Moss Motors, Ltd

Our Sites: Moss USA | Moss Europe
Welcome to Moss Motors, Ltd Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

Brake Fluid; Conventional vs Silicone

Last post 11-12-2011, 1:42 AM by David Broughton. 5 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  08-09-2007, 5:27 PM 8826

    Brake Fluid; Conventional vs Silicone


    The Real Story: Conventional vs Silicone Brake Fluid

    Today's current Lockheed "Universal", Girling "LMA", and silicone brake fluids are so vastly superior to the old Girling "Green" and "Crimson", and Lockheed "Heavy Duty" fluids originally specified for most of our older British sports cars, that it would make no sense to use the older types today, even if they were still available. The most notable advances have been in raising boiling points, improved compatibility with each other, and reducing moisture absorption.

    The main function of brake fluid is to transmit pedal movement to the brake pads and shoes. To do this efficiently, brake fluids must be non-compressible. They must also not boil at the highest operating temperatures encountered, thicken or freeze at cold temperatures, not corrode or chemically react with any materials in the hydraulic system, and not decompose or form sludge, gum, or varnish at any temperature. They must lubricate internal moving parts, flow easily through small passages, have a long and stable shelf life, and be compatible with other brake fluids.

    Brake fluids are classified by their chemical type and boiling points. The different chemical bases currently used are polyalkylene glycol ether (commonly called glycol), silicone, and mineral oil. (Of these, mineral oil doesn't concern us, as it is used in very few cars, none of which Moss Motors deals with.) D.O.T. 3 and D.O.T. 4 brake fluids are glycol-based, while silicone-based fluids are classified as D.O.T. 5. To further confuse matters, there is now a D.O.T. 5.1 brake fluid which has a diethylene glycol-ester base, with properties similar to D.O.T. 4, but with enhanced performance characteristics. These D.O.T. (Department of Transportation) specifications also indicate minimum boiling points. It is important to note that these D.O.T. specifications are performance specifications, not material specifications; for example, D.O.T. 5 sold in Europe is not silicone-based, as it is in the USA.

    In the good old days, little good could be said of brake systems. Warnings such as, "as the cups in the master cylinder are pure rubber; it is imperative to use only the recommended fluid. Any other fluid may be dangerous" were common. Such strong concerns were very valid in the 1950s, much less so now, even for 1950's vintage cars. The reasons for this lessened worry about our hydraulic systems "turning to goo" if the wrong fluid is used is that: 1.) pure rubber hydraulic seals are no longer made for our cars, and 2.) D.O.T. 3, 4, and 5 brake fluids are safe to mix, and are compatible with the seals now available. While these brake fluids are safe to mix, mixing them is not recommended.

    When brakes are applied on a moving car, the kinetic energy of the car is turned into heat. The faster the car is moving and the faster it is stopped, the more heat is produced. Some of this heat soaks into the brake fluid. In the late 1940s, brake fluid with a boiling point of 235° F was considered adequate. By about 1957, the lowest S.A.E. specification was for a minimum boiling point of 302° F for cars with drum brakes.

    Disc brakes presented new problems. In stopping faster (and often heavier) cars more quickly, they generated even more heat which had to be dissipated, with an accompanying requirement for brake fluid with even higher minimum boiling points. Improvements in brake lining materials, brake drum and rotor design and metallurgy have also had a similar effect; improvements in braking efficiency require improvements in brake fluids. To handle these higher temperatures, improvements were also made in wheel cylinder and brake caliper seal design and materials.

    Brake fluids must not be allowed to boil for two reasons:
    1) The brakes won't work due to the vapor bubbles being compressible.
    2) Physical and chemical properties of the brake fluid may change due to the "lighter" components boiling off. Glycol-based brake fluids in particular, are hydroscopic (moisture absorbing), some more so than others. When water is absorbed, the boiling point is sharply lowered. This occurs because water boils at only 212° F. When brake fluid is mixed with water, the boiling point of the mixture is less than that of the "dry" brake fluid. See chart for D.O.T. minimum boiling point specifications.

    D.O.T. Minimum Boiling Points (degrees Fahrenheit):
     D.O.T. 3D.O.T. 4D.O.T. 5
    Dry401446500
    Wet284311356

    *This is the required min. specification, but does not reflect actual performance of silicone-based fluids. Since D.O.T. 5 is non-hydroscopic, its actual "wet" boiling point is essentially the same as its dry boiling point. However, a brake system using silicon-based fluid with water present in the system would show an effective boiling point of 212 degrees due to the free water.

    Water contamination also leads to corrosion of brake pipes, wheel cylinders, calipers, and master cylinders, resulting in pipe leaks, "frozen" cylinder pistons, accelerated seal wear, and the formation of sludge. Silicone fluids avoid these problems by being non-hydroscopic (not moisture-absorbing), while glycol fluids can absorb as much as 6% water just by being in a "sealed" automotive hydraulic system for a few years. This moisture is generally absorbed from the air. Some moisture even works its way into brake hoses. Most comes from master cylinder cap vents and resultant condensation in the air space above the fluid, and from allowing cans of brake fluid and master cylinders to remain open to the atmosphere for too long. Silicone fluids absorb a tiny amount of moisture (on the order of 280 parts per million, or .0028%) and then absorb no more.

    Silicone fluids, in addition to having high boiling points and being non-hydroscopic, do not damage paint as do glycol fluids. This is of particular importance in regard to show cars where a spill or leak of glycol fluid can have seriously ugly results. There are, however, some disadvantages to silicone fluids. They are slightly compressible, particularly near the higher end of their temperature range. While this is of absolutely no consequence for normal street use, this is why silicone fluids are not used in race cars. (Conversely, racing hydraulic fluids should not be used in street cars. This is because, although racing brake fluids have high dry boiling points, most are highly hydroscopic, and have relatively very low wet boiling points. They would probably work extremely well if you were to change the fluid every week or so.) Because air bubbles do not regularly dissipate in silicone brake fluid, special care must be used to prevent them from forming during pouring and bleeding operations. The best way to bleed a silicone fluid system is with an Eezibleed Kit (Moss #386-860). Lacking that, bleed with slow pedal strokes, avoiding "pumping" the pedal. It may be necessary to bleed the system again in a day or so if there were any air bubbles which wouldn't bleed out the first time.

    A newly rebuilt and scrupulously clean brake system filled with silicone fluid should outlast a system filled with glycol fluid by several times. There is little advantage in adding silicone fluid to a system which contains even small amounts of contaminants. Merely bleeding the system is not enough, as there will be pockets of old fluid and sludge which will not bleed out. Silicone fluid tends to concentrate any residual glycol fluid, moisture and sludge, into slugs, instead of allowing their dispersal throughout the fluid, as does glycol fluid. This can lead to relatively severe but localized problems, rather than the more general system deterioration experienced with old moisture-laden glycol fluids. This may be a factor in reports of leakage when silicone fluid is used in non-rebuilt systems which had been used with glycol fluid. A "new" system full of silicone fluid will require very little maintenance for years.

    Old dirty moisture-laden brake fluid is hazardous; it can't be relied upon to stop your car reliably. It is a little known fact that glycol brake fluids must be changed regularly, much as engine oil must be changed. The Austin-Healey 100-6 and 3000 Workshop Manuals specify brake fluid changes every 18 months or 24,000 miles (whichever comes sooner), and examination of all fluid seals and hoses in the hydraulic system, with replacement as required, every 3 years or 40,000 miles. Other manufacturers had similar recommendations. While silicone fluid change intervals may be safely extended, do not overlook periodic checks, especially of hoses. Please take care of your brake system for your own and other's safety.




    Working on automobiles is inherently dangerous. Moss Motors, Ltd. is not liable for injury or damage due to incorrect installation or use of their products. All products are sold with the understanding that the safe and proper installation and use of the products is the customer’s responsibility. Follow factory workshop manual procedures and instructions, but use current shop safety standards and common sense. Some tasks will require professional advice or services which Moss Motors cannot provide.

    If you have a specific comment or question and you'd like an immediate reply from Moss Tech Services, don't post here - please first email: BritishTechnicalSupport@mossmotors.com Please include the Title and Location of this tip if applicable.

    Forum FAQs here.

  •  03-10-2010, 1:58 PM 23063 in reply to 8826

    Re: Brake Fluid; Conventional vs Silicone

    The word is hygroscopic, not hydroscopic
  •  08-30-2011, 3:04 AM 26022 in reply to 8826

    Re: Brake Fluid; Conventional vs Silicone

    I want to rebuild my braking system and use silicone fluid. From your article i should replace all parts that the old fluid has been in contact with right? So we're talking brake lines, hoses, junction blocks, caliper pistons and reserviour right? Is it possible to clean junctions blocks and reservoirs with something? if so what? i don't suppose you're aware of an article expalining this process step by step are you?

  •  11-09-2011, 7:32 PM 26278 in reply to 26022

    Re: Brake Fluid; Conventional vs Silicone

    been researching about this topic, actually i read in one review according to the auto repair mechanic from porsche, that they do not recommend dot 5 silicone fluid. further more, they say that it (dot 5 silicone) should not add or mix it with the brake fluid in your car cause severe component corrosion may result.
  •  11-10-2011, 8:41 AM 26281 in reply to 26278

    Re: Brake Fluid; Conventional vs Silicone

    I was recommended to use dot 5.1 as it was safe to mix with all brake fluids. Have only had it in my MGA for two months so can't say for sure that it will not cause problems over the long-run, but so-far-so-good.
  •  11-12-2011, 1:42 AM 26292 in reply to 26281

    Re: Brake Fluid; Conventional vs Silicone

    When I rebuilt the brakes on my TR4A during an extensive restoration I used slicone because I didn't want the odd spills to strip the paint (and I had a couple during the rebuild but no paint blistering).

    I cleaned all the blocks and replaced all rubbers, hoses and brake pipes and the pistons in the calipers because they were a wreck with all the corrosion. And so far I am very happy with it. Pedal feel is fine and I dont run a booster. I bleed and replace most of the fluid every year or so as I am a bit cautious about the stories of the water bubbling in the pipes and causing corrosion. So I shift the fluid each year jsut as a precaution and carry a small amount with my spares in the boot / trunk.

    It is ferociously expensive at 4 or 5 times the cost of glycol based fluids.

    David B