| Author | Message | ||
     Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 314 Registered: 4-2003 |
Starting a fresh thread, could we as a Club possibly establish a policy on converting Silver Shadow series cars to LHM Hydraulic System Mineral Oil ? There would be two phases to establishing a legitimate policy on this matter: 1) Technical: component replacement, suitable fluid and installation procedures 2) Type approval (roads authority agreement) For cars later than Chassis 22118, the components are fairly clear: All new Silver Spirit type seals All new hoses and o-rings New reservior seals and sight glasses Warning plate and safety access system for reservoirs Modern accumulators with a suitable adaptor For cars from 14730 to 22118, the master cylinder and large diameter rear brake caliper seals are in question, and for cars before 14730 the front caliper seals are in question too. Robert Chapman has made a very sensible suggestion for many of those cars, but that can be a follow-up exercise I suggest. Let's start with the cars post-22118. I am convinced that at least the Australian road vehicle safety authorities would all be very receptive to a well-prepared package. They would immediately recognise the safety benefits of such a conversion, a pleasant break from radical performance modifications to which they are usually embroiled. I have personally gained approval for two far more radical safety and performance related modifications on other makes of cars, and find the engineers at the authorities always very reasonable in evaluating and approving well-prepared modification regimes. It may all sound a little formal, but I feel that our Club has the opportunity to show some real leadership mettle on this potentially highly worthwhile modification. | ||
| Bill Coburn Grand Master Username: bill_coburn Post Number: 228 Registered: 4-2003 |
Sorry Richard I made a sally under the RR363 thread - let's use this one! | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 277 Registered: 4-2003 |
Just a reminder that the warning posted today in the RR363 thread equally applies to this and all other threads in the Forum. Irrelevant or inappropriate posts will be deleted. | ||
| Pat Lockyer. Unregistered guest Posted From: 81.131.138.121 |
Products in the automotive world are usally improved on as time go's by,it is very much so with oil's etc. I have been running my SS1 on synthetic oil and it has been magic with regard to the quiet ruuning on start up with the hydraulic lifters. This brings me to the LHM+ fluid in comparison to the dot 3/4 and RR363,LHM+ is far superior for the brake piston corosion factor. Will not absorb water. However i am concerned with the failings of LHM to which i have delt with in my many years with citroens. First,all the high pressure side is fed by pipework,no brake hoses!this i can only put down to the adverse reaction from the fluid in contact with rubber. Believe me i have replaced plenty of rubber cailiper seals, steering rack o rings etc. with regard to the low pressure return hoses well just hundreds. If a conversion can be done i think all the pressure rubber hoses must be looked into with the regard to useing the LHM+fluid. Has there been any failures with the later Rolls Royce cars hoses brake seals etc running LHM+. | ||
| Robert Chapman Prolific User Username: shadow Post Number: 65 Registered: 5-2003 |
Richard, I think Bill Coburn make a very valid and costuctive point about the priority valve system. | ||
| Robert Chapman Prolific User Username: shadow Post Number: 66 Registered: 5-2003 |
Sorry, that should read "makes a very valid and constructive point". This is one that has not been previously raised or dealt with. | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 319 Registered: 4-2003 |
Yes, indeed. Bill will no doubt correct me to some extent. However, it is interesting that the Shadow's solenoid valve was incorporated to accelerate levelling at all costs while loading. By contrast, the Spirit's Priority valve was introduced to stop levelling until the system is ready (ie, the brakes have priority) - the reverse effect from the Shadow's. All this, whilst the Spirit needs its struts to sit a proper height, and the Shadows only to compensate for excessive loads. The philosophy is a giant U-turn. In the end, I would be happy to delete the solenoids valve from the Shadow and the priority valve from the SZs. If you don't drive with the warning lamps on, either system is safe without these contradictory valves. The priority valve is a nice idea, but causes the system pressure to drop faster than necessary once the motor is stopped. Part of an LHM package ?? | ||
| Bill Coburn Grand Master Username: bill_coburn Post Number: 232 Registered: 4-2003 |
Seeing my comments are open for discussion I have brought them here. 'The possible use of LHM in 363 systems is certainly intriguing. Can we work out just what changes are essential and which are highly advisable? Clearly all the hoses have got to be changed and the lines flushed but how compatible are 363 rubbers with LHM? Certainly 363 in an LHM system is deadly but what about the reverse? The accumulators (ex Citroen) with an adapter would appear to fit and should cope even with their significantly smaller capacity. I wonder though whether one Citroen accumulator would have the capacity to fully lift two rams. The SZ cars split the task one accumulator to one ram (strut). So there may be a need for priority control. If the accumulator exhausts lifting the car is there enough left for the brakes? But if the 363 piping is not changed only one accumulator would be affected and the other would be free to apply most of the brakes. As to the master cylinder it would be nice to scrap that rat trap and install the later one with the rod and cone feel mechanism. Lastly I am assured by my Factory trained man that the LHM pumps are different in dimension to the 363 ones but he could not tell me whether that was an obstacle. Over to you lot please!!!' I am intrigued with Pat Lockyer's account concerning the hoses. What are these things made of? Recently I had some standard hoses made up by our local licensed people and I asked them could they do hoses for my Spur. Absolutely blank look. Then they showed me a hose they stocked for some vehicle which had a clearly separate lining which got my hopes up but then they made some enquiries and ran into a brick wall. The stuff was NOT suitable for LHM. But there are a lot of Pat Lockyers in this world I hope and even more Citroens - somebody must have cracked this hose cartel? Then to counter what I have just said, I am intrigued to note that hoses for a Phantom VI were quoted at over AUD90 retail and I had them made for AUD45! But genuine hoses for the Spur carrying LHM are only about AUD45. It is a puzzlement. | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 321 Registered: 4-2003 |
Bill, Early SZ cars split the levelling task between one gas spring / strut for each main front accumulator. All Turbos and later cars have the entire rear gas spring system provided by one main front accumulator only. I can imagine that neither pumping nor accumulators capacities could be at issue. Ideas ? | ||
| Pat Lockyer. Unregistered guest Posted From: 81.131.52.27 |
Just a thought on the later cars being fitted with the priority [safty] valve. was this carried out so the smaller spheres could be used. Regarding the pumps and accumulators they will more than be adequate if i am correct on the priority valve. Another mod [maybe] could be carried out on a early SSI with the front hieght control units. With the LHM+ update and the total removal of the brake master cylinder. A third and forth stiffness accumulator fitted front and rear into the system with a steering sensor to the column and a vertical body displacment sensor fitted to the front suspension all fed and controlled by a central computer,boy would we have some handleing Shadow,normal ride and sport mode at the flick of a switch. | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 322 Registered: 4-2003 |
Pat, By the way, I know of a few persons who have removed the priority and the minimum pressure valves from their SZs. They both claim that the main source of pressure drop when parked is through the priority and minimum pressure valve low pressure returns. I tend to believe them. The valves were fitted to lock up and isolate the rear levelling in favour of the brakes while parked for a while. Quite the reverse of the Shadow^philosophy where levelling was paramount. Neither system really had merit in my opinion. Having said that, both my T-Series and Turbo R are fully functional as designed, and that suits me in both cases. | ||
| Bill Coburn Grand Master Username: bill_coburn Post Number: 235 Registered: 4-2003 |
Interesting Richard. My Spur lowers its bum over about a week which my advisers tell me is about normal. It certainly gets up smartly when the engine is started. It doesn't fuss me but in your experience is this fairly normal? Thanks for the heads up on the struts I was not aware of the change to strut feeds mainly I suppose as I won't let cars that new come near me!!! | ||
| Pat Lockyer. Unregistered guest Posted From: 213.122.98.166 |
Richard do correct me if i am wrong but i thought the priority valve was first and upmost the purpose of saftey. If a high pressure leak accured on the rear rear suspension system the priority valve would shut down that circut and the car could the be driven with the brakeing circuts fully functional. ABS included. With the Citroen the full control of the speed assisted steering as well. | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 323 Registered: 4-2003 |
Dear Pat, You are quite correct on the primary reason for the inclusion of the priority valve. It gives priority to safety: brakes on an SZ, and steering too on a Citi. However, the Turbos and later SZ cars use only one LHM system for levelling. The safety issue is largely covered by the brakes having the other system dedicated to the second brake circuit. Warning lamps remind you to wait or stop also. Because the levelling is controlled by one system alone on Turbos etc, the leak down time is at least halved compared to the others. That is why Bill's Spur stays high for a week, whereas my Turbo R starts to settle in half the time: one system serves twice the functionality on later cars. To offer Bill C. an opinion, I believe that this is all quite normal for a car in good condition. One guy I know has removed the priority and minimum pressure valves on a 1988 Turbo RL. He claims that it retains its rear height for well over one month. Given that I drive my car daily, it is not really an issue for me. However, with all the bells and whistles of protection, I can't argue that the valves are not really better deleted. | ||
| John Dare Unregistered guest Posted From: 144.138.194.43 |
I do NOT seek to be obtuse or negative on this question, having attempted to view the overall proposal from a realistic and (as usual) PRACTICAL perspective. Almost ANYthing is technically possible, but what are the anticipated benefits,relative to the COSTS?. The cost of the parts to convert Shadows to LHM might be contained (to some extent) by ferreting around to locate this and that, but what of the horrendous LABOUR costs?. The average Shadow owner might be an enthusiast, but unless he/she is a gifted boy genius, THEY are going to have to pay for this conversion in its entirety. If a given Shadows hyd. system was (in total) absolutely BEYOND reclamation, then one MIGHT feel inclined to spend the money,however I suspect that any Shadow which has been neglected to THAT (sad) extent will, in all probability, need thousand of dollars spent in OTHER areas eg. engine & trans./suspension(springs/shocks) etc/body etc.Then, surely it would be a question of priorities to the hapless owner/s of such vehicles which, in reality may only be suitable for wrecking/parting out anyway. In any event, all that cost, PRINCIPALLY to avoid having to replace conventional type (water absorbing) hyd. fluids every 2 years or so?. Havent we become accustomed to changing our hyd. fluids just as we do (or should) change our coolant etc. at the well known and practiced intervals and not only on Shadows but on our other cars too?. And what of SERVICE "in the field"; witness past instances of the "wrong" fluids being used (Shadow v Spirit etc) and the astronomical recification/repair costs, DESPITE the prominent waring labels/lock wire tabs/mechanisms etc. NOW we are proposing to create TWO different types of Silver Shadows, some with conventional brake fluid and some with LHM. OK whilst the owner/enthusiast owns/operates the car, but what of successive NON technically oriented owners who might relocate to country/provincial areas?. Consider the increased prospect of the "wrong" fluid being introduced (after 38 years of concentrated BRAINWASHING about how you "MUST ONLY USE" etc etc) not to mention when a person outside of the major cities, calls up the dealer (or myself) to order a seal,hose etc. Absolute CONFUSION will inevitably prevail. As for "policies/strategies etc.etc." to be developed and submitted to State Registration/Regulatory organizations, this will be like giving a dog a bone, for the NEXT thing you know, some pencil pushing/keyboard tapping "academic" who fancies him/her(??)self as a car "expert"(ANOTHER one!!) will "declare" that ALL Shadows should be converted to LHM (in the interest of "road safety") because..(wait for it) because.. "the SPECIAL fluid as originally specified by the car MANUFACTUER, isnt available anymore!". DONT dismiss this prediction lightly,since for over 40 years I have engaged and battled every type of Government on the planet,hundreds of overpaid bureaucrats, every "expert" and legions of assorted powerbrokers intent on establishing some kind of platform to exercise their egos and perceived "authority". Look no further than Brussels and the EU in evidence. Remember; You first read about the prediction right here! | ||
| Mark Peacock Frequent User Username: takemehomejames Post Number: 19 Registered: 4-2004 |
john, as usual you tend to blow every senario out to stupid extremes, again. Firstly, a LHM Shadow i propose would contain enough warnings around the reservior to indicate what fluid is intended to be used.. Even my wife with no mech apptitude,would notice the big green logo clearly noting "RR363 with a big red cross through it". as seen on later shadows/corniche ,stating the use of the LHM . 2- Any modifications would include suitable paperwork to clearly list all components used. Which any capable soul could clearly follow. If your local mechanic (even out the back of alice springs( sorry N.T people)) couldn't read, then he/she is not the technician you want to be servicing your investment. 3- if you dont have anything of use to add to this part of the forum, apart from the usual essay of contraditory rubbish, then step aside and let other individuals with a positive direction, with hands on experience for our marques, look into issues that affect their cars daily maintenence/upkeep. | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 332 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mark, If you email me on: richard.treacy@bluewin.ch I shall forward a posting of a Silver Shadow converted to LHM in the UK by an RREC member, and commissioned late last week. The car has a master cylinder. Guess what ? As Robert C. warned was a possibility, the new master cylinder seals lasted a day. Everything else seemed OK. You may even wish to contact the owner, who did the job himself, directly. RT. | ||
| John Dare Unregistered guest Posted From: 144.138.194.220 |
Thank you Mark. In the majical realm of an ideal world, your idea of a "warning" label would (in theory)serve to protect against the prospect of the "wrong" type of fluid being entered into the system. However, as life in the real world has shown, such incorrect fluids HAVE on MANY occasions, been confused and used (with disastrous and expensive consequences!) DESPITE the prominence of "warning" labels, locking mechanisms etc., as thoughtfully devised by the factory. Where human "nature" is concerned the prospect of confusion (however remote) needs to be rendered a virtual IMPOSSIBILITY. A convenient case study would be the manner in which "unleaded" vehicles have/had fuel filler necks of a smaller diameter than the (LARGER) retail fuel nozzles which dispense/d "leaded" type fuels. I do not seriously object (how could I?) to anyone performing the LHM modification to their OWN vehicles if they so wish, but I vehemently object to self appointed "experts" generating and "offering" THEIR general submissions and proposals on MY behalf (without any invitation to do so!)to ANY club or organization, let alone a government bureaucrat. Who really wants to see a "steering" (or perhaps I should say BRAKING?) committee established ("green papers/"white"papers with so called "strategies/initiatives" etc.,) to speculate about what is "best" or what "should" be done to our Silver Shadows?. There are always people eager to create a platform or issue so that they can show the world how "clever" they are, whereas rather than be obsessed MERELY with one, singular marque of car, I prefer diversity which tends to broaden ones outlook and of course, "general" auto related knowledge. However, if I ever DO feel an obsession coming on (with R-Rs) I will probably spend my time trying to work out why MANY pitman arms (Pendulum levers) fractured on RHD steering "boxed" Shadows (pre SS11) whereas there has been little or NO such (recorded)failure on similar LHD cars. But should anyone worry anyway, for as one expert once told us, QUOTE; "its (steering FAILURE!) isnt really an issue as it normally happens at low (parking etc.,) speeds".UNquote. Imagine a new car brochure which contained the following text. "Note; instant steering failure may occur without notice, however this is usually only at low speeds or whilst parking etc". HHhhmm. I wonder how many cars they would sell. | ||
| William H. Trovinger II Grand Master Username: bill_trovinger Post Number: 151 Registered: 8-2003 |
John; Not surprisingly your “case study” is flawed. When unleaded was introduced the reason behind the reduction in the filler neck was not done to protect against “prospect of confusion” but rather to stop cheap people (or cheaters take your pick) from putting then less expensive leaded gas into vehicles meant to have unleaded only. Oh, and by the way people did remove the restrictors even though they where under penalty of law let alone risking damage to the vehicles. Regards, Bill | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 290 Registered: 4-2003 |
I might remind everyone that we live in a real world and not the perfect "cotton-wool cocoon" that our legal fraternity try to use as justification for making third parties liable for every mistake made by individuals. If we stop experimentation and problem-solving by the fear of legal consequences then we all might as well permanently dose ourselves up with sedatives to escape from the boring life that will await us. | ||
| John Dare Unregistered guest Posted From: 144.138.194.247 |
Thank you Bill T. I was referring to the LOCAL scene here, where "leaded" fuel, often referred to as "Super" (carrying the implication of being "superior/better"etc) was more expensive than UNleaded; at least in my area, WHEN it was available. There was much reluctance here to wean people OFF "traditional" Leaded/Super fuels (the Fed. even imposing addit. taxes!)due, in part, to fears about engine damage(VSR) etc., hence many people MIGHT have been tempted to put leaded fuel into UNleaded vehicles, perhaps unaware of consequent cat/conv.damage anyway!. This was effectively prevented (for all practical purposes) by a "leaded" pump nozzle with a diameter larger than the smaller(restricted) dia.fuel receptacle within an unleaded vehicle. This was a simple but workable "engineered" defence (against misguided intent or genuine confusion) which would have generally failed IF auto mnfrs. had simply relied on owners "common sense"/awareness OR "warning" labels of the kind/s used (often unsuccessfully) by R-R on their hyd. fluid resevoirs and as now further proposed by those who might effectively create "different" S/Shadows, as a consequence of LHM conversions. My apologies for the belated response as I have been in court in relation to matters concerning other makes of cars. | ||
| John Dare Unregistered guest Posted From: 144.138.194.247 |
ERROR correction to the above;line 6 should read "reluctance by people to be weaned off". Too many things to do; too little time to do. Such is life. | ||
| Pat Lockyer. Unregistered guest Posted From: 81.131.97.17 |
David, as a registered guest i totaly agree and i may add that some folk must lead a very sad life to have to use their professional knowledge to the extremes of bombardment of rambling words for most of the time for something to do, very very sad!! | ||
| Pat Lockyer. Unregistered guest Posted From: 81.135.99.163 |
Correction to above post. should be unregistered guest. I can only put the mistake down to the readings of some of the unessary posts that have bombarded the Forumn and my brain!!!!!!!! | ||
| John Dare Unregistered guest Posted From: 144.138.194.205 |
Registered guest or UNregistered guest, you are hereby forgiven, for surely, it matters NOT. Well, except to those who relish and bask in assorted, and at times, curious (if not amusing!)"titles" which tend to convey a perception of authority and wisdom. You see, I dont NEED a "badge", for I KNOW who I am. | ||
| Pat Lockyer. Unregistered guest Posted From: 81.131.164.219 |
Yes only you know who you are, by your sad posts i may add.Very Very Very sad indeed. Go get in a Range Rover they ride on cold air!!! | ||
| Greg Churm Unregistered guest Posted From: 139.168.119.249 |
Hang on a bit. Citroen managed the DS with LHS pre 1965 and LHM post. There may have been some disasters but the one thing that helped was to paint all LHM hydraulic components green and all LHS black. Yes an LHM Shadow would be rarity but a worthwhile one in my view as long as bits could be scrounged as much as possible to keep costs down. After it is all finished you would have a car where you forget about the hydraulics. Every 40,000km you clean the filters and renew the fluid but that is about it. A few further points 1. removing the priorty valve seems risky at first, but on a Shadow don't we have two of everything at least so catastrophic failure is unlikely. 2. Don't later Shadows ditch the master cylinder in the Rat Trap making life easier for the convertor but raises the need for a Priorty valve. Granted no-one would drive their Shadow with the warning light on but what happens if it comes on when you are driving 3. Is LHM hard on rubber ? I had to replace the regulator return hose on my CX the other day. The car is 22 years old and has done 300,000km. I'd say that was old age. Yes the black stuff you clean off the filters comes from the hoses but it takes a long time to hurt them. Other environmental factors get there first like heat and vibration As I have said before, if converting to LHM is too hard you could always switch to Canola oil. A 1958 DS19 I know of has been running it for the last 5 years with no problems. The car is also a daily driver so has covered a reasonable mileage in that time. Just follow the recently ratified colour for canola oil hydraulic systems and point the reservoir purple Greg (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Patrick Lockyer. Grand Master Username: pat_lockyer Post Number: 365 Registered: 9-2004 |
Greg, just seen your posting a little late but just to clear the point of replaceing the regulator return hose i assume this is low pressure? |
