| Author |
Message |
    
Pat Lockyer.
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 81.131.110.45
| | Posted on Saturday, 08 May, 2004 - 07:13 am: |    |
Hope this is the correct place for this.
On my part brake overhaul,spheres accumulators hoses and the reservoir + filters cleaned the old brake fluid dot 4 was changed with the new type Castrol 363.
As i had previously had a noisy front pump when hot on idle i had hoped all would be ok well the noise was still there but as the more the car has been used, two long trips recently the pump has become completely quiet.
I can only put this down to the excellent lube property's within the RR363.
Dot 4 Beware!
|
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 248
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 09 May, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Thanks Pat - did you try listening to the pump using your dipstick as a stethoscope? It would have been interesting to compare the before and after sounds.
Perhaps our friends at Castrol finally got it right!!
|
Robert Chapman
Prolific User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 57
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 14 August, 2004 - 06:38 pm: | |
I would be interested to know what owners would think to the sometimes raised idear to changing their brake fluid cars to HMO in light of all the recent problems with RR363. |
Mark Peacock
Experienced User
Username: takemehomejames
Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, 14 August, 2004 - 08:01 pm: | |
Im about to overhaul my brake /fluid system ,ie seals, calipers etc.. what will be involved in the conversion. Do you have to change much to run the HMO fluid ?? ie seals, accumulators...
|
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 296
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 14 August, 2004 - 08:54 pm: | |
It's mainly question of what parts are incompatible.
Items which did not change for LHM are:
Brake pumps
Hoses
Brake calipers and seals (post 1974 anyhow)
G-valve
Items which changed are:
Accumulators
Valve body
Height valves
Solenoid valve
Rear rams.
I would make up an adaptor to fit LHM accumulator spheres as I imagine that the threads are different ?? LHM spheres are cheap, disposable and have vastly improved sealing o-rings/washers, and would be a worthwhile change even if the originals would tolerate LHM.
On rubber hoses, they are the same, but once used with RR363 it would be unsafe to reuse them with LHM. Likewise the brake caliper seals (same part number for LHM and RR363 systems). Valve bodies should be OK as there are no seals, just o-rings which should be replaced, and also on the pumps. Likewise the solenoid valve (again o-rings only, but the valve assembly can safely be deleted anyhow.)
The big question is the height control valves. I reckon that they would be OK, but does anyone have views on this ? Likewise the rams.
Also, I believe that the rat trap would be fine: it has no seals, and LHM is a better lubricant than RR363.
Earlier cars have the complication of the master cylinder to deal with. Any views ?
I have contemplated this coversion many times.
However, I must point out that our T-Series hydraulics have been extremely reliable over the years. There have been just two leaks: one height control valve and a solenoid valve. A pump pushrod broke once, a common fault until the service mod (Spirit pushrod) is fitted, and not related to RR363.
The big advantages of LHM (LHM Plus in its present form as approved by R-R) are the elimination of corrosion and vastly superior lubrication. It is also available everywhere and from multiple suppliers.
In short, I would personally give it a punt with all new rubber hoses and caliper seals etc as required at the major service, fitting Spirit spheres with an adaptor. Citröen did even less when they introduced LHM around the time that R-R started with RR363...
Ideas ? |
Robert Chapman
Prolific User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 58
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 14 August, 2004 - 09:13 pm: | |
I have not done this conversion and I dont know of anyone that has.
I have coverted a shadow height control system to HMO and that works very well without any noises,but this is seperated from the brakes on that car.
In theory I dont see why it should not work,it would of course mean changing every rubber part in the system to mineral oil compatible .But these could mostly come from a spirit.
The accumulator valves could be fitted with HMO spheres by meens of a simple adaptor and earlier shadows with a master cylinder could be feed separately with normal brake fluid.
The system would natually have to be thoroughly cleaned and flushed,but since every component would have to be dismantled anyway to change seals that should not present a problem.
In the long term I think this could be a very advantageous and cost affective up-grade. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 297
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 14 August, 2004 - 09:24 pm: | |
Robert,
Brakes are absolutely no problem with LHM. RR quote the identical part numbers for calipers and seals for both RR363 (non-master cylinder 1974+) and LHM cars. |
Mark Peacock
Experienced User
Username: takemehomejames
Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, 14 August, 2004 - 10:18 pm: | |
I have a complete hydraulic system from an early Spirit that ive just dismantled. So in theory, most, if not all the parts from the spirit should be able to retro fit into my Shadow2 ??.Id be able to use the calipers from the spirit, as all my pistons (in the calipers)from my shadow need replacing anyway,due to corrosion .... Im willing to give it a go. I have all the bits...What do you all think ?? |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.180
| | Posted on Saturday, 14 August, 2004 - 10:46 pm: | |
As usual, I continue with the PRACTICAL(Tried AND Proven) approach, by continuing to use a proprietory brand DOT 4 fluid in my Shadow. NO groans or moans (real or imagined!) no "little men with hammers etc.", NO brake pump "failure" nor undue wear (I checked!). The only sound you might hear is the clock AND of course, Crewes "superlative" differential. Worry not that the handbook goes on (and ON) about using "only" 363 fluid for as we all NOW know we should never just "Blindly follow factory bulletins/manuals" et al. But wait.. theres more! If the brake pumps/calipers, Quote; "didnt change" (from the Shadow to the mineral oil Spirit) why do specialist R-R parts suppliers (eg.Introcar) have the suffix/prefix GMF (Green Mineral fluid) incorporated within the Spirit part nos., as listed in their catalogue for those very parts? |
Robert Chapman
Prolific User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 59
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 14 August, 2004 - 11:04 pm: | |
Mark,
I think before you start pulling you SS2 apart this needs a little more homework.
We need to know for sure that the HMO sphere adaptor idear will actually work and physically fit into the space,definitley all rubber components will have to be changed as the part numbers are different and not compatable.
Your spirit caliper pistons will fit the shadow calipers.
All other components such as ,height control valves,pumps,rams, soleniod,roll restrictors,G valve,brake hoses ,supply and return hoses,low pressure switch diaphrams, accumulator valves,height control hoses will need all rubber changed.
All sleel pipe work will have to be traced, flushed through and blown through with compressed air.
Also the reservior will have to be cleaned and sight glass seals changed.
|
Mark Peacock
Frequent User
Username: takemehomejames
Post Number: 11
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, 14 August, 2004 - 11:37 pm: | |
Robert ,
Too late , im already half way the hydraulics as we speak.
The car is at the tail end of a driveline re-build.
The rest of the system i will do anyway due to the age and inop of rams etc. And i dont really want to do this again if i can help it !!
My only confusion is,
-1- LHM / HMO ??
Im a little confused.??
-2- Whats the current hydraulic system for the spirit ?,
-3- and how are those sphere's different to the disposable LHM one's that we've discussed.
|
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 299
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 15 August, 2004 - 12:02 am: | |
The wheel cylinder pistons are the same part. The orginal Shadow front piston CD 5844 is superseded by part CD5737, the same as a Spirit's, but the rears were always CD4074 on both.
I understand that the piston seal material was standardised years ago. Anyhow, it is irrelevant as they would be replaced by a new set of GMF suffixed seals or equivalent. GMF components are of course assembled using LHM, and must not be mixed with RR363 applications. The assembly, and many minor component, part numbers are mostly kept completely different to avoid confusion. If you buy the seals from PBR, they will sell you the same ones for both fluid systems.
DOT 4 is tried and proven all right. Proven that you can get away with the stuff for a while. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 300
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 15 August, 2004 - 12:25 am: | |
LHM, liquide hydraulique minérale, is the generic type name for what R-R called HSMO: Hydraulic System Mineral Oil, or HMO sometimes too. It was developed by Total along with Citröen around 1960.
The R-R manuals, the later ones that is, advise to use LHM Plus, on all SZ cars, which replaced LHM. R-R approved a number of brands, including Total and Castrol. I buy Total LHM Plus from the local Citröen dealer.
Spirit spheres are welded solid and can't be repaired, whereas a Shadows can be rebuilt. Also, the Spirit units have no place for a spanner, so a chain grip is used to remove them and tighten them. They are cheap at £35 each, compared to a kit for a Shadow which costs around £100 to start with. I have no idea of the compatibilites of the Spirit's membrane material with RR363.
The systems are functionally somewhat similar, especially on early Spirits, but there are fundamental differences in the rear suspension. A Spirit rides on gas springs (struts and an additional accumulator sphere at each rear wheel, combining damping and levelling) all the time. A smaller steel spring is used on a Spirit than on a Shadow to give a minimum standing height with no pressure, and to ensure that the gas spring geometry is correct while running. The gas spring may be considered a helper spring to trim the standing height. A Shadow should not normally ride on its rams. |
Robert Chapman
Prolific User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 60
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 15 August, 2004 - 07:04 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
In answer to your questions,
1)HMO =LHM.This is the type of oil used in the spirit system(and some corniche models).
2)HMO
3)The diapram material in the shadow sphere(RR363) is not compatible with HMO and the easy way around that is to use the spirit type sphere.
I beleive the first thing to do is make a dummy adaptor and offer up the HMO sphere with the adaptor to the shadow accumulator valve (still bolted to the cylinder block)and make sure it will actually clear everything .I will be looking into this on Monday .
I recommend that you use genuine RR spirit rubber parts where possible eg,caliper kits,hoses ect as I dont believe PBR make seals or high pressure hoses to suit HMO and why take any chances, as you say you dont want to do this job twice(and using HMO in the system, you may not need to). |
Mark Peacock
Frequent User
Username: takemehomejames
Post Number: 12
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, 15 August, 2004 - 09:22 pm: | |
Thanks Robert and Richard for the info, it makes it all the clearer now.
Another Q is -
Why can't i use the accumulator valve from the spirit that i already have for the sphere.??
Richard, in regards to the rear suspension. do you think the front spheres will be sufficient to operate the rear rams.
You say the shadows dont ride on the rams,
but they do ? if they were not at the correct ride height ie heavy rear passengers/luggage (my wife's suitcase \clipart {lol} !!)??
As to the seals and rubbers etc, i only use the RR parts from (Flying or introcar) ,
and im definately not cutting a corner there !
Also, i pulled the spirit calipers apart.. and the pistons are as good as new !! so thats one less expense. RR363 can be really corrosive.
|
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 301
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 15 August, 2004 - 11:38 pm: | |
Mark,
I only use Crewe parts too, but know that there are alternatives. Introcar will sell you Crewe rubbers etc under the correct part number and with the GMF green dots, but some other outlets, including Flying Spares by the way, sell alternatives repackaged. If you can see the manufacturers' codes you will see that the same seals are sold by these firms as alternatives for both RR363 and LHM systems.
In an emergency there are seals available locally and very cheaply, and are probably just as good if the truth be known, but if you do the major hydraulic service every 8 years you should not have any emergencies.
As you have noticed, LHM fluid ensures that the pistons never wear or corrode, but the seals don't seem to last any longer.
If you can find a suitable place to mount the Spirit accumulator valve bodies, that would be by far the best solution. It would save you finding an adaptor for the threads. You may need to make up some mounting brackets. Then it's down to pipework and possibly threads.
For completeness, you may even choose to fit the Spirit brake pumps, but that may be overkill.
What is your chassis number ? Do you have arrangement drawings for the four locations used by R-R (Spirit RHF of the block skewed, Turbos and later cars LHR of the block skewed, Shadows LHR of the block parallel and Shadow IIs either side of the subframe) ?
The Spirit spheres are at least as high in capacity as a Shadow's, even though it doesn't matter. They will easily cope with the rear rams. If the Shadow is post chassis 22119, the Spirit rear calipers will bolt on. On these cars, of course the hub must be loosened to remove the calipers.
On standing height, even heavily laden our T-Series seldom needs to kick in the levelling. Being an Australian spec car, the rear coils are stiffer than those for other markets, and they are set to the upper height tolerance. However, the levelling is fully functional and correctly set. |
Ashley James
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 62.255.0.5
| | Posted on Monday, 16 August, 2004 - 03:33 am: | |
I wasn't aware there was a problem and simply used Dot4 brake fluid in my Shadow, I ran it like that for five years and changed the fluid every couple of years and cleaned out the resevoirs etc.
No problems of any kind occured.
Quite a few people I know who have Shadows do the same thing.
Certainly LHM is a hell of a lot better if the system can be adapted but as long as the fluid you use is Dot 4, everything seems to work OK. |
Robert Chapman
Prolific User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 61
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 16 August, 2004 - 08:01 pm: | |
Mark,
My reasoning for using the original valves was,
1)An owner would not have to find,purchase and likely overhaul a pair of spirit acc/valves.
(More cost).
2)would not have to make up pipes and fittings to fit the spirit acc/ valves to the original pipe work.
(More cost).
3)would not have to make up brackets and spacers to fit valves to cylinder block in the same position.(More cost).
4)Keeping the old valves will retain more of an original appearance.The green spheres could be painted silver.
I know you said you have a complete spirit for parts but I am thinking of those that may consider this convertion that don't.
Another point that has come to mind is the reservoir would have to be marked or wire sealed to prevent the wrong fluid being used,perhapes a cover plate (with warnings on it)that would have to be physically removed to add fluid.
I have turned up a dummy adaptor today and it doe's appear to fit into the original space,will be turning and threading a proper steel part this week. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.19
| | Posted on Monday, 16 August, 2004 - 08:55 pm: | |
As I do not confine, nor limit, my self confessed, meagre "enthusiast"/laymans motor car knowledge to the narrow (and "safe") confines of only ONE make of car,I am currently in possession of a monthly magazine which relates to another (very well known) make of luxury English car, wherein the publishers are reviewing their liability exposure in relation to their monthly "Q & A" section, whereby readers regularly submit technical questions to the publishers selected board of PROFESSIONALS i.e people who work SOLELY on THAT particular make of car during the course of their DAILY business. QUALIFIED and EXPERIENCED ("in the field") PROFESSIONALS!. In view of this, I suggest that for the protection of THIS Club AND its INDIVIDUAL members (lawyers wont necessarily be bluffed by so called "disclaimers" etc) that amatuer and "D.I.Y" contributors exercise caution when offering / "broadcasting" advice, presented as irrefutable,undeniable "facts". When such advice is routinely delivered in a strident, emphatic and unequivocal manner, readers generally, could be excused for accepting (and perhaps ACTING upon) that TYPE of advice as IF it WERE researched, compiled and published by an AUTHORITIVE source such as THE FACTORY (At best!) or (at the worst/very "least") by a RECOGNIZED, suitably (formally) QUALIFIED "R-R/B" specialist. For example, what liability might attach to the club (and its constituent members) IF someone accepts and PERFORMS a modification which does NOT include a CLEAR reference as to HOW a valve spring is seated (AND located UPON that seat) only to subsequently experience a dropped valve, with the inevitable disastrous and expensive consequences. "Not an issue" (??) "Nothing to worry about" (??). Tell THAT to the hapless owner/s AND their aggressive legal counsel, given that you dont have to be Einstein or a university graduate to KNOW (as DOES a second year apprentice!) that any spring, (ESPECIALLY an engine valve spring) MUST BE LOCATED if it is to perform its function AS a SPRING!. Moving on to case study 2. Re alleged "compatibility" of certain hydraulic seals;Shadow versus mineral oil Spirit and the resolute "statement" that certain specific parts are "UNchanged" between the two models in question. Never mind the fact that these "same"(??) components have DIFFERENT part nos, which is flippantly explained as being the case simply to "avoid confusion". Well of COURSE it IS... since there are TWO different parts for TWO different APPLICATIONS. Does anyone seriously suggest or believe, that car component mnfrs. assign two separate part nos. to the EXACT same part?. Concluding with case study 3. Note how I have personally stated (in this forum) that I have used "Dot 4" spec. hyd. fluid in MY own Shadow (in lieu of 363) and that I have not (personally) noted any operational/service problems or issues. THAT is an undeniable FACT and dare I suggest, is quite DIFFERENT to delivering an emphatic, self assured "pronouncement"/"carved-in-stone" edict (of the TYPE frequently noted in this forum )to the effect that(for example only) "DOT 4 IS THE SAME AS 363". To do so COULD render me liable in the event of consequential material damage and/or personal injury or even a fatality etc. Any legal practitioner will tell you that if you are presenting yourself, or "holding yourself out" as an EXPERT, then you had better make sure that you ARE!.That is to say, a REAL expert. |
Mark Peacock
Frequent User
Username: takemehomejames
Post Number: 13
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, 16 August, 2004 - 09:05 pm: | |
Robert, fair call on the cost factor.
in regards to the reservior, maybe replace the top plaque (warning instructions) and get an engraver to make up a green coloured plaque with the appropriate warnings upon it. Maybe even colour the caps.
I hope your machining endevours this week are successful. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.19
| | Posted on Monday, 16 August, 2004 - 09:57 pm: | |
Fair call on the cost factor? Quite so, for as usual, the esteemed Robert Chapmans PROFESSIONAL findings and conclusions evolve from that tried and proven PRACTICAL forum, simply known as "The WORKPLACE". NOT to be confused with Mumbo Jumbo "theories" as based upon "trial and error" procedures so often performed at someone elses expense. Typically YOUR expense! |
Ashley James
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 62.255.0.5
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 02:33 am: | |
Has anyone considered Dot 5 Silicon fluid that would not require any other changes and lasts indefinitely. RR363 was Dot 3 which has long been obsolete? |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 302
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 05:21 am: | |
Ashley,
I started this thread in May 2003 to try to find a sensible fluid to use, and with some industry support at least. The trouble is that no one in the industry will give a sensible answer. I am convinced that silicone fluid is the way to go, but only privateers will confirm this.
On asking the authorised persons worldwide over the years, the answer has always been, and still is, RR363 or nothing.
True, R-R were badly burned early with the original Girling fluid, but for heaven's sakes that was almost 40 years ago. Technology has moved on.
DOT 4 questions are answered with the same raspberries.
I did use Dot 4 for less than a year around 1985 on the informal recommendation of a chemical engineer at ICI. It may be coincidence, but the rear rams became noisy straight away, and a brake pump failed soon afterwards too. The noises disappeared immediately with RR363 again. The Sydney R-R agent showed me a number of failures that they attributed to DOT 3 and its close relative DOT 4. The samples are so small, however, that it is difficult to draw any significant conclusions.
As this theme started off, it is in my opinion long overdue for the industry to make a sensible statement on compatible fluids for Silver Shadow hydraulic systems.
Let's applaud Mark Peacock in his effort to produce an even better solution altogether. |
Bill Coburn
Grand Master
Username: bill_coburn
Post Number: 222
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 10:08 am: | |
Before we too excited about silicon I have just changed this fluid which had been there for yearsin a Phantom VI . There was no apparent deterioration and a very small residue. The brakes are simple master cylinders with a couple of reservoirs and I managed to get by with 2 1/2 litres of fluid. The fluid retails in Canberra at $132 per litre. Mindful of the gallons of RR363 I have pumped through later cars , I would wonder about the economies of silicone in a Shadow. I agree with Richard, if I had a Shadow I would be working on a conversion to LHM keeping an eye on the liability and road rules etc. Life can be so complicated these days. |
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 272
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 02:12 pm: | |
It is my understanding the Citroen fraternity have experimented with Silicon fluids but their technical forums do not mention this as a replacement for LHS [RR363] systems - my feelings are the LHM conversion is the way to go HOWEVER due consideration has to be given to the low-pressure master cylinder [courtesy of Morris Minor 1000's] on early Shadows - obtaining replacement LHM-compatible piston lip seals may be a problem and probable solution would be to machine a new piston to take compatible standard "O" rings in a double or triple seal configuration.
With regard to John Dare's comments - the use of "experts" to provide advice will inevitable invite problems with liability as the courts will take note of their "expert" status. A Forum such as this does not carry "expert" status and users are expected to exercise due care and caution before following any suggestions - if users have any concerns about liability then they can easily insert a disclaimer with their comments as additional protection.
The legal "kill-joys" have a lot to answer for when it comes to enthusiasts helping other enthusiasts sort out problems where advice and technical information is not available from "expert" providors - perhaps we should host this forum in New Zealand which has enlightened liability laws which recognise the fact that individuals can and must accept liability for their actions.
|
Ashley James
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 62.255.0.5
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 06:54 pm: | |
I believe the primary difference between Dot3 and 4 is the boiling point. Dot 4 having a higher one. I had been told that the RR363 was necessary in Shadows because it too, had a higher boiling point and that when Dot 4 came along, it was no longer necessary. I cannot substantiate this but it is worth checking out. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 303
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 08:06 pm: | |
DOT 4 is a glycol based fluid like DOT 3. At 230C, standard DOT 4 has a higher boiling point than DOT 3. DOT 3 boils at 205C, and both fluids will exhibit a reduced boiling point as water content increases. I understand that the old RR363 had a boiling point of 210C and the new 240C. DOT 5 offers a higher boiling point of 260C.
So far so good.
The only disadvantage of DOT 5 I know of is that any water which gets into the system will boil at 100C. As the water does not simply reduce the performance, it stops a system dead above 100C if any quantity is present. I assume that the same applies with LHM, and there seems to be no problem there. For this reason, both Silicone DOT 5 and LHM systems need regular flushing too.
My understanding is that DOT 3-4 and DOT 5 fluids are compatible with most brake system materials. Exceptions are some silicone rubber external components such as caliper dust seals. |
Robert Chapman
Prolific User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 62
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 08:16 pm: | |
David,
I have also wrestled with the problem of the seal in the conventional master cylinder,eventually I decided to my mind the simplest and most practical solution was to leave the cylinder as is and supply it brake fluid from a small separate remote reservoir.
I see the advantages being,
No need to go to the trouble and expense of having HMO compatable seals made.
The plumbing would be very simple ,with little alteration.
New complete master cylinder will always be available in the future and likely cost less than an HMO compatable seal made in small numbers.
There are plenty of small remote reservoirs about that would look in keeping and also have a low fliud level switch incorporated eg:MK2 JAG. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.31
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 08:18 pm: | |
Let me say it AGAIN. I, and DOZENS of other Shadow owners here in Melbourne, have used proprietory brand DOT 4 Hyraulic fluid over the past 10 (TEN!) years WITHOUT any (NONE!) service or operational problems. NO "noises"; NO "gremlins/little men with hammers" etc., and NO wear (let alone failure) of brake pumps, the internals of which have been MEASURED (BY a PROFESSIONAL) whilst apart (recently) for seal replacement. I do like the alarmist story about "the dealer" and how they found brake pumps that had failed, ALLEGEDLY as a SOLE CONSEQUENCE of not using RR-363. Notwithstanding that dealers have an obvious obligation to follow (and promote!) the official factory "line", doubtless this Doomsayer/Jonah like story can be confirmed by documented evidentiary material (photos of brake pumps and recorded "wear" dimensions would be nice) FROM the DEALER!. Naturally we will have names of the affected owners who can be casually questioned regarding the full and FACTUAL circumstances regarding "their"(alleged) catastrophe. I was taught LONG ago, never to blindly accept bald "assertive" statements (especially when delivered emphatically and with a postive/unashamed air of "authority") WITHOUT some form of evidence being offered to substantiate the so called "facts", bizarre as they so often appear when published in this Forum. I refer the wonderous valve/oil seal "modification" which failed (Absolutely!) to explain HOW the valve spring is subsequently seated and located during this RECOMMENDED modification. STILL awaiting (and awaiting!) "expert" clarification. WHEN will we (mere mortals) be "told"?. Before or AFTER an engine has dropped a valve as a result of an owner relying on the "facts" as posted?. BUT it gets better. MUCH better. Today I read the text on the prime face side of a 3/4 full 5 litre tin of Castrol RR-363 hyd. fluid. It states, QUOTE; "ONLY FOR USE IN THE HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS OF ROLLS-ROYCE AND BENTLEY CARS REQUIRING CONVENTIONAL DOT 3 or 4 BRAKE FLUID". UNQUOTE. Say this to yourself S L O W L Y, and IF the implication is STILL not readily apparent,strike up a chord and/or hum a little "ditty" of sorts, so that you will(eventually) draw a clear INFERENCE from the manufacturers EQUALLY clear IMPLICATION! If anyone wants a photo of the tin (with the all important words!) then I will oblige, for I can substantiate MY claims/observations as opposed to regularly delivering "pronouncements" with the somewhat extraordinary expectation that everyone will "accept" them without question.I am MUCH more confident of the integrity and accuracy of information/advice gently offered and provided by long experienced (and RECOGNIZED) professionals, rather than self taught "D.I.Y"ers and the like. REMEMBER now; DONT follow the recently "announced" valve stem oil seal modification UNTIL we all have positive,UNquivocal and CLEAR clarification regarding the seating and location of the valve spring/s. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 304
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 08:37 pm: | |
I found this note in a BMW document. If true, it is not encouraging for DOT 5.
Of course, RR363 is a fluid which meets DOT 4 specs, but has added lubrication to meet the lubrication requirements of the brake pumps at up to 2,500 psi where normal DOT 4 is inadequate. That's why R-R replaced the Girling standard fluids in a hurry by RR363 after early failures on the first Shadows.
It is most likely that 17% Castrol R and 83% DOT 4 is the answer, but even our joint LHS Citroen Club and RR363 RROC(A) seminars have not succeeded in establishing this.
--------------------------------------------
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 (sic) back to DOT 3-4. If they ever decide to switch, silicone brake fluid will go the way of leaded gas.
|
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 305
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 09:23 pm: | |
Around the same time that RR363 was cobbled together to solve pump seizures, pump pushrods with a weak point were also introduced. They were later superseded by the slightly stronger Spirit pushrods for all Shadow service repairs. They break under overpressure, and were introduced to fail rather than to destroy the camshaft, or worse, if a fault occurred. This was apparently a desperate move by R-R after some well publicised and embarrassing catastrophic failures.
It is apparrent that RR363 was not introduced for fun, but maybe the pumps are all sufficiently worn nowadays that the fluid is indeed less critical.
DOT 4 may well be alright with well used pumps, but why chance it ? There are too many dire warnings out there, especially from those qualified in the industry, for comfort.
Some UK members using intermediate RR363 or DOT 4 complain of noisy rear rams, but the softer rear springs in the UK make them work harder.
Are all those warning really just rubbish ? |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.31
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 09:24 pm: | |
So called "standard" Girling hyd. fluids, said to have "failed" in early Shadows (circa mid/late 60s) have LONG been eclipsed by MODERN "standard" hyd. fluids. Such fluids, typically DOT 3/4 etc.,have specifications which equal if not EXCEED,the various standards specification/s as listed on the labelling/cans of Castrol RR-363 as sighted by me this day. I believe this is known as PROGRESS, occasioned by research and developement. In other words, we have MOVED ON. Most of us, that is. As for the story about the mysterious lubricating "properties" of 363, well, Gee Whiz.. I wonder why MY brake pumps and those of DOZENS of other Melbourne based Shadows havent failed or "worn out"?. DO tell. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 306
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 - 09:34 pm: | |
Robert,
For early Shadows, a Silver Cloud master cylinder reservoir would be a nice touch mounted near the windscreen washer reservoir don't you think ? There would be no problems with fluid types on that unpressurised part of the system of course. |
Ashley James
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 62.255.0.5
| | Posted on Wednesday, 18 August, 2004 - 03:30 am: | |
I am sure that John is correct in what he says but would point out that my BMW motorcycle has to have its brake fluid changed annually. In my opinion the same rule should apply to the Shadow, after all, the fluid looks discoloured after a year and much worse after two. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.1
| | Posted on Wednesday, 18 August, 2004 - 09:10 am: | |
You are absolutely correct Ashley. I DO change my proprietory brand DOT 4 spec. hydraulic fluid about every 12 to 18 months, as I suspect do other Shadow owners, who like myself, have routinely used DOT 4 spec. fluid for a decade or more WITHOUT encountering ANY of the dire consequences so often predicted. I have never changed the SILICON type fluid in my disc braked 1965 "Porsche" 356, having entered such fluid into the system about 12 years ago, however that is another story. I have NEVER advocated the use of Silicon based fluid in a Shadow hydraulic system. Despite that, I have managed to learn something about Silicon fluids (mostly good news!) and indeed, OTHER makes of cars over many years. Tends to broaden ones outlook and overall versatility, rather than limiting ones knowledge to the narrow and restricted confines of one lone make of car. Anyone with a few books,"trial and error" procedures and computer access to the various websites can do that. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 307
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, 18 August, 2004 - 09:24 am: | |
Had a bad night's sleep have you ? Silicon usually ends up as SiO2, read glass, and normally comes from sand. Silicone is something else, a little more rubbery. Go back to bed. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.36
| | Posted on Wednesday, 18 August, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
Every car "expert" Ive met(a veritable cast of thousands!) understands (or should!) differing terminology, spelling variations (eg. do we have "tires" or "tyres"/Gasoline or just Petrol?) and Frederick the Sightless would be able to identify and comprehend subtle "differences" occsasioned by the foregoing factors and/or mere typos. Well within the grasp of a University graduate I should imagine. Yes.. having MANY bad nights, STILL worrying and awaiting CLEAR, UNequivocal clarification regarding valve spring seating/location, see the wonderous, recently suggested valve stem oil seal modification. With all this worry about club exposure(incl member?)to liability in the event of MISLEADING (or totally FALSE!) advice/information, I am now confused myself, about Silicon versus Silicone (with the "e"). Is it the former or the latter that some people use for implants of whichever kind (and location) they may personally be in need of? |
Larry - Total Amateur
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 68.195.74.199
| | Posted on Wednesday, 18 August, 2004 - 02:19 pm: | |
Has any engineer in on the original formulation of RR363 come foward with the exact chemical specification of what lubricant was used? Also, to come forth with info about the exact proportion... This added to DOT 4 would be of higher standard than original RR363, correct?
It should be easy enough to mix up batches of the stuff in the exact proportions to solve the dilemmas. (non-expert hypothesis)
$132 per liter of Silicone? Even as AUS$ that is still far more expensive than I see it in lil' ol' NY. Here it's about $50US a gallon.
Larry |
William H. Trovinger II
Grand Master
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 142
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, 18 August, 2004 - 03:22 pm: | |
John;
I am truly happy to see that you are opening your eyes (so to speak) to the perils of the legal profession  . I am reminded, among others, of your comment from a Feb 1, 2004 post “Anyone can sue anyone, but as most of us know from local experience here, many people can (and have) easily avoided financial penalty via a raft of "mechanisms" "
I must admit that I enjoy reading the comments in this tread and have learned a thing or two along the way. However, as RR 363 is still available and the cost for me delivered is about U$14 per liter verses U$8 per quart for synthetic DOT 4 it is prudent to stay with the “factory blend”. Also locally here (Milwaukee, WI) last summer synthetic DOT 4 was harder to find then gold or WMDs  , as Harley-Davidson was having their 100th Anniversary and it seems their bikes tend to eat this stuff. If 363 does becomes hard to get then we all might find the conversation discussed here worthwhile, I due hope that this does not come to pass.
Regards,
Bill
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.59
| | Posted on Wednesday, 18 August, 2004 - 08:46 pm: | |
Thank you Larry and Bill. YES,YES and Y-E-S!. RR-363 HAS been analysed and by people eminently QUALIFIED to do so. IF the results were ABLE to be published then this "debate" would be "dead in the water" or, should I say "dead in hyd.fluid/s". So WHY havent the results and inescapable conclusions (trust me.. you DONT want to "know"!) ever been published. Let me TELL you, for as William T rightly observes (having alluded to this in his previous posts) it is about LEGAL LIABILITY!. No one is going to categorically declare in this public forum (I certainly wont!) that currently available modern spec. DOT 4 fluids are "the same" as RR-363 (or the converse) NOR that DOT 4s are "just as good and/or better" than RR-363, BECAUSE of the ever present POTENTIAL for legal liability. Most informed readers would know that being technically "right" does not mean that favourable judgemements will necessarily follow, as many people have discovered to their absolute dismay. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 308
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, 18 August, 2004 - 11:22 pm: | |
A quote from an earlier troubled posting:
Quote:
Does anyone seriously suggest or believe, that car component mnfrs. assign two separate part nos. to the EXACT same part?.
Unquote.
And yet, with a similar level of dogma, RR363 is proclaimed to be simply DOT4. Interesting.
Here is a picture of that can of RR363 so often quoted. Perhaps it is going into the wrong empty vessel down there.
 |
Bill Coburn
Grand Master
Username: bill_coburn
Post Number: 223
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 12:16 am: | |
Larry are we talking about the Dow Corning product? At $50 a gallon it would be about the same price as RR363 but would it work? - over to someone that knows and if it works we start an import business in this country at least! |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 309
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 03:16 am: | |
Larry,
More seriously.
I started this thread to aim to explode a few myths. Unfortunately it seems to have created more and exploded none.
There is a limited performance database for RR363 available. Unfortunately, no vital lubrication data, the core of the issue, seems to have been released. Suspicious.
A formal written statement was made by Crewe on December 16, 2003, on the reformulation of RR363 after the original plant producing it was closed. They remained using a DOT3 base.
It should be noted that DOT 4 is an improvement over DOT 3 in every way other than viscosity performance, where the DOT 3 base spec is of a more demanding performance.
Further enquiries have revealed that Castrol and RR agreed that DOT 4 was unsuitable, mainly due to its low temperature viscosity SAE J1704/DOT4 calls for max 1800 at -40C=-40F compared to 1500 for SAE J1703/DOT3. There was also a statement that the lubrication additives of RR363 are not compatible with borate esters. Make up your own mind.
The minimum high temperature viscosity of 1.5 mm^2/sec for both DOT 3 and DOT 4 was also considered too low, compared to RR363 at 2.4.
I assume that viscosity is irrelevant in warmer climates however.
Most DOT 4 and almost all DOT 3/4 fluids do better these figures, and a DOT 3 fluid base with a far higher 100C viscosity was chosen by Castrol. DOT 4 has the same synthetic fluid base as DOT3, but with borate esters added.
As for DOT5 silicone fluid, it is a very strange tale indeed. 20 years ago it was the promise for the future. In the meantime, manufacturers from GM to VW to Porsche have condemned the stuff. Why is this ? Enlightened manufacturers have apparently skipped from DOT3/4 to LHM.
So what’s the hullabaloo ? Who knows. Castrol and RR staunchly defends RR363 and warn against straight DOT 3 and 4 fluids. I personally don’t believe it, but until some credible source puts its neck on the line I’ll stay with RR363. If they are lying, why go to such an elaborate R&D, marketing and distribution effort worldwide for such a miniscule market and a very low margin product ?
PS this is not simply 1960s ancient history. It is transparent action by Castrol this year. It is not a credible solution simply to move on from RR363 to supermarket DOT4.
|
Pat Lockyer.
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 81.131.2.107
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 04:53 am: | |
Richard T Bill C,update on Shadow 1 and new RR363 fluid that i used after the change from dot4 with the noisy pump.
The pump is now running completly quiet,i can only put this down to the lubricating properties within the RR363.
I shall keep it simple with regard to the system running on RR363 and change the fluid every two years.
May i say that the ram seals that i fitted and after many miles (Portugal) with the added wieght of the lpg tank and the caravan have stayed quiet with no leaks[polyseal p200137-4 seals £34.08]
Regarding valve seals and the alarmist discussion on walking springs,i was most interested as i feel my knowledge with some flat fours will indeed mean that the rolls engines are now running at speeds over 12000 revs for this damage to occur.
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.17
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 08:21 am: | |
HEY.. REWIND the tape!.I did NOT say that 363 and DOT 4 were "the same"(nor the converse) AND (read it!) I gave a reason as to why such a statement could NOT be made. Interesting to note that some people are so preoccupied with their own (perceived) self importance that they are not gracious enough (or sufficiently appreciative!) to enquire as to WHO it was who PAID for the LABORATORY TESTING of RR-363!. I guess they dont want to know the result/s, and NO.. there are no prizes for guessing who paid a prominent HYD. BRAKE FLUID MANUFACTURER to undertake and complete the rather involved test/s SIMPLY to prove what had LONG been suspected. FORGET all of the Mumbo Jumbo statistics and figures thrown in simply to confuse and lend an air of authority and legitimacy. As that well known US comic strip character from the 50s was wont to say, "just the FACTS Maam!". I take my facts from the test report AND the best test bed of all i.e the day to day operational use of my own DOT 4 using Shadow (over TEN years!) and DOZENS of others here in Melbourne. A GM engineer recently told me that Joe Public can identify and reveal problems which would take them years(and millions of $)to replicate, something that informed readers knew already. Obviously some mysterious "forces" in the Northern hemisphere provide different hyd. fluid "results" (Ahem..rotation/orientation of the earth?)notwithtanding that QUALIFIED, EXPERIENCED R-R PROFESSIONAL mechanics will tell you that R-R Brake pumps dont suddenly "fail" or stop pumping, because they didnt have R-R 363 in them. An alarming number of neglected Shadows are routinely found to have old (unchanged) fluid in them consisting of more WATER than fluid, BUT they still "work" in a manner of speaking. No one has commented on the words on the Castrol RR-363 metal container which I now REPEAT for the benefit of those without a University degree. Quote; "ONLY FOR USE IN THE HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS OF R-R/B CARS REQUIRING CONVENTIONAL BRAKE FLUID DOT 3/4". UNQUOTE. Saaay it S L O W L Y. In conclusion I could not help but notice what I do believe was a recently posted veiled "concession" of sorts, with an expert comment to the effect that "now that the Shadow pumps are worn then (maybe) the (continued) use of 363 isnt such an issue". Wot??. WORN,"superlative" quality Shadow brake pumps, after ALL those years of using 363 with its magical LUBRICATING properties??. Oh dear. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 310
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 08:32 am: | |
Last night ?? 
Go back to bed, but don't trip over a sleepwalking valve spring this time. |
William H. Trovinger II
Grand Master
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 143
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
John;
You stated in your last post:
"to enquire as to WHO it was who PAID for the LABORATORY TESTING of RR-363!. I guess they dont want to know the result/s, and NO.. there are no prizes for guessing who paid a prominent HYD. BRAKE FLUID MANUFACTURER to undertake and complete the rather involved test/s SIMPLY to prove what had LONG been suspected."
Are you saying that you or someone has had testing done by a chemist on RR 363? If so have you published the results somewhere that I missed?
Regards,
Bill |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.183
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 02:58 pm: | |
Thank you Bill, and glad am I that YOU are not the past possessor of the two OPENED(??)vessels as depicted above. In response to your sensible post/s..Yes, you have "read" it correctly, however, due to legal implications the results cannot be published. I will conclude by reaffirming that I am quite comfortable using reputable, proprietory DOT 4 fluids in my Shadow, notwithstanding the negative and well fortified comments of others. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.183
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 03:41 pm: | |
You dont have to be Sherlock Holmes or Dick Tracy to work out what is being implied in the labelling text on a 5L metal container of RR-363 fluid, which I will refrain from publishing for the THIRD time!. Careful avoidance of addressing this clearly written text can only lead to the inescapable conclusion/s and prove yet again that the "Ostrich" syndrome lives on. I had to BUY my Shadow and "R"type on the OPEN market (incl.my other cars which arent leased or on some weird "shared" ownership arrangement)a reality of life not unknown to those of us who live in the REAL world. It is therefore unlikely that I would ever compromise the mech.integrity,safety, or overall longevity of my RR/B, by fitting parts/applying or using any substance/s etc.,UNLESS such were endorsed by a RECOGNIZED,EXPERIENCED R-R PROFESSIONAL!. The comments of amatuers,"D.I.Yers" and assorted "experts", whilst sometimes of limited assistance, are largely viewed merely as part of the passing sideshow. I employ different,QUALIFIED specialists to attend to my various cars; each to their own dedicated area of PROFESSIONAL, EXPERIENCED expertise (with a given marque) being mindful that whilst glory (5 min."wonders") are fleeting, professional pashion is forever. You can gamble on the red or you can gamble on the black. On "Theory" or PRACTICE. I bet on the latter. |
Ralph Brooks
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 12.219.243.3
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 04:53 pm: | |
John: In my ignorance when I bought my 80 SWII four years ago, I used "off-the-shelf" DOT4 as I do in all my vehicles. No problems so far as I can tell. What "proprietary" brand of DOT4 do you use?
Cheers
Ralph Brooks 1980 SWII LRL40634 |
Bill Coburn
Grand Master
Username: bill_coburn
Post Number: 224
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 11:11 pm: | |
For what it is worth found this letter from Castrol to an officer of the RREC dated 16 Decenber 2003
16 December 2003
Dear Tony,
Hydraulic Fluid RR363
You may recall an entry in your columns of the July/August 2003 edition of the Rolls Royce Enthusiasts' Club Bulletin, which referred to a number of issues surrounding changes to the formulation of the Hydraulic Fluid FIR363. Since the publication of that edition, we have received several communications from enthusiasts as far afield as the USA and Australia expressing concern regarding the history and current status of this product.
1 would very much like to enlist your assistance in delivering a clear message regarding the status of this product so as to ensure Rolls Royce enthusiasts continue to use the product best specified to perform to a standard which promotes high performance and top protection for their cars.
The European plant, which originally manufactured the core product for RR363 was closed down in late 2002. Working with Castrol, an alternative product, already extensively used by OEMs in North America, was identified as a suitable core product replacement for the RR363 formulation.
According to Dr Jane van Tilborg, Manager Brake Fluids, Castrol, this alternative was in fact 'a nearest copy of the original RR363 formulation' which therefore would require limited additives to bring it up to an equivalent standard to the existing product.
The change to the RR363 product was made in late 2002 rather than some of the earlier dates which have been suggested. The new formulation was supplied to Bentley Engineers and was approved after testing on 1 8d November 2002.
During 2002 our general re branding exercise brought on by the dc merger of the Rolls Royce marque from Bentley led to a change in packaging for this product. This change was not connected with the change of the core product in RR363, but took place at or around the same time.
One final point made by the Castrol fluid team in late 2002 was that all 'DOT 3 type' fluids such as RR363 experienced a dramatic price increase during that year, so the whole market faced an increase in price for these products which exceeded normal market inflation price rises.
In summary therefore, the product was re formulated at a time when our aftermarket branding was changing and the supplier price was significantly increased. All these issues were not connected but have become related by association, which has fuelled the concerns we have received.
The message we are keen to send to your members is that Bentley Motors strongly advocates the continued use of RR363 where specified and that the revised formulation as introduced in November 2002 has been properly tested by our engineers.
We will circulate copies of this letter to customers who have raised concerns, It would be appreciated if you can give some consideration to distributing the message within the circulation of the Rolls Royce Enthusiasts' Club Bulletin.
With Kind Regards,
Yours Sincerely,
R Page
|
Keyboard mechanic
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 203.221.240.134
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 11:14 pm: | |
?????? It is therefore unlikely that I would ever compromise the mech.integrity,safety, or overall longevity of my RR/B, by fitting parts/applying or using any substance/s etc.,UNLESS such were endorsed by a RECOGNIZED,EXPERIENCED R-R PROFESSIONAL!.Why use dot 4 then..I employ different,QUALIFIED specialists to attend to my various cars; each to their own dedicated area of PROFESSIONAL, EXPERIENCED expertise (with a given marque) |
Keyboard mechanic
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 203.221.240.134
| | Posted on Thursday, 19 August, 2004 - 11:21 pm: | |
??? I employ different,QUALIFIED specialists to attend to my various cars; each to their own dedicated area of PROFESSIONAL, EXPERIENCED expertise (with a given marque) What's the given marque.... Honda lawn mowers ???. Try and make a usefull arguement instead of harping on about unfaithfull butchery ie non genuine rubbish in the worlds best car....!!!
P's thanks for the Quality of content richard... |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 311
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, 20 August, 2004 - 12:36 am: | |
Bill,
That's the letter I mean, and I have a copy of the original here. Could post it on the board if anyone is interested.
RT. |
William H. Trovinger II
Grand Master
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 144
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, 20 August, 2004 - 04:37 am: | |
John;
What "legal implications" would keep results that have been paid for from being published?
Richard;
If your copy has letterhead then I for one would like to see it. The copy I got was done without letterhead.
Regards,
Bill |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.23
| | Posted on Friday, 20 August, 2004 - 08:30 am: | |
Thank you Bill; Legal implications and constraints prevent me from publishing the report. That fact notwithstanding, I question any obligation on my part do do so, given the costs involved in obtaining the report, which IF published would only be challenged (at best) and at worst, dismissed by that (unqualified) centre of higher reasoning and intellect. Looks like the "back up" cavalry have arrived? |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.23
| | Posted on Friday, 20 August, 2004 - 08:49 am: | |
Noting the demonstrated ability of the more gifted among us to photograph what appear to be beer(?) cans (see prev. posts) and presumably after ingestion of the "lubricating" contents, I am reminded of Andy Warhol who I recall made a fortune from illustrating, among other things, "Campbells" soup cans. Given that the mnfrs. of "363" have already changed the formula (Amusingly, without the then knowledge of the "true believers/party faithful"!)and further, to periodic rumours that production may eventually cease (ask yourself WHY that MIGHT occur!) should I pursue a fortune by photographing tins/cans of "363" before they become extinct and then collectors items?. If so, I will use my trusty "Nikon" (bought in Geneva..or was it Berlin.. Uummm.) to ZOOM in on the ALL important words contained within the labelling text, i.e "ONLY FOR USE IN THE HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS OF ROLLS ROYCE AND BENTLEY CARS REQUIRING CONVENTIONAL BRAKE FLUID DOT 3/4". REPEAT these words 363 times you naughty little boys. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.21
| | Posted on Friday, 20 August, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
Attn; Ralph Brooks; With all this excitement occasioned by the arrival of the urgently summoned "cavalry", I had not noticed your posted question and for that I apologize. My qualified,professional R-R mechanic (of 35 plus years experience) uses in my Shadow, what I BELIEVE to be DOT 4 hyd. fluid made by I.C.I, and you cant get much more "proprietory" than that, given how long that company has existed for. Why-its even BRITISH!. Having said that, I am aware of many other Shadow owners who use equally well known brand names of DOT 4 fluid and why wouldnt they, following THIS revelation, as recently posted, quote; "but maybe the pumps (brake) are sufficiently worn nowadays that the fluid is less critical". unquote. QUITE SO! ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!. I mark, 10/10!. NOW...To "Keyboard" person; In your moment of enthusiasm you failed to notice the KEY word in my post, said word being UNLESS. That is to say, I would NOT introduce or install anything in my RR/B (because in part, due to what I had to PAY for them!) UNLESS said procedures/modifications were endorsed by my professional mechanic following his initial ("in principle") evaluation, culminating with his well trialled "in the field" tests. This he has done with DOT 4 for well over 10 (TEN!) years. I say again; you can bet on "theories"(emotive) OR you can bet on PRACTICE. Place your bets Ladies and Gentlemen. |
William H. Trovinger II
Grand Master
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 145
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, 20 August, 2004 - 03:11 pm: | |
John;
Sorry you did not answer my question. (I maybe going out on a limb here but assuming you are the person who hired this analysis.)
What “Legal implications and constraints prevent” you from publishing said report? Did you sign a confidentiality agreement or something when you hire this firm?
The reason I ask is I find it interesting that; a contractee is restrained by a contractor from using a product he (or she) has pays for. Normally, I have seen it the other way around where the contractor can not utilizes the information obtained while working for one contractee to benefit another.
Regards,
Bill
|
William H. Trovinger II
Grand Master
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 146
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, 20 August, 2004 - 03:28 pm: | |
John;
I guess if we could know the legal complications with publishing this report hopefully someone like Les could help to find away around this roadblock.
On your comment “question any obligation on my part do do so,” I would not say you should look at it as an obligation but more as community service. Many in this forum donate valuable information, yes some has come easy but other information has come at expense to the contributor. Oh, not always a cash expense some more likely is through their personal effort and/or time and I am sure all would agree that time is more valuable then cash, unless one is under 30 that is.
Regards,
Bill
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.95
| | Posted on Friday, 20 August, 2004 - 05:02 pm: | |
Thank you Bill. I agree with your view entirely,and understand your feelings together with the "moral" dimension, however it is not simply about the monetary aspect or the efforts of those who took the initiative to seek and obtain a test analysis. It is about exposing oneself to incessant, constant criticisim and rebuke, somtimes bordering on personal ridicule. I allude to a previous "debate" concerning mechanical compression ratios versus dynamic compression ratios, this inviting a snide,gratuitous comment from ahigh, whereby an observor openly declared that he was "giggling" in what one might infer to be a mocking scorn for those vigourously involved in the technical arguments which were being advanced. With some people you simply cant "tell" them ANYTHING for they believe they "know" it all."Jack/s of ALL trades;Masters of NONE!" as it were. That being the case, I feel it would be a TOTAL waste of time to table ANY report (which failed to vindicate certain Hyd. fluids entirely) NO MATTER HOW AUTHORITIVE the source/s may be. To such dogmatic,self opinionated people (who I usually MEET, eventually!) I ALWAYS ask, "face up" (at my full 6ft 3in and 15 stone) "Is there ANYthing that you DONT know?". The "answer" is usually characterized by a steely,sulky glare and a deafening silence, which I guess says it all. Know what I mean? |
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 273
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 21 August, 2004 - 09:46 am: | |
For the interest of all concerned, I would like to repeat the comments of a senior Castrol executive during a technical seminar at the 2002 RROC[A] Federal Rally at Coffs Harbour at which I was present together with Ian Rimmer [ex-RR engineer with extensive practical experience in the development and refinement of the Shadows during production].
Castrol's position was simply that RR363 is an expensive low-volume product that is an absolute nuisance for them and if there was a suitable alternative from their standard product range, they would switch over immediately with immediate cost savings and no marketing problems. Ian Rimmer advised that his opinion was there was no commercial alternative that could replace RR363 at the present time,
I rest the case for the defence of RR363. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 312
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 21 August, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Thank you, David. And thank you Castrol especially. The cost to Castrol of those single trips to Coffs alone would have eliminated any conveiveable EBIT on RR363 over the next few years. RR363 is clearly not simply existing for any commercial gain. |
Pat Lockyer.
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 81.131.63.134
| | Posted on Saturday, 21 August, 2004 - 04:48 pm: | |
Well done David,
It now is just a matter of those that use dot3/4
to remember that if there pumps are worn they may get away with it for only so long,good pumps in my opinion develop noise running dot 3/4.
Then valve's in the rat trap etc will give up in time.
Of course the rams may put up with the less lubrication but skawks and noises will appear,more so if air is pressent in them.
USEING DOT 3/4 BEWARE!
|
William H. Trovinger II
Grand Master
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 148
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 21 August, 2004 - 11:49 pm: | |
David;
I think you have settled the original question that started this tread (other than of course for those who look for conspiracy theories) and I for one will continue to use RR 363.
I would still love to know what is really in 363, not that I would ever want to “home brew” it rather just for curiosity. But alas I shall have to put 363 into the category with Coke, another formula that the world shall never know.
Best regards,
Bill
|
Wayne Shearman
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 220.244.224.9
| | Posted on Sunday, 22 August, 2004 - 06:06 am: | |
To all it does concern, and those watching from a safe distance, a big Thankyou. To have a passion, a will and a belief as strong as has been shown is wonderful. The 363 debate has brought out some great entertainment. Some people seem to have a love/dislike relationship with their vehicles, sometimes spilling over to other users of the site as well. Spirited communication about the care and future of these cars has inspired me to include late shadow 11s into my list of future purchases. I was until a couple of weeks ago looking at a healthy list of spirits and spurs (having very happily owned a SS1 a few years ago) The empty tin of 363 remains in the shed for possible DNA analysis.
This site has always been helpful, informative, educational and, quite often, a lot of fun. You can't say that about a lot of institutions these days.
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.115
| | Posted on Sunday, 22 August, 2004 - 08:47 am: | |
Publication of the LABORATORY test results would allow MOST people to relax and then sprint out to buy a container of two of proprietory DOT 4 brake fluid AS have I and DOZENS of Shadow owners who I know of. I can but speculate as to how many other users there are out there who live in the real world (Hello, Ralph Brooks; in USA?) However IF I did publish it, the next thing you hear about would be vitriolic scorn together with contradictory "testimomies" from Professor Zog at the Vienna Polytek (hope I speld it correctly) backed up of course by Dr.Ing. Fuertenbleister from Berlin or Geneva. Both of these characters would be as mythical as the matter under debate and as now advanced by the eagerly awaited Cavalry replete with their trumpets blaring. And my, how they DO blare; but NO reference to the implicating text on 363 container (lets avoid "that"!)NO comment on how/why the mnfrs. CHANGED the secret(??) "Coke"-like formula ANYWAY.. and THEN "forgot" to tell everyone! (MOST amusing.A REAL giggle!!). NO "explanation" (Come ON..DONT be coy!) as to why brake pumps on MY Shadow (and all of the others) havent failed/worn out/made "gremlin" type "noises" etc. To the Jonahs who say they "might/will" wear out (STILL waiting after 10 years and 100,ooo ks!) I view such cynical forecasts with the same derision as the advice previously conveyed (by an amatuer) suggesting that Shadow differential gears will "bed in" (to "silent" mode) within a similar time frame or distance. Look back at the amount of posts generated over the "spin on" oil filter adaptor "issue", where a gentle enquiry/statement invited abject scorn and resounding opposition to the OBVIOUS contention that the spin on filter adaptor (To MK6/R type etc) allowed a QUICKER filter change than the standard cartridge insert etc. Review the opposing "arguments" and note the intersting direction, a course which the 363 debate will almost surely follow. FIRSTLY it was "NO quicker".. NOT at all!) THEN it was "Er.. well, (maybe) it IS.. but theres not "much" (time difference) in it". FINALLY (to dismiss and "close") "Well even IF it IS (quicker) whats the matter/whats the "issue" anyway?". A type of "concession" if you like.(or a script from Sir Humphrey Appleby?) not unlike the recent gem to the effect that, "now that the pumps (brake) are worn nowadays, maybe the fluid (363 v Dot 4 is not an issue". Having paid for the Laboratory analysis, I think I will now engage a latter day Sherlock Holmes or Dick Tracy to investigate HOW the brake pumps were worn after being born and raised (by the "true believers") on 363 with all of its wonderful LUBRICATING qualities. In the fullness of time, 363 will be quietly "substituted" by another "Gee Whiz" product(they might even "change" the formula.. AGAIN!!!!)which the party faithful will lap up ,being "assured" (by the mnfrs.) that it is "just as good": the"same" or shock horror.. "BETTER". They will feel even more comfortable if they "read" words TO that effect ON THE RETAIL CONTAINER of the type now before me (AND bearing some "enlightening" words). Or will they? |
Robert Chapman
Prolific User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 63
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, 22 August, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
Hi Bill T,
I dont think we have settled the right question.
The question Richard, and later I posed was, How do owners feel about the idea of converting to HMO.But we have gone off on a tangent discussing the relative merit of RR363 and other Glycol based fluids.
I am sure the easy path for most owners would be to just go on using RR363,but what happens if and when CASTROL decided it can no longer be bothered with it.
As Richard said in his post of May 2003"some preparation is needed for the future".
Should we not be proactive rather than reactive to what might be ahead.
After all ,surely the fluid has always been the week link in the system,I dont think anyone would argue that HMO is not by far the better fluid and represents a far better long term solution.I know some will argue quite correctly that if the fluid was changed every 12 months the rust problem would be minimised,but sadly this does not always happen and I see on a daily bases the increasing nubmer of hydraulic components that have to be resleaved or replaced at great expense.
So I believe the question comes down to, do we ignore the problem and just hope CASTROL keep making RR363 for ever, or do we owners pre-empt any decision CASTROL might make, and insure the longevity of our cars.
. |
Pat Lockyer
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 81.131.90.92
| | Posted on Sunday, 22 August, 2004 - 06:57 pm: | |
Robert c.
Reply to your alarmist post:IF,WHEN,BOTHERED,HOPE, etc,words in the Question if Castrol were to stop makeing RR363?
To put everyones mind at rest Castrol has no intentions of stopping the manufacture of RR363.
They may think about it after earlier posts with regard to the subject if they read them!
There are other independent manufactures that would be only to pleased to manufature RR363 if ever Castrol were to cease production.
There will always be folk that will think if they have the best car in the world that they can rip it apart and alter this and that to try to prove that they can make a better job of it,but who will know what parts to order in 50 years from now.
TIME WILL TELL!
RR363 For ever.
DOT 3/4 BEWARE.
|
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.81
| | Posted on Sunday, 22 August, 2004 - 07:13 pm: | |
Thank you Mr Chapman and Mr Shearman, the latter observing that this site/forum is "helpful,informative, educational and quite often, a lot of fun". Whatever it may be, it would appear that in relation to the topic under this thread, that the "General Assembly" is now in session. Very much so, I would suggest. |
William H. Trovinger II
Grand Master
Username: bill_trovinger
Post Number: 149
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 23 August, 2004 - 12:48 am: | |
Robert;
I stand corrected. As the tread did start with conversion question, thank you for correcting me. On the original question I think Richard (in theory at least) answered that in his post of 14.08.04. Now, the only question is who shall volunteer to be the proverbial lab rat for the trials?
I guess that the comments posted by David on 21.08.04 (at least in my mind) answer the question of 363 versus DOT “take you pick”. Unless of course someone has a chemical analyses done and chooses to post the results, of course the real one of interest to me would be a three way chemical comparison of 363 original, 363 current and DOT “take your pick”.
Best regards,
Bill
|
Pat Lockyer.
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 81.135.90.249
| | Posted on Monday, 23 August, 2004 - 02:18 am: | |
Appoligies to who it may concern.
I feel it was my posting on May 8th was somewhat to blame for the original topic going off course with regard to LHM fluid.
It has not been helped by the tripe and clever words by J Dare of which i have tried to ignore.
It is with this in mind that i find there is real danger that a great amount of interesting input is lost by the numbers of readers of this great mark.
More on LHM to come! |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.192
| | Posted on Monday, 23 August, 2004 - 09:11 am: | |
With apologies to Strother Martin - "Cool Hand Luke"; 1967. "What we have here is a failure to communicate". Being a practical kinda guy I subscribe to the doctrine immortalized in those famous words (by Det. Joe Friday or was it the lesser known Dick Tracy?)i.e "JUST the FACTS Maam!" Ponder THESE if you will. FACT NO.1 . I and DOZENS of other Shadow owners here in Melbourne, the "other", but no LESS relevant "side" of the world (despite insinuations from ahigh to present it so) have used DOT 4 Hyd. fluid over an EXTENDED period of time. FACT NO. 2. Our brake pumps have not "worn out",or failed, nor have our suspensions suffered likewise. No visible evidence exists to suggest that this will occur "one day", despite predictions from assorted doomsayers and Jonahs who feel compelled to uphold the party "line". Poor fellow/s my "fellow" owners. FACT NO. 3. There are countless neglected (sadly) Shadows on the roads today, where, IRRESPECTIVE of the TYPE of fluid therein, the water content% is off the scale, however the systems continue to function in apparent defiance. FACT No. 4. Neither I or other Shadow owners known to me, who, having used DOT 4 over TEN (10!) years, have reported any strange "noises" (you hear "voices" TOO???) nor any evidence to suggest the existence of "gremlins", woodpeckers or (worse) "little men (green?) with hammers" FACT. NO. 5. The 363 formula has been changed at least ONCE ( a fact since ruefully exposed rather than volunteered!) which begs the question; IF it is(was) SO "secret", SO "special" and ever SO dedicated (by formulated design) for Silver Shadows, WHY CHANGE IT? Why, indeed. When all ELSE fails, read the explanatory text "message" as conveyed within the labelling of a can of 363 fluid; refer my prev.post/s. A clear inference should be available to all, none the least to a University graduate or even to assorted amatuer "D.I.Y"ers incl. "trial and error" merchants from New York, Paris, or even Peckham. In conclusion, I confirm that whilst I am enjoying (very MUCH so!) the batting here, others are simply bowling, and I might add, not very well either! |
Bill Coburn
Grand Master
Username: bill_coburn
Post Number: 226
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 23 August, 2004 - 09:38 am: | |
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 whether one Citroen accumulator would have the capacity to fully lift two rams. The SY cars split the task one accumulator to one ram (strut). Then there is the possible 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!!! |
Stephen McLean
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 80.219.133.38
| | Posted on Monday, 23 August, 2004 - 09:39 am: | |
Refer "RR363 Warning" thread: http://au.rrforums.net/forum/messages/17001/504.html?1076961383
(Message edited by admin on August 28, 2004) |
Robert Chapman
Prolific User
Username: shadow
Post Number: 64
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 23 August, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
Bill T,
My apologies if my post sounded corrective,it was not intended.
I will be happy to be the lab rat(if Mark Peacock doesn't beat me to it) as I feel completely confident in changing the fluid to one the factory has already recognised the benefits of and has changed to on some later Shadow derivatives.
I personally don't see it as a comparison between Glycol based fluids,I see it as between Glycol based fluids and LHM.I think the factory has already shown which way they believe to be best. |
Richard Treacy
Grand Master
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 317
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 23 August, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Robert,
If you would do that it would be fabulous.
Forget any comparisons. The improvement would be far from marginal. They would be conclusive.
Expect my full support at all times. Let's move this topic to a new thread.
RT. |
John Dare
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 144.138.194.192
| | Posted on Monday, 23 August, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
Countless "theories" based upon ambiguity/vagueness, combined with hysteria and reams of "statistics" with "gobbledegook", masquerading as "facts", will inevitably be subordinated by the PRACTICAL results/outcomes observed and recorded "in the field"; in the real world as known to most realists in non rarified atmospheres. Refer my field tested/tried and proven FACTS 1 TO 5. As this debate has progressed, I begin to believe that egos large enough to cast a "Shadow" (pun intended) on the Matterhorn, seek to perpetuate the myth that "our" cars are SO special/unique/"different" (and by veiled inference so too are WE as the owners!) THAT, why - they EVEN "have" to have SPECIAL BRAKE FLUID!. Not ANY old plebian issue, common supermarket stuff like that used in "Fawds" or "Shevvies" mind you; NoSiree.. WE have to use "rocket science"/Gee Whiz/"secret" concoctions, the basic formula of which is UNKNOWN. Er..well to MOST people that is. The "X" Files as it were. This issue, and like "stories"/myths/folklore, make for robust,if not boring (to some) conversation at dinner parties and/or fireside dissertations from the worldly and wise, ie those self appointed (annointed too?) "lecturers" who "know" what is "best" for the mere mortals among us. Keep bowling! |
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 275
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, 23 August, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
Enough is enough and my patience is now exhausted with repetitious posts that are not contributing to this serious discussion on a topic of major concern to owners of cars with RR363 hydraulic systems. I believe we have been more than reasonable with the tolerance extended to contributors to this thread however our tolerance is being seen as a sign of weakness rather than a privilege.
I will now delete all future posts that, in my opinion, do not make a constructive contribution to the replacement of RR363 with LHM fluid without prior consultation with the author. |
Mark Peacock
Frequent User
Username: takemehomejames
Post Number: 15
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, 24 August, 2004 - 10:20 pm: | |
Here here David. I too would like to see this change into a LHM replacement post.
Robert/Bill T. i think 2 lab rats are better than 1. Im also quite confident that a fluid change (LHM)for the better can be done.
Robert, how did you go with the adapter for the Accumulator ??
|
Richard Treacy
Yet to post message
Username: richard_treacy
Post Number: 17
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, 23 May, 2003 - 10:03 pm: | |
Time to bite the bullet before it bites us?
Many of us, including myself, have been rather pious about using RR363 in Silver Shadows. Unfortunately, I have been hearing rumours that Castrol may soon discontinue RR363 as the market is relatively tiny and expensive to maintain. I have also heard that RR363 was reformulated last year, and UK members are reporting suffering an abnormal rate of groans and clicks in the rear suspension rams popping up. Maybe it's time to put Castrol out of its misery.
Unfortunately, the theme so far has been to save
a few cents by buying discount fluids, but Castrol may dump us anytime. Until then I shall use RR363, but some preparation is needed for the future.
The Citroen people have done this already for the pre-mineral oil DSs and IDs. They have developed a concoction to replace the early fluids which
have been discontinued. I am alarmed that Castrol has already reformulated RR363, and if this is causing widespread ram troubles we should act now.
A sensible debate would be useful so long as it is based on facts and not just cost (savings will follow anyhow), and I would like Castrol and Crewe
to come clean in the bargain. If we could change to LHM at the major service (ie with new spheres, all new hoses and seals which can be derived from Silver Spirits), that would be ideal but may be unrealistic. There is a lot of mumbo jumbo on this topic I believe, but one thing is sure: normal brake fluid is unsuitable, but there must be an alternative once RR363 is no longer available or its formular is no longer
adequate.
Look at this for interest:
http://www.cta.a.se/lhs-info.htm
and this:
http://www.pleiades.uk.com/products_2.html
Ideas ?
RT.
|
David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore
Post Number: 31
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 24 May, 2003 - 07:25 am: | |
Hi Richard,
Have extracted the following information from the Shadow Registry Report in the April 2003 edition of "Praeclarum" - hope you find this of interest.
RR363 update
George Shores discovered an interesting issue with RR363 during his trip to the U.K. and writes:
“In recent times, several Silver Shadow owners complained of the strange noises produced by the rear suspension of their cars. The sounds were variously described as `hammering' or `groans' and attributed to `gremlins' by frustrated repairers. The noises were intermittent and often occurred after the car was stationary and the engine switched off.
Many theories were forwarded. Some suspected problem areas were:
• Worn or eroded rear height control ram pistons,
• Poorly adjusted height control solenoids,
• Incorrect curvature of the rear suspension springs,
• Inefficient or maladjusted height control valves
• Unserviceable hydraulic hoses
• Malfunctioning distribution valve in the No. 2 system
• Dirty hydraulic fluid.
Many of the professional repair authorities (both here and abroad) spent hours trying to track down the source of the noises for anxious and increasingly impatient owners. Do it yourselfers like me also became frustrated (although one benefit was that normally untouched areas got a thorough seeing to!). No rectification seemed to have a lasting effect. Most owners were advised to ignore the noises in the hope that they would go away.
At the Silver Shadow seminar that I attended at Hunt House, the problem of hydraulic noises was discussed. The upshot of it all was that there was a recent change in manufacturing specifications of RR363. It seems that the lubricating qualities of the oil may not be up to par. As we all know, Castrol is the sole supplier of RR363 and it is made in such small quantities (relatively speaking) that it really is quite a nuisance for them. The problem has now been addressed and the reformulated oil should be available next year. In my view, this all makes sense. A friend was telling me some time ago that the 'little man with the hammer' was driving him to distraction. I theorised and pondered too.
Nothing seemed to work. Then I did a routine hydraulic fluid change and lo and behold, strange noises began to occur in my car. I had noticed that the new oil in the I litre plastic containers looked different to the oil I had previously used (from 5 litre square tins) but didn't think anything of it. I simply thought that the new stuff hadn't yellowed with age!
Other members are also telling me that the noises are being experienced and that they too, change their hydraulic oil frequently (as recommended and as a preventative measure).
Owners could scramble around for old stocks of RR363 and flush out their systems. Or do as I have chosen to do. I have disconnected the operating levers from the chassis end of the height control valves and will reconnect them when the new oil becomes available.
I believe that the currently available oil is clearer than the previous one, and that its replacement will be more yellow, but don't quote me on that one.
The above is merely another theory, but to me, all of the clues fit. I hope it is the solution because I for one have run out of ideas.”
Castrol's Response
I sought Castrol's comments and they have advised that:
"Castrol RR363 Central System Hydraulic Fluid is a DOT3 polyglycol fluid for use in Rolls-Royce vehicles prior to Serial Number 50,000. It contains special additives to lubricate hydraulic pumps".
Mr Neil McTavish, Castrol's National Automotive Technical Manager, added, "RR363 did change in formulation back in 1998. The reason for the change was the non-availability of the base fluid. This was declared to Rolls-Royce and the new formulation approved.
"Due to current supply issues, the RR363 that we now use is about to dry up. We have informed R-R of this and mentioned that by the end of the year we will have a problem. We have provided an alternative product which R-R have now fully approved."
Members requiring any further information can call the Castrol Technical Helpline on 1300-557-998 between 8.30 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. (Melbourne time).
|
Bill Coburn
Yet to post message
Username: bill_coburn
Post Number: 13
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, 24 May, 2003 - 09:10 am: | |
I was talking to a highly experienced practitioner in matters Rolls-Royce who pointed out something that everybody knows but seldom does anything about. That is to periodically clean out the restrictors on the rear subframe. The minutist bit of grit in this department will produce extraordinary noises even when the car is stationary. They are well worth the effort to rip off and throughly clean them. If they have ingrained crud in them try immersion in your mate's sonic cleaner! |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page