Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS



AIUI, brake fluid is hygroscopic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends on the type
DOT5 brake fluid is hydrophobic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_fluid#Boiling_point
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Brake fluid is hygroscopic - it attracts moisture -and the moisture can cause corrosion inside the lines and cyls. The water tends to end up in the low spots. On newer vehicles where the master reservoirs are sealed much better thasn in the past (with rubber bellows etc) it is a LITTLE less critical (3 years rather than 2 often recommended). The new synthetic brake fluids stand up a wee bit better too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/16/2017 1:57 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

It appears to me, from looking at rusted brake lines that they are not rusting from the inside out, but from the outside in. This would make sense as even if Brake fluid is hygroscopic, air would be needed to get them to rust. Shouldn't be too much air in brake lines. Also, someone told me they painted their brake lines with Z-bart stuff, and never had one rust out since doing that...
My guess is Stainless lines would not rust. Not sure how much pressure is in a brake line, but shouldn't be all that much. Looking around seems about a max of 2000psi, not much and easily accommodated with even thin wall stainless tubing.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are correct. Most of the reust is from outside in - and most where the like is either running through a chassis memner, running through a clip, or is an area where mud and salt and other crap gets trapped - holding moisture to the line.
One exception was early VW Rabbits where the brake lines ran inside the car, under the "horsehair" noise cushion - which got soaked when the cowl leaked up around the windshield. The fuse panels corroded out, the brake lines rotted out, and so did the floor. Really a LOUSY design.

I even know guys who just took a tube of synthetic grease and smeared it over all the vulnerable parts. Not rocket science to prevent the failure - yet the manufacturers have not gotten it figured out yet.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/17 7:15 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

This brings back memories!
A buddy back in college had a Floridian Rabbit, '75 I think. Total rust bucket. As the car coughed and sputtered, dropping chunks of rust onto the road, my buddies and I riding along would nod at each other and say "farfegnugen, cool!"
-BR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2017 9:37 AM, Brewster wrote:

My wife bought a '79 Honda Accord. It was car of the year. Nice car but a total rust bucket. EVERYTHING rusted out. Hood, fenders, gas tank, Strut suspension. I thought my '55 Ford Crown Vic was a rust bucket, not even close. Honda fixed most of it under warranty, had to lose money on that one. How does a hood rust? So much for Car of the year crap.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Was there a 1979 car you could buy that WASN'T a total rust bucket?? 1855 to 1961 - or even 1969, and 1978 to 1986 just about EVERYTHING was a rust bucket.
In 1982 you could sit on your front porch and listen to your new Torino rust on the driveway. Not uncommon for the driver's mirror and about 35 square inches of rust-worm infested sheet metal to fall out of the door before it was 3 years old.. It wasn't uncommon to see strips of duct tape around the windsheild on 3 or 4 year old cars to keep the water from dripping on the driver's foot in the rain - didn't matter WHO made the car.. The front fenders on my brother's 1977 Dodge AshBin (oops, that was SUPPOSED to be Aspen) had the front fenders replaced under warranty at 2 years of age due to rust PERFORATION..
They say "they don't make 'em like they used to" - and I say "THANK GOD!!!!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2017 5:10 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I bought a 1978 GMC Van, and it didn't rust out after about 15 years. I had it Z-barted immediately after purchase though.

Before my wife bought the Accord, she bought a Maveric. I reckon around 1973-4. You absolutely could sit on the porch and listen to it rust away.

Yes, particularly true of cars from the 50's. Bodies were bad, but motors were pure junk. Well, not sure it was just the motors, motor oil was junk as well. Tune up every 6 months or year, points, plugs, condensor, plug wires (never brake fluid though:-)) Complete engine rebuild after 30 -40,000 miles or so, if anything was left of the car.
My 2001 GMC PU has never been tuned up, runs and starts like it was brand new. I now wish I would have had the thing Z barted. Outside of truck looks new, underneath, rust city. Never saw a bumper rust like this. My SIL stepped on the rear bumper one day (150lbs soaking wet) and it bent in half. Looked new but underneath it was rust city.
GMC recalled the tailgate straps cause they could rust. No problem with the bumper, designed to step on to get in the bed, breaking in half. He could have easily been injured. If it had been me, I would have been hurt.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Might have been your salvation, but SOME of the Ziebart treatments just guaranteed the vehicle WOULD rust - by blocking drainage holes, and flaking loose after any damage, trapping moisture and salt between the ziebart film and the metal. Has a LOT of "Ziebart Initiated Rust Perforation " up here in those years.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/2017 1:50 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I had a bunch of people tell me that, and is the exact reason I didn't get my GMC pick up Z-Barted. Biggest mistake I ever made. My brother has a '95 Ford PU he had Z-barted and it looks brand new. One quarter panel rusts every other year, and the Z-bart guy fixes it free.
What really pisses me off is I really, really like my off road, 4 wheel drive, extended cab with towing package GMC truck. It's drive train is perfect, never had and engine or transmission problem. I put almost no miles on it now that I'm old, and would love to keep it the rest of my days. Not sure it will not turn into a pile of rust first. I can't justify buying another since I don't drive it much anymore, and won't likely be around anyway. The same truck today is around 50g's I think. Hard to decide, although I would likely will go with a good American truck, a Toyota...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Z-Bart of the '90s was much different than the Z-Bart of the '70s. It shouldn't be necessary for most vehicles (galvanized panels) but it wouldn't surprise me if GM cut corners.

I went with an F150 because it was at least $15K less than the competition and just a good, if not better. I don't live in rust country anymore so that wasn't an issue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:42:45 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

And a Ram would have been about the same amount less than the F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:57:01 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I call bullshit on that one. I haven't seen a new truck with a price tag of $10K for a *long* time. I wouldn't buy a Chrysler product if there were no other choice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:11:34 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

Your choice.
Based on the lowest cost full-sized 1/2 ton truck offering in Canadian prices in 2016 they rank like this: Dodge Ram $19995, F150 $19,999, Toyota Tundra 26750, GM $27207, and Nissan Titan $33898.
Dolled up, Titan $39898, Ram $42595, GM $43875, Tundra $53780, and F150, WAY up there at $68195.
That's all 2wd gasoline engine.
So not quite as much of a jump at base price, but on a medium priced version the Ford and GM get a LOT closer together, A mid range Ram is $31k-ish, GM is 35K-ish and Ford is $45k-ish.
I've had Dodge, GM and Ford - The only one I wouldn't buy is the GM.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You arfe one of the lucky ones.

I'll keep soaking the bottom of my now 21 year old truck with oily rust protectants and see if I can get a couple hundred thousand more Kms on it before I croak. It will turn 350,000km within a week - definitely on this tank of gas. I'll likely end up replacing the "wife's car" one more time before we stop driving. It's 15 years old now and it won't be long before what needs fixing and what I'm willing to fix on it come to a convergence - likely another 3 years - 5 at the very best. When the truck finally dies we will be a one vehicle household.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This was a few years ago, but I remember the old standby DOT 3 fluid (maybe DOT 4?) was considered permanent and was not prone to being hydroscopic. The newer fluids, synthetic (DOT 5 ?) was very prone to absorbing moisture and had to be changed regularly. Given the much higher cost and no real advantage for non-performance driving. the idea of "upgrading" soon left my thoughts. I had a number of vehicles from the 60's and 70's, all with non stainless lines. Never any problems (though these were all southwest vehicles).
-BR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2017 9:31 AM, Brewster wrote:

Same here, except my vehicles were in the rust belt, and started in the 50's rather than the 60's. Actually my first car was a '49 Dodge Truck. Everything in Cars from the '50s rusted except the frame and break lines.
Even if newer fluid is more hygroscopic, I still think the rust is coming from the outside, not the inside of the lines.
IF the newer fluid was causing brake line failure, you might think Big Brother would be all over it, like they got over freon in air conditioners, or VW for fudging the MPG stats.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The brake lines on the '57 Fargo (Canadian Dodge) P'Up rusted too. I replaced them (and rebuilt cyls) for Dad before I left for Africa back in 1972 - so they were only 15 years old. When my brother redid the truck circa 1975 the mechanic doing the safety assumed the lines were original and yanked them off saying they needed replacing. ( just to show it was common to consider 15 year old lines to have passed their "best before date") I tore a strip off him about 1/4 inch thick when I came back from Africa in '75 and the truck was sitting on stands waiting for wheel cyls and flex hoses, as well as grease seals (it was a VERY rare Custom Express with heavy duty suspension (basically a 3/4 ton front axle) and the big 241.5 cubic inch flatty -(Same displacement as the 53-54 Red Ram Hemi). It was quite possibly a "one of". It took me just over a week to source all the parts and re-install them - and I told the mechanic and garage owner (both "family friends") they could tear up any bill associated with the job AND sign the safety. (Still cost several hundred dollars in un-necessary parts - as well as delaying my brother getting it on the road for over 2 months).
I ended up trading my kid brother a 2 or 3 year old Colt wagon for the truck a couple months later and drove and showed the truck for several years after completing it.
When I rebuilt my '53 Coronet Sierra (a Van Nuys Californis car) in 1972 I had to replace all of the brake lines as well. - it was only 18 years old.. I scrapped my 1985 LeBaron T&C wagon in about 1994 (it was only 9 years old) when both the brake lines and chassis rotted away. My 1995 Mystique lost it's brakes due to a rusted line in about 2004 - about 9 years old. It was only a section about 5 or 6 inches long that had rusted, so I cut the line back to a solid point, flared it, and spliced in a short hunk of CuNi line I happened to have left over from another job.
Back when I was an apprentice machanic, back 1968 -1971) I replaced a LOT of brake and fuel lines on cars from the fifties and sixties. 1959-!961 Chevies were BAD for rust, as were '57--63 Mopars and just about any Ford newer than 1954. Brake lines, fuel lines, fuel tanks, and unit bodies - rear spring shackles coming up into the trunk of Darts and Valiants was pretty common - and Falcons too. And front fenders developing "zipper fenders" on '63 Ramblers within 3 years.
I got rid of my '63 Valiant when I bought my 2 year old '69 Dart and I replaced the brake line across the rear axle on that one too - so it was less than 8 years old when I had to replace rusted lines - and that was a single system - so when you lost fluid, you lost ALL of the brakes.
My current vehicles are15 and 21 years old - with all original lines - I DID need to replace the fuel tank on the 15 year old Taurus due to rust perforation (just about the only rust on the car)

It's not the fluid causing the line failures. It's a combination of"cost engineering" and atmospheric conditions. (Road salt, humidity, etc)
I'd have to say the problems are LESS pervasive now than in earlier years. I BUY cars now at the age I used to have to sell./scrap cars 50 years ago, and then I drive them up to another 10 or 12 years!!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dot3 and DOT5 were VERY hygroscopic. Law required fluid only be sold from a sealed can.( I was a mechanic back in the late sixties) DOT5 is hydrophobic, meaning moisture is not absorbed. All fluids up to DOT4 were poly-glycol based while DOT5 is a silicon based synthetic. NEVER mix Dot5 with Dot4 or below. Dot5.1 is an acceptable substitute, but NEVER mix it with Dot5. Any vehicle using DOT5 should be CLEARLY LABELLED as such. It is technically illegal to use DOT5 in a vehicle not originally built with and spec'd for DOT5 fluid.
NO DOT fluid has EVER been sold as or considered to be a "permanent" fluid.. Look up "wet boiling point" and "dry boiling point for DOT Brake Fluid.. PolyGlycol fluids absorb up to 3% water per year....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.