• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Brake & Clutch Fluid Facts

Jagmeister

NAXJA Forum User
Found some interesting info provided by a BMW Engineer.

Brake Fluid Facts
by Steve Wall

As a former materials engineering supervisor at a major automotive brake system supplier, I feel both qualified and obligated to inject some material science facts into the murky debate about DOT 5 verses DOT 3-4 brake fluids. The important technical issues governing the use of a particular specification brake fluid are as follows:

1. Fluid compatibility with the brake system rubber, plastic and metal components.
2. Water absorption and corrosion.
3. Fluid boiling point and other physical characteristics.
4. Brake system contamination and sludging.

Additionally, some technical comments will be made about the new brake fluid formulations appearing on the scene.

First of all, it's important to understand the chemical nature of brake fluid. DOT 3 brake fluids are mixtures of glycols and glycol ethers. DOT 4 contains borate esters in addition to what is contained in DOT 3. These brake fluids are somewhat similar to automotive anti-freeze (ethylene glycol) and are not, as Dr. Curve implies, a petroleum fluid. DOT 5 is silicone chemistry.
Fluid Compatibility

Brake system materials must be compatible with the system fluid. Compatibility is determined by chemistry, and no amount of advertising, wishful thinking or rationalizing can change the science of chemical compatibility. Both DOT 3-4 and DOT 5 fluids are compatible with most brake system materials except in the case some silicone rubber external components such as caliper piston boots, which are attacked by silicon fluids and greases.
Water absorption and corrosion

The big bugaboo with DOT 3-4 fluids always cited by silicone fluid advocates is water absorption. DOT 3-4 glycol based fluids, just like ethylene glycol antifreezes, are readily miscible with water. Long term brake system water content tends to reach a maximum of about 3%, which is readily handled by the corrosion inhibitors in the brake fluid formulation. Since the inhibitors are gradually depleted as they do their job, glycol brake fluid, just like anti-freeze, needs to be changed periodically. Follow BMW's recommendations. DOT 5 fluids, not being water miscible, must rely on the silicone (with some corrosion inhibitors) as a barrier film to control corrosion. Water is not absorbed by silicone as in the case of DOT 3-4 fluids, and will remain as a separate globule sinking to the lowest point in the brake system, since it is more dense.
Fluid boiling point

DOT 4 glycol based fluid has a higher boiling point (446F) than DOT 3 (401F), and both fluids will exhibit a reduced boiling point as water content increases. DOT 5 in its pure state offers a higher boiling point (500F) however if water got into the system, and a big globule found its way into a caliper, the water would start to boil at 212F causing a vapor lock condition [possible brake failure -ed.]. By contrast, DOT 3 fluid with 3% water content would still exhibit a boiling point of 300F. Silicone fluids also exhibit a 3 times greater propensity to dissolve air and other gasses which can lead to a "spongy pedal" and reduced braking at high altitudes.

DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids are mutually compatible, the major disadvantage of such a mix being a lowered boiling point. In an emergency, it'll do. Silicone fluid will not mix, but will float on top. From a lubricity standpoint, neither fluids are outstanding, though silicones will exhibit a more stable viscosity index in extreme temperatures, which is why the US Army likes silicone fluids. Since few of us ride at temperatures very much below freezing, let alone at 40 below zero, silicone's low temperature advantage won't be apparent. Neither fluids will reduce stopping distances.

With the advent of ABS systems, the limitations of existing brake fluids have been recognized and the brake fluid manufacturers have been working on formulations with enhanced properties. However, the chosen direction has not been silicone. The only major user of silicone is the US Army. It has recently asked the SAE about a procedure for converting from silicon back to DOT 3-4. If they ever decide to switch, silicone brake fluid will go the way of leaded gas.
Brake system contamination

The single most common brake system failure caused by a contaminant is swelling of the rubber components (piston seals etc.) due to the introduction of petroleum based products (motor oil, power steering fluid, mineral oil etc.) A small amount is enough to do major damage. Flushing with mineral spirits is enough to cause a complete system failure in a short time. I suspect this is what has happened when some BMW owners changed to DOT 5 (and then assumed that silicone caused the problem). Flushing with alcohol also causes problems. BMW brake systems should be flushed only with DOT 3 or 4.

If silicone is introduced into an older brake system, the silicone will latch unto the sludge generated by gradual component deterioration and create a gelatin like goop which will attract more crud and eventually plug up metering orifices or cause pistons to stick. If you have already changed to DOT 5, don't compound your initial mistake and change back. Silicone is very tenacious stuff and you will never get it all out of your system. Just change the fluid regularly. For those who race using silicone fluid, I recommend that you crack the bleed screws before each racing session to insure that there is no water in the calipers.
New developments

Since DOT 4 fluids were developed, it was recognized that borate ester based fluids offered the potential for boiling points beyond the 446F requirement, thus came the Super DOT 4 fluids - some covered by the DOT 5.1 designation - which exhibit a minimum dry boiling point of 500F (same as silicone, but different chemistry).

Additionally, a new fluid type based on silicon ester chemistry (not the same as silicon) has been developed that exhibits a minimum dry boiling point of 590F. It is miscible with DOT 3-4 fluids but has yet to see commercial usage.
 
I was a field tech. when the military changed, from DOT3 to DOT 5. I know first hand about fluid incompatabilty. Our pet name for a DOT 3 and DOT 5 mix, was cottage cheese, becuase the results had about the same consistancy. Had the same problem with petrolium based hydrolic fluids and silicon based (high flash point) replacements, our pet name for that mix was snot (green and slimmy).
My 200 MPH motorcycle came to a screeching halt, shortly after picking it up from the dealer (new). The moisture in the contaminated brake fluid they used to fill the system, made steam and locked the brakes solid, after a short drive.
Engineers, have been looking for an acceptable alternative for glycol based brake fluids for 40 years, that I know of (probably longer). The reason as I understand it, is the affinity of the fluid for moisture and the corrosive nature of Glycol.
The clutch system, to my reasoning, doesn´t need a high boiling point fluid and the flash point, of the fluid, is also largely irrelevant. Most any non corrosive, propoline friendly fluid would do. There really isn´t much pressure in there, at a guess, I´d say 300-500 lbs max. even a 1000 PSI wouldn´t require a high boiling point. They probably used actuators and slaves, requireing DOT 3, because of manufacturing issues. They didn´t have to re-tool or re-engineer the product, longevity was probably a secondary concern. Most of the parts, in many vehicles, are designed or spec.ed for a 7-10 year service life, though it wouldn´t really cost anymore (in most cases) to engineer them for 30 years or more.
I did my apprenticeship at Raybestos and worked hydrolic system for 10 years, in the military. Worked with fluid and refrigeration pumps for twenty more.
I´m not an engineer, my job was to take whatever boondoggles the engineers and manufactures turned out and figure out a way to make them work. I got pretty good at reading the mind set of the manufactures and engineers and could reverse engineer most systems.
The life expectancy of a brake wheel cylinder, is about the same as a master cylinder, is about the same as a hydrolic clutch with DOT 3. I´ve seen double the service life, with neoprene gaskets and petrolium fluids, in various hydrolic systems, with a much higher working pressure.
Just a thought, but part of the failure for the slave, could be oil flying around in the bell housing, could be attacking the propoline from the outside in? As well as the inside out?
Just always seemed to me, Dot 3 was kind of overkill and generally a poor choice for this application. No high RPM parts, with low working pressure, a hydrolic clutch, with a couple of good dust shields, should last forever. The seals in a power steering pump, see the same useage in a day, as a clutch hydrolic cylinder in a lifetime.
 
Last edited:
Hello,
Iam a technichian for the Iowa National Guard. And I think the article is very interesting. Even more interesting cause I am working on a HMMWV M1097A2 with the rear brakes are dragging. It had yellow fluid in the system which I do believe it was DOT 3. Which we drained and bled with fresh DOT 5. Everything we try we get the same results. After reading your article I believe that this one of the problems. I have talked to numerous TACOM (LARS) Reps and AM General. No one has a clue on what is going on. If you have or any body has any info to help us please contact me at:
[email protected]


Thanks, SSG Bruce Mclaughlin
 
Back
Top