hard to say.
Steve W.
Sep 3, 2012, 8:54:20 AM9/3/12
to
are rotted through. Most vehicles have spots where the lines and a body
mount or similar are close. On the GM S/T P/Us and Blazer styles for
instance the worst spot is right in the drivers side wheel well, The
fuel and brake lines come together there and the frame has a bend along
with a body mount and a suspension mount all in that spot. I go in
there every wash and clean it out.
If you really want to prolong the life of most vehicles it's a great
idea to put them on a lift, then thoroughly clean the entire underside
with either a pressure washer or a steam cleaner. Then spray it with
something like a good undercoating or POR. Then do inside the body
cavities as well.
--
Steve W.
Ashton Crusher
Sep 3, 2012, 7:39:40 PM9/3/12
to
pads/shoes get changed) and have never had anything "rust out". Of
the personal cars I've had since they were new and that I drove to at
least 125,000 miles I've never had to replace any part of the brake
system except pads/shoes and rotors and one master cylinder at
130,000. Of the cars I've had since new that were supplied to me by
my company I've never had a brake problem I was aware of that was
related to "rust or corrosion" but I can't be sure the shop didn't
replace something I didn't hear about. To my knowledge the only thing
those cars ever got was pads/shoes/rotors. On my old 92 Explorer, I
had brakes done on it once at a Meinke and they tried to convince me I
should replace the calipers (at 40K) because "the pistons in these are
plastic and warp all the time". I refused their advice and now 15
years and 100K later it's still got the same calipers on it (not the
same pads/shoes/rotors though). I can only speculate, but I would
guess that a lot of people who have the "experience" of "needing your
calipers replaced" have been sold a bill of goods by the shop.
Ashton Crusher
Sep 3, 2012, 7:41:22 PM9/3/12
to
in a desert is that you don't have corrosion issues like you do in the
snow belt.
Ashton Crusher
Sep 3, 2012, 7:45:23 PM9/3/12
to
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 08:54:20 -0400, "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com>
wrote:
My 92 explorer was coated from the factory with some kind of black
gooey stuff all over the frame. Just a very thin but sticky coat that
never became dry. It's still there in some areas. I presume it was a
form of rust protection. I would think that for used vehicles a spray
of that sort would be better then paint as it would not trap water
like dried paint would. But I've never seen such a spray for retail
use.
wrote:
gooey stuff all over the frame. Just a very thin but sticky coat that
never became dry. It's still there in some areas. I presume it was a
form of rust protection. I would think that for used vehicles a spray
of that sort would be better then paint as it would not trap water
like dried paint would. But I've never seen such a spray for retail
use.
Nate Nagel
Sep 3, 2012, 10:05:08 PM9/3/12
to
Canadian thing.
jim beam
Sep 7, 2012, 9:06:11 PM9/7/12
to
it's a solid solution [if you know what that is] that can have great
mechanical properties. and the one in question did.
as for "work hardening [1], fatigue[2], and cracking[3]", you're wrong
because:
1. any cold drawn tube is highly work hardened. work hardening
increases strength - a desirable property.
2. any corrosion causes pitting and this causes stress concentrations
that initiate fatigue. materials that resist pitting and corrosion are
typically much superior in real world fatigue applications because there
are no initiators.
3. see #2. if you mean "stress corrosion", see "copper/nickel" above.
--
fact check required
0 new messages