My previous reply seems to have gotten lost, so here's a summary. Apologies
if the other one shows up.
> This article calls that
> "conventional wisdom" into question.
It also contains several mistakes, and omissions, IMO. Plus the author is
clearly not speaking from personal experience with DOT 5 on his own cars ...
I have yet to find _anyone_ who has tried it in their own, street-driven car
and not liked it.
If anyone would like a copy of the paper presented to the SAE, documenting
how DOT 3/4 allows not only water, but salt, to penetrate rubber brake
lines; please let me know.
I've been using DOT 5 in all of my Triumphs (and most of my non-Triumphs)
for many years; and I've not found anything not to love about it except the
price.
Just one example : Along about 1988, one of the calipers on my 1980 Chevy
started to leak. Replaced that one caliper, converted to DOT 5 ... junked
the car in 2003 without ever touching the hydraulics again ! That's right,
23 years on the original hoses & seals (except the replaced caliper) and not
one single problem after converting.
Likely my Triumph stories would be just as good, if I hadn't been too broke
to replace all the questionable components. Still, my rate of brake
problems went down dramatically after I converted to DOT 5.
Randall
=== This list supported in part by The Vintage Triumph Register
=== http://www.vtr.org
|