DOT 3 Castrol RR363 Brake Fluid

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   William H. Trovinger II Frequent User Username: bill_trovinger Post Number: 30 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Saturday, 27 September, 2003 - 01:41 pm:    David; Was wondering if you or anyone else has yet had luck getting a chemist to do a comparison of the old RR 363 and the new? Regards, Bill   David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 111 Registered: 4-2003 Posted on Saturday, 27 September, 2003 - 02:59 pm:    Bill, Following two recent deaths in our family within a week and two major building projects that have fallen behind schedule; I have had very little time to do anything else other than spending a little time on the internet at odd times to keep up-to-date with the forums. I have been given a contact within the chemical industry who may be able to help with the analyses but have been unable to make contact due to my other commitments - I have to get this done before our R-R/Citroen technical session in November. I hope to be able to have some spare time in early October to get this underway. As soon as I have anything to report, you will read it on this site first.   William H. Trovinger II Prolific User Username: bill_trovinger Post Number: 31 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Saturday, 27 September, 2003 - 11:24 pm:    David; Sorry to hear and I can understand. Regards, Bill   whunter Frequent User Username: whunter Post Number: 26 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Sunday, 16 November, 2003 - 04:21 pm:    Hello Everyone This link may be of interest to some club members. http://www.lucastestequipment.com/brake/brake_2.htm Have a great day. whunter RROC, Lake Michigan, Motor and Ohio region. ASE Master Mechanic Bloomfield Eurotech 45671 Woodward Avenue Pontiac, MI 48341 Work Phone 248-334-6400 Fax 248-334-2363 asemastermechanic@juno.com   Dwayne Kennemore New User Username: dkennemo Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Wednesday, 31 December, 2003 - 03:39 pm:    Will, So what was the total on the replacement hose? You said it was 1/10th the price ... but what did that come out to? Also: On the legal liability issue, I would expect that the party modifying the brakes would be the one ultimately responsible for failure, not the driver of the vehicle. Doesn't that sound right -- after all, the mechanic doing the installation is the one holding himself out to the public as being competent in these matters. And his commercial general liability insurance would cover this. But those are just my initial thoughts -- the best way to find out would be to review precedent cases with similar fact patterns in whatever jurisdiction is relevant to you. I'm sure this has come up before.   William H. Trovinger II Prolific User Username: bill_trovinger Post Number: 56 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Wednesday, 31 December, 2003 - 04:17 pm:    Dwayne; On the hose price if I remember correctly the factory line was about U$ 300.00 and the replacement I found was just under U$30. On liability, I do not believe that one hose would shift liability unless one could prove that said hose failed and thereby caused the entire system with all it's redundancy to fail. As the rest of the system in "original" design and this hose exceeds factory specs. That would be a hard case for any litigator to argue certainly harder then Michael Jackson's sanity. The cases I am familiar with the owner or mechanic made "major" modifications to safe systems in direct violation of all published documentation from the factory. Even in a few of those cases some liability was placed on the factory as the courts felt they had not done enough to foresee the modifications and prevent them or protect against them. Face the facts anyone suing will be going after the "deepest pockets" there by the factory's product liability insurance and those are "big mean" companies that juries just love to punish. Happy New Year, Bill   Dwayne Kennemore Experienced User Username: dkennemo Post Number: 6 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Thursday, 01 January, 2004 - 05:25 am:    What's in RR363? Is it petroleum based? Thanks.   William H. Trovinger II Prolific User Username: bill_trovinger Post Number: 59 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Thursday, 01 January, 2004 - 07:18 am:    Dwayne; The really question is what different aditives are in the 3 different versions of RR 363, original, reformulated and the re-reformulated. My understanding is that it is basic DOT 3 brake fluid that because of additives is able to take the heat and provide the lubrication needed for the Shadow's system. Regards, Bill   seRRgio Unregistered guest Posted From: 213.102.198.15 Posted on Tuesday, 06 January, 2004 - 03:21 am:    Hi Everybody Happy New year ! I just want to know if someone (principaly David !) have news about the actual RR363 ? As Jim have reported on 25th august here (and I have the issue259 from RREC bulletin he spok, but the information is in p.15, not 14), and as I have read in other part, it seams that Castrol have reformulating the RR363 again ? Is it true ? did somebody use the "very actual" RR363 without problems on arms or know some owner who did ? by serge (SRH22789)   David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 167 Registered: 4-2003 Posted on Tuesday, 06 January, 2004 - 04:52 am:    Hi SeRRgio, Have had some initial feed-back on the "new" fluid - it is definitely more yellow than the previous formulation [the lack of colour is now believed to indicate the reduction of the lubricating capabilities of the previous formulation]. One owner who had previously been experiencing a "sticky" brake pedal [probably the spool valves sticking] has reported this problem disappeared after the "new" fluid was used. Only time will tell if our deductions are correct - I doubt if Crewe Parts and Castrol will ever confirm a change has taken place because of potential legal liability problems from owners who incurred repair costs as a result of using the old fluid [especially in litigious countries like the USA].   Robert Chapman New User Username: shadow Post Number: 4 Registered: 5-2003 Posted on Wednesday, 07 January, 2004 - 08:41 pm:    I have been reading this discussion about RR363, engine and brake conversion for some months now with great interest as I have been working on all of these problems for over 2 years. I currently have a SS11 on the road undergoing field trials that is fitted with a GMC engine, a conventional brake system, which has engineering certification, and a self levelling system converted to use HMO. The car has currently covered 3000km.This work came about because on many occasions when overhauling RR and Bentley V8 engines we find cylinder blocks that are so badly cracked or corroded that they are beyond economical or practical repair. This leaves us with problem of finding a suitable replacement block. Since the cost of a new block in many cases would be more than the value of the car this is not an option. The next option is to find a second hand block that is not cracked or corroded and since all these engines are getting on in years this is becoming more and more difficult. Even if we can find a usable second hand block they are usually priced at about 5-7 thousand dollars. This means by the time all the other new parts are fitted the owner could be looking at a 25-30 K engine rebuild and what he would have is an old block with a lot of new parts in it and a bill for more than the value of the car. This cost is only for the engine the car may well have other money to be spent on it. This leaves the totally unpalatable option of breaking the car up for parts, but to my mind it is totally foreign and contrary to what RR and car clubs are all about. This is why over the past two years I have been carrying out work with alternative power plants to keep these cars on the road and out of the breakers yard. I am not suggesting that every car that needs and engine overhaul should have an alternative engine fitted to it. My belief is that any RR engine that is repairable should be repaired, but if it is beyond economical repair then an alternative engine is a better option than to scrap another car. Through much research I have found that in fact the most appropriate engine to fit to the GM transmission, the GM power steering, the GM air conditioning and GM emission control equipment is in fact a GM engine. The criteria we used to judge the suitability of a replacement engine was; a) it must fit nicely into the engine bay (ease of maintenance). b) It must have components such as distributor etc in the same position as the original engine. c) It must not look obviously or dramatically different when opening the bonnet (no chrome air filters or four barrel carbys). d) It must run smoothly and quietly. This GMC engine meets all these requirements. Our objective was to make the engine look factory fitted, this meant fitting all the original equipment to the engine including SU carbys, linkages, power steering pump, emission equipment, radiator etc etc. What about the brakes and self levelling? The truth is that fitting the engine was not such an engineering challenge but the brakes and self-levelling suspension are a different matter, and this is where the time and effort comes in. Since the new engine has no provision for the original two hydraulic pumps a great deal of thought has gone into how to make the brakes and self-levelling system work. Some would suggest it is easy, no problem, simply mount a pump on the front of the engine and drive it with a fan belt. All these ideas were investigated and passed over for the safer and less complicated conventional system. The brakes had to meet Australian design rules and therefore had to have both systems kept completely separate. It had to meet deceleration requirements assisted and non assisted. To obtain correct pedal feel, height and balance took an enormous amount of time. The system is fitted with additional vacuum storage tanks and this provides twenty assisted applications of the brakes if the engine stops. As mentioned before the self-levelling system has been kept separate and original (except for rubber components) and is converted to use HMO therefore overcoming noises associated with brake fluid rust particle contamination.   Jon Rothwell Unregistered guest Posted From: 202.72.131.230 Posted on Thursday, 08 January, 2004 - 09:31 pm:    Looks like a great conversion, what GM engine did you use, and how did you overcome the supposed limitations of a conventional braking system?   Robert Chapman New User Username: shadow Post Number: 5 Registered: 5-2003 Posted on Thursday, 08 January, 2004 - 11:24 pm:    Its a brand new 350 vortec,255bhp@4000rpm -330ftlbs torque@2800rpm,4 bolt mains ,roller lifters 4500 AUS dollars complete .Performance is very strong,and fuel consumption much reduced. Engine is much lighter than original RR.Fuel weakening system works well with exhaust cat to produce very low emissions.The brakes(discs,calipers,G valvue,pipe work)remain as original,its only the method of producing the pressure is changed.This system produces that pressure much more progressively and gives the pedal great feel.Electronic brake testing has proved that this system can easily match the original in all aspects,with much less complication .   Bill Coburn Prolific User Username: bill_coburn Post Number: 95 Registered: 4-2003 Posted on Friday, 09 January, 2004 - 08:29 am:    Robert/ Heretical as you may be you are the first owner/operator that I am aware of that has addressed this problem of replacement engines for our cars. You are not the first to tackle the problem generally. With other models and I instance the fabled and fabulous Phantom III a number of which are happily getting around with RR B80 engines fitted in many cases by the Factory as the original 12 cylinder power plant finally disintegrated. We, many of us (probably most of us) who have grown up with cast iron blocks, expect that they will, with the utmost care, last forever. But I have finally had confirmed that using exactly the antifreeze/corrosion mixes desgned and recommended by the Factory, the Rolls-Royce vee eight motor IS going to corrode. So EVERY engine running around to day has a very definite use-by date looming. So like it or not we scrap the cars when the time comes mortgage the house and get an exchange engine or re-engine them as you have to keep them on the road. Ideally, had the Factory survived they could have reproduced new blocks and sold them at cost plus postage but that is not to be. They are however still supplying rebuilt engines on an exchange basis but the unit landed in Sydney is about $50K and then you are up for the labour to install it. To me it all looks rather bleak. Pre-Shadow cars will most likely last longer but governments in many parts of the world are taking a very jaundiced view at the emmision performance of these old engines and I forsee, hopefully not in my lifetime, your Mk VI requiring a specific permit to take it out for a rally display etc but otherwise it remains in the garage/museum back yard etc. Hopefully you will brave the purists, tolerate the lemon sucking and bring your 'Silver Bastard' to the forthcoming Federal Rally as I am sure there will be a lot of curious eyes to satisfy! We may even start another round of ridiculous posturing about whether a Rolls-Royce 'Silver Vortec' is a Rolls-Royce at all and then we can debate ad nauseum whether these cars should be driven from the portals of our Club. Come to think of it, 'Silver Vortec' has a nice ring to it I just hope that Vortec in another language does not mean something naughty. Remember the hurried change of mind at the Factory with the subsequently titled Silver Shadow which was originally named the 'Silver Mist'. The hurried change occurred when someone pointed out the meaning of the German word 'mist'! And whilst on that tangent we all like to point out the colloquial meaning of the Spanish model name Pajero for a popular 4WD. I looked this up recently and it actually means straw gatherer! Make of that what you will!   J.G.Dare Unregistered guest Posted From: 144.138.194.145 Posted on Friday, 09 January, 2004 - 05:19 pm:    If BMW can fit a BMW engine to a R-R (Seraph)and VW can likewise fit a VW engine to a Bentley (Cont.GT) what can be "wrong" with the PROFESSIONAL ("Factory" like!) installtion of a modern "state-of-the art" GM engine into a Silver Shadow with its existing GM T-400 trans.as installed along with the "Saginaw"power steering box; "Frigidaire" air. cond. compressor; "Kienzle" clock and (possibly) "Boge" shock absorbers, plus ( you get MORE!) hydraulics licenced by "Citroen" with a plaque on the bulkhead to remind us. In any event, WHO can say that if no commercial arrangements had existed between R-R & BMW (Aero engines etc) and that R-R motors had not been sold (to anyone!) that R-R would not have shortlisted the GM engine as its "logical" next generation powerplant (with trans!) given the cost of small volume production with the added burden of the continued development of the venerable, but ageing, 6.75L engine, to meet ever changing global requirements?   Larry Halpert Experienced User Username: larry_halpert Post Number: 6 Registered: 9-2003 Posted on Friday, 09 January, 2004 - 05:33 pm:    And, there's what the american Chevy "Nova" means in spanish... Larry - tbird@consultant.com   Robert Chapman Experienced User Username: shadow Post Number: 8 Registered: 5-2003 Posted on Friday, 09 January, 2004 - 10:43 pm:    It certainly doe's Larry and proberly for twice as long without leaking oil,noisey hydraulic lifters,coolant leaking from cylinder head gaskets and the brakes will ALWAYS work.   serge Unregistered guest Posted From: 80.170.56.158 Posted on Saturday, 10 January, 2004 - 09:45 pm:    Hi, I'm cooming back about the RR363: does anyone have a last new bottle to show by picture, here or at sergepontes@hotmail.com ? thanks SeRRgio PS. I've tryed to register last week but my account is always suspended...   Larry Unregistered guest Posted From: 68.195.74.199 Posted on Sunday, 11 January, 2004 - 06:43 pm:    Hi Robert, I was commenting on Bill Coburn's point on what Silver "Mist" means in German, as a similar situation of the Chevy "Nova" translation in Spanish. Two negative connotations. No reflection on the reliability of the work you are doing. Sorry for the confusion... Larry   Richard Treacy Prolific User Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 91 Registered: 4-2003 Posted on Sunday, 11 January, 2004 - 11:33 pm:    Mist is a natural substance, which comes regularly from the rear of live cows, which I put on my garden to make the flowers grow here in German-speaking Switzerland....   Bob UK Unregistered guest Posted From: 195.93.33.11 Posted on Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 - 06:01 am:    Which why a lot of makers opt for numbers instead of names it safer than insulting latin american young males the very market that The Nova was aimmed at in that region. They taking the mist.   Kees Scherer Posted on Sunday, 18 March, 2001 - 01:44 pm:    Does anyone know if the new types of DOT4 brake fluids can be used in a Silver Shadow? I still use the RR 363 but people keep telling that I can switch to newer types. (I do not want to mess with my seal...) The Swammelstein Rolls Royce   Don Beechey Posted on Sunday, 18 March, 2001 - 01:45 pm:    I have a 67 shadow that has had the brake fluid changed to dot4. My RR technician has assured me he has done this with many silver shadows without a problem. My car seems to be braking normally without any problem. I live in Florida, USA where it can be very humid which is hard on RR363. I am in no way advocating anyone do this to their car.   Bill Vatter Posted on Sunday, 18 March, 2001 - 01:46 pm:    I believe it is always good to stay with what the factory recommends. Supposedly RR363 has better lubricating properties compared with other brake fluids. The most important thing to prevent major repairs to the hydraulic system is to change the fluid regularly, 2 years is not too often. Above all do not use DOT 5, which is silicone fluid. It can cause rubber parts to swell, and it would result in major expense.   Martin Cutler Posted on Sunday, 18 March, 2001 - 01:48 pm:    Hi guys, Most important thing to remember is not to mix types. If you are going to change from DOT3 to DOT 4, you need to completely flush everything out, clean it, and then it can be changed. Some of my freinds have even had problems mixing different brands. The rubber brake lines on the front end will suffer from age, so might be a good thing to check. (I replaced mine on the MK VI, they where not very expensive.) To follow on from Bills advice, do change the fliud regularly, if the car is used or not. Brake fluid absorbs water, and you will be amazed how rusty and dirty the inside of wheel cylinders can be. Reminds me I need to do mine! Martin   Steve Posted on Sunday, 18 March, 2001 - 10:19 pm:    I have never found out what the lubricating additive used in RR 363 is but I do know of vehicles using DOT 4 fluids that so far have not suffered any obvious problems. My own feeling is that RR 363 is not required for any of the rubber components as they are compatible with standard DOT fluids and the rubber seals work in the same way as a conventional hydraulic system. The brake pumps however have no seals on the pumping elements. Instead they rely just on finely machined clearances to prevent leakage past the plunger into the engine, the minimal amount that should leak past provides the only lubrication. As they are camshaft driven they pump at half engine speed so one can easily imagine how any failure in lubrication would rapidly destroy the brake pump plunger clearances. Early Spirit's suffered from mineral oil consumption when the clearances between the plunger element and its bore were mismatched. Frequent topping up and unfamiliarity with Hydraulic System Mineral Oil resulted in many systems being contaminated with RR 363 or other DOT fluids. Contamination above a very small percentage was disastrous and required a complete system overhaul. At this time all unknown mineral system cars that passed through a RR workshop were routinely checked for contamination. The lead seals on HSMO reservoirs are embossed with a unique dealer number. Before they placed their mark they made very certain the system was clean. Adding another DOT spec fluid to a RR 363 system should not have the same catastrophic effect. DOT 5 fluids are compatible with the rubber components if they are fairly new but an additional complication would occur due to their relative compressibility. The brake pumps operate at half engine speed and pumping an unstable column of fluid at up to 2500 psi rules out its use. For the same reason vehicles equipped with ABS brakes do not use DOT 5. I look after a large collection of cars and would never use DOT 3 because it absorbs moisture so quickly. The exception to this is RR 363 and although I would like to find an alternative no oil manufacturer will tell me they have a suitable alternative for a Rolls-Royce system. In the absence of truly expert advice I don't feel the cost saving offsets the risk of damage to the brake pumps. The system will work just as efficiently with DOT 4 fluid but you may find after a while the frequency with which you have to top up the reservoirs increases. I live in Malaysia, which probably has very similar humidity levels to Florida, and even with DOT 4 change fluid at least once a year.   Dominic Browne Posted on Tuesday, 11 September, 2001 - 03:44 am:    I put some DOT 4 from Castrol Response into my front system on my shadow, topping up the existing RR363 fluid. I went to my Rolls Royce Dealer ( Auto Konig in Munchen ) soon after, but the engineer there said that it was ok to have added the DOT 4 oil to t he existing RR363 and did not recomend flushig out the system. Does anyone think this was good, bad or very bad advice? I still feel uneasy about having mixed the RR363 with DOT4 Castrol Response fluid, but the engineer was a proper RR trained engineer. I hope it was not a case of his good but faulty english and my apauling german that got the message lost in the translation, but I did show him the bottle.   Richard Treacy Posted on Thursday, 13 September, 2001 - 05:39 pm:    Very bad advice indeed. This is the oldest subject in the Shadow book. Don't listen to self named and so called experts who suggest anything but RR363. You might as well use no antifreeze in the radiator. Cooling works for a while with straight water too. Better flush and refill with RR363 ASAP. From another Australian living in a German speaking country. You are not driving a Mercedes after all. RT.   Bill Coburn Posted on Sunday, 14 October, 2001 - 11:20 am:    Why change - it works and has done for over 30 years.   Richard Treacy Posted on Monday, 15 October, 2001 - 06:53 pm:    Bill, hear hear. If the RR363 still does a perfect job after 35 years, why fiddle around with unapproved alternatives which may or may not cause expensive damage. RR363 is not too expensive afterall, especially if you buy 4 litres from the Castrol wholesaler (put it in 1 litre plastic bottles and seal them off). It only costs about the price of cheap wine to put the price in context. I wouldn't drink metholated spirits with grape juice to save on the price of Cabernet afterall. Why is there so much discussion ? Is it that you can't buy RR363 at K-Mart to save a few dollars ? Take heart: I just bought two litres of HSMO for Spirit/Mulsanne onwards cars, the exact same fluid as used on Citroens and Jaguars by the way, at $20 per litre, so be assured RR363 is a bargain. You can use engine or transmission oil in an emergency in the HSMO systems, but why skimp ? Anyhow, the cars were delivered with two litres of spare HSMO fluid in a special boot compartment. Rolls-Royce didn't do that for fun either. When all else fails, read the instructions. RT.   Robert Reddington (213.1.101.18) Posted on Monday, 13 May, 2002 - 12:18 am:    I have used dot 4 brake fluid in my car for 13 years and have had no problems whats so ever. If you study the technical specifications it says that dot 4 is better than dot 3. Never use mineral based fuilds in dot systems. I change my fuild every year. I drain the reservoir via the two low pressure return pipes from the valve block.Take the lid off the res. clean any scum out with a lint free wipe. Bleed the system out. With the manual system I use a vacuum pump rather than pump the foot brake. I buy the fuild in 5 litre cans which usually leaves a litre for topping up. But I use this for changing the fuild on my other vehicles, and I buy a SEALED 1 litre bottle for the Shad. A tip is to have a bucket of soapy water on standby in case of spillage because it strips piant. Why did RR us dot fliuds ???? I would have designed the system to use LHM green or better still JCB type hydraulic oil. dot fuilds are nasty stuff very nasty. I am very fussy with my hydraulics. Oh yeah rubber hoses can become partially restricted causing the brakes to drag I change them every 4 years and my stoppers work well. It may sound expensive but you must not attempt run the car with spending the wonger, which is the undoing of many Shads. Any way it gets me out of the house and I like working on my car.   Bob (213.1.101.18) Posted on Monday, 13 May, 2002 - 12:23 am:    That black scum in dot fuilds is the additives surrounding the impurities. When the scum appears change the fuild. The electrical resistance of the fuild changes (lower) as the dead bodies (scum) build up which is how a brake fuild tester works.   Greg Churm (203.51.42.177) Posted on Tuesday, 21 January, 2003 - 09:26 pm:    Here is some info from the source for RR power hudraulics - Citroen. Early D's used LHS or red fluid. When that became unavailable the recommendation was to use RR 363. Unfortunately this has all the problems of the old fluid - hydroscopic, poor lubrication, paint stripping. This especially so in comparison to LHM which is the green fluid used in all hydropneumatic Citroens since 1966 which solved all these problems at a stroke. This is the major reason why the hydraulics on post 1966 Citroens are bullet proof. This has been just as big/old a topic on Citroen boards. To cut to the end a lot of drivers of these pre 1965 D's have switched to canola oil. Apparently it is fully compatible with the seals and lubricates far better than RR 363. It is also cheap.   David Gore (63.60.7.175) Posted on Wednesday, 22 January, 2003 - 12:53 am:    One Question - who is going to be the first to test this in their vehicle? I, for one, will let some other wealthy experimenter lead the way.   Richard Treacy (217.162.168.47) Posted on Wednesday, 22 January, 2003 - 04:13 am:    Not this black duck. Citis are one thing. RR363 is another.   Bill Coburn (203.51.25.155) Posted on Wednesday, 22 January, 2003 - 07:36 am:    Well it would be handy on a picnic if you forgot the salad dressing!!! Necessity is certainly the mother of invention. Five hundred years ago when I was commanding a transport unit, one of our American 6 x 6 trucks severed a brake hose. The terrain dictated the use of brakes and it was not practical to recover the vehicle, so with the aid of some fencing wire we tied off the damaged brake hose. As to brake fluid of which we had none, fortunately we had brought considerable supplies of beer which the lads insisted on processing before we used it for hydraulic puposes. Astonishingly with a little bleeding the brakes worked in a fashion. For a long time after I avoided going anywhere near the Regimental workshops!   David Gore (63.60.243.135) Posted on Wednesday, 22 January, 2003 - 08:52 pm:    Any fluid is non-compressible and accordingly will function quite satisfactorily to transmit pressure from one point to another with maximum efficiency provided the pipe diameter is sufficient to handle the fluid flow rate - it is the additives that make all the difference as to how long the fluid and components will operate as the designer intended!! In Bill's situation, the solution involved optimal use of the available resources to achieve the desired result! "The jury is still out" regarding the expected service life of the fluid and the system using it let alone the job satisfaction of those ultimately entrusted to undertake the final repairs!!   Bob (62.7.8.230) Posted on Sunday, 26 January, 2003 - 03:48 am:    I ripped the front to rear metal brake pipe out of a Land Rover on rough ground miles from nowhere. I used a brake nipple in the t piece and the washer fluid to get me home on front brakes only and the system worked fine. I have heard that condensed milk is better. but as Dave Gore says who is going to be the one to risk it---- not me. I said near the begining of this thread that I use DOT 4. I have asked numerous times at my local RR specalist and they say that DOT 4 is fine. In ABS systems there is a mechanical pump which does the same job as the brake pumps these pumps work on DOT4.   Richard Treacy Posted on Tuesday, 18 March, 2003 - 09:16 am:    Cranky. As soon as Crewe recommends an alternative to RR363, Castrol will galdly drop it. The cost premium is negligible, and these gents don't go to so much trouble just for fun. Thank our lucky stars they even still distribute the stuff for no profit, and probably for a substantial loss... In the meantime Thank Castrol.   David Gore Posted on Tuesday, 18 March, 2003 - 09:50 am:    What Richard says is true - as soon as a suitable alternative to RR363 is available, Castrol will be the first to recommend it and eliminate a "nuisance" product from their range. In the meantime, those who are using other fluids should keep their bank balances in good order as expensive repairs will eventually be required. Also be careful of possible contributory negligence considerations if the vehicle is involved in an accident where someone is killed or seriously incapacitated. If the accident can be attributed to brake failure caused by the use of non-specified fluid, your insurer may decline to accept responsibility for any damages awarded leaving you with serious financial problems [especially in the current climate where insurers are seeking to avoid paying out claims wherever possible]. Is that $60-$80 saving really worth the risk? I think not.   Bill Coburn Posted on Tuesday, 18 March, 2003 - 09:59 am:    Yes it must need a big thank you Richard. I talked to a Castrol bloke some months back and he iterated that they would be delighted to scrap RR363. Their benchmark for profitablity is in excess of a million litres a year of a product. He was hopefully exagerating but as a gesture to saving the stuff I run all my cars on 363. May I say that Bob's commenting on the use of DOT 4's in ABS systems is perhaps not very helpful since those pumps as far as I know only work when the system works which hopefully for all concerned is seldom.   David Gore Posted on Tuesday, 18 March, 2003 - 03:49 pm:    Re Anti-Lock Braking System "Pumps" - forgive my pedantry but I understand the working pressure for these units [pulsators would be a better description] is nowhere near that of the R-R system and accordingly the fluid characteristics required for each type are also "worlds apart". The ABS systems are designed for very intermittent use at relatively low pressures [I would expect 10bar/150psi to be the upper limit but would appreciate more information from someone with access to the relevant technical data] rather than the continuous operation characteristic of the R-R system. Lubrication characteristics for continuously operating hydraulic systems is a very important consideration hence the inability of Castrol to suggest replacement of RR363 with DOT3/DOT4/DOT5 fluids will be a consequence of the fact that these fluids are not formulated to provide continuous lubrication and resistance to breakdown at the working pressures of 170bar/2500psi characteristic of the R-R system. My past experience with high-pressure underground and surface hydraulic drill rigs has highlighted the importance of proper hydraulic fluid selection to optimise service life and minimise service costs. If DOT3-5 fluids were suitable, Castrol would be the immediate beneficiary by eliminating a low-volume, high cost product with limited profitability from their product range. The facts speak for themselves - Caveat Emptor [Latin: "Let the buyer beware"]   Richard Treacy Posted on Tuesday, 18 March, 2003 - 07:34 pm:    Bill and David, agreed 100%. Perhaps we should avoid calling RR363 brake fluid, and instead just hydralic fluid. The operating ends of our systems work at very intermittent, low pressure compared to the hydraulic reservoirs and pumps themselves. The brakes rest at 0 psi for 99.9% of the time, until you hit the pedal, and the levelling is not much higher in a car with good steel springs. On ABS, that is only a set of electronically controlled valves which reduce the brake pressure when skidding, and is not relevant to the RR363 topic, especially as R-R/B cars only started ABS in 1987 long after HSMO was introduced. The ABS (AntiBlockierSysteme or Annual Brake Stupidityprotection ?) only activate about once every year or more if I'm lucky on my two cars when I misjudge something, but the motor registry here does test them on their fancy test rigs every two years. My point is that DOT Anything (or reprocessed beer) works fine for a while, but there is no substitute for the quality, correct item which will ensure component lifetime for years to come. On cost, I pay less than A$15 per litre for RR363, not very much more than the el-cheapo skimp.   Bill Coburn Posted on Tuesday, 18 March, 2003 - 09:05 pm:    Gotta have the last word!!! None of you have mentioned temperature. One of the spins the factory put out planted the fear of God in proponents of disc brakes that their brake fluid could boil etc etc. Assuming that is all OK and now fixed, I had an ancient Shadow here last Saturday (in the 2000's) which had just driven up to Canberra from Wamboyne (about 1 1/2 hours.) While the owner was doing dirty things under the car I opted to change at least the brake fluid in the reservoir and whipped off the lid. In the process I managed to spill some on myself and actually mildly burnt myself (expletives available on request). Now I can't imagine the intended/designed use of DOT 3/5 was ever destined to operate at those temperatures OK certainly a lot hotter in the calipers coming down the Clyde on two wheels trying to escape a process server but that is temporary but in the RR system the hydraulics are up in the 'bloody hot' range continuously.}   BOB Posted From: 81.131.54.164 Posted on Saturday, 19 April, 2003 - 03:46 am:    I am sorry if I have confused anyone with my statement about abs and pumps etc. I think that ABS systems work at a higher pressure than 150 psi. And they have to work rarely first time every time.   Richard Treacy Posted From: 217.162.168.216 Posted on Saturday, 19 April, 2003 - 05:55 am:    There is no ABS system in existence which uses RR363 as the recommended fluid. The RR363 main issues are pump lubrication and the constant 2000 psi pressure in the pump-accumulator side of the Silver Shadow system, not the 0-150 psi on the dormant brake and levelling side.   Bill Trovinger Unregistered guest Posted From: 65.31.134.127 Posted on Sunday, 27 July, 2003 - 01:40 pm:    I do not know if I should say anything here or not. David suggested I take a look at your sight. He has been giving me advise on my '76 SS. I guess I will comment, my wife says I always open my mouth when I shouldn't. Two different RR Dealer mechanics (Steve Folley and Uptown Motors) told me a few years ago that DOT 3 or 4 was OK to use. I have worked for a company that made foundry equipment. We used brake fluid in one of our casting machines and I can be certain that was running at a higher temperature than the RR system, melt point was about 2,700 F for the iron, but I do not remember the pressure that the system ran at. Also as someone who lives in a Snowy part of the US, Wisconsin (other than at Christmas some years) can tell you for certain most of our snow plows run their hydraulics on DOT 3 or 4. On the older plows and even some of the newer plows the hydraulics are in the engine compartment and get very hot. The newer small plows have the entire hydraulic system out on the plow where they can end up covered in snow and those units use aviation fluid as it is much thinner and has a lower gel point.   David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 80 Registered: 4-2003 Posted on Sunday, 27 July, 2003 - 08:36 pm:    Hi Bill, Welcome to our site and hope you benefit from its use - we have some excellent contributors who share their experience and knowledge with us. Your post regarding RR363 raises some interesting points which I will try and clarify for readers. The Shadow hydraulics are based on a high-pressure system patented by Citroen and testing showed ordinary DOT3/4 brake fluid was not suitable as it did not provide adequate lubrication for the close-tolerance components [pumps/distribution valves/control valves] which are the critical items in the system. Citroen developed a modified Glycol-based fluid which contained a specific "secret ingredient" designated LHS to provide lubrication [now believed to have been good old castor oil as loved by old motor bike and vintage aircraft enthusiasts for its purgative properties when inhaled!!]. The viscosity of this fluid at 100 deg Celsius is double that of DOT3 brake fluid so claims that DOT3/4 fluids can replace LHS are not true as the essential lubrication properties are not present [after all, this fluid was designed for conventional brake systems where lubrication of moving components was not a critical factor]. Castrol developed an equivalent fluid to LHS branded Amber Brake fluid however for reasons best known to Castrol it was subsequently replaced by RR363 which then underwent a major formulation change in 1998. Soon afterwards, owners using the reformulated fluid began reporting clunking/hammering problems from the height control system and this has since been followed by reports of pumps showing accelerated wear. Systems using the "old" RR363 have not had these problems to the same extent only those using the new formulation. Citroen owners using RR363 as the replacement for LHS have also reported problems. A German brake fluid manufacturer [Petrosin] tested RR363 against fluid to the Citroen LHS specification and found its viscosity was similar to that of DOT3. This test result suggests the reformulation by Castrol has not maintained the high-temperature fluid viscosity needed for good lubrication [and reduced leakage]. I understand Castrol now have another RR363 formulation under test as a consequence of the problems with the current formulation. Use of alternative hydraulic fluids to Glycol-based fluids for Shadow I/most Shadow II models and mineral oil for late Shadow II's and subsequent models requires careful consideration. The seals/accumulator diaphragms used in the R-R/B systems are specifically designed for these fluids and are prone to accelerated breakdown/failure in other fluids. If the fluid is changed then the compatibility of the accumulator diaphragms in particular must be spot on as these are not available in alternative formulations for fluid other than glycol/mineral oil as appropriate. I would be very cautious about using aviation/industrial hydraulic fluids as these are based on operating and environmental conditions which are completely different to that of our car's hydraulic systems. The typical operating pressures of these systems are usually much less than the 170bar [2500psi] operating pressure of the R-R/Citroen systems and accordingly the lubrication requirements are less severe. In fact, a majority of industrial hydraulic fluids are now water-based to eliminate the fire-hazard of petroleum-based fluids. The use of DOT3/4 brake fluid on snow ploughs may be an economic decision as these are used on a seasonal basis rather than year-round and whilst the fluid may not be ideal; its low-cost and the probability the components will not fail for the average service life of the equipment before it is replaced by newer plant justifies its use. This is not the case for cars which hopefully will still be in use a century after they were made. Where do we go from here? DOT3/4 fluid does not have adequate lubrication properties. Citroen LHS specification fluid is no longer available and the current RR363 formulation is a major concern. Silicon brake fluid is not suitable as it aerates in high-pressure systems causing fade similar to that resulting from degraded brake fluid in conventional systems. There have been reports of DOT3 with 18.5% Castrol R castor oil being used and even a Citroen using Canola oil is operational in country NSW [hopefully this will be at our joint technical session with the Citroen Car Club on 22nd November]. Who is willing to test these options at the risk of the cost of overhauling their hydraulic system [the cynical might say this is what we are doing with the current RR363 anyway]? As far as I am concerned, I am between a rock and a hard place right now as DRH14434 decided to display a brake pressure failure light today and if it is not a pressure switch failure then I will have to make a choice. Watch this space!!!   Richard Treacy Prolific User Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 40 Registered: 4-2003 Posted on Sunday, 27 July, 2003 - 10:03 pm:    I must agree fully with David's comments. I am frustrated that Crewe and Castrol have not come clean on this issue. In the UK, groans and clonks in Shadows are cropping up everywhere, so something must really be wrong with the present RR363. The first step is to find out whether the early Citroen seals etc are the same as ours. If so, then a close collaboration is the obvious. These cars are approaching 40 years in age in many cases, so the time is right to find a proper solution before Castrol gives up the ghost (well, Shadow anyhow), so to speak. If the solution really is to use 18.5% castor oil (Castrol R) with DOT 3, let's find out and jump right in before any more damage is done. By the way, the brand name Castrol comes from Castor Oil. Maybe the present formula is simply DOT 3 indeed considering my experiences: About 20 years ago on our '72 T-Series, on the bad advice of a chemical engineer friend who produced the stuff, I switched shortly to DOT 3. The result was awful. The rear rams groaned like hell when the car was fully laden (it sits on its springs as it should unless laden when the rams kick in). When I flushed it and switched back to RR363, the groans disappeared immediately. However, within a year both accumulators and one pump failed. The pump pushrod had failed at the stress point indicating that the pump lubrication was inadequate, so the newer type Spirit pushrods went in instead as recommended by the factory. The pump failure may have been a coincidence, but the groans certainly were not. The hydraulics have been fine since. I am not a purist when it comes to RR363, and am not concerned in saving a few bucks every two years on fluid, but we are heading for trouble if this issue is not sorted quickly. Incidentally, on LHM for the post 1980 cars and earlier ones with HSMO, there is no problem whatsoever. LHM was developed by Total, and the formula free issued to Castrol, Shell, Mobil etc etc. Have no concerns in using any major brand's LHM fluid as they are all compatible and the same colour, and claimed to be identical. It is used in Jaguars, Citroens and many other cars, especially in brake and steering systems. The price ranges from around A$4 per litre at Carrefour department stores to A$50 from the Crewe outlets here. I use Total LHM at around A$10 per litre. The mineral oil systems are very long lived, especially on Spirits etc from chassis #8170 onwards. If only we could be sure that Shadows could take LHM after a suitable overhaul, we would be in great shape.   Greg Churm Unregistered guest Posted From: 144.137.80.231 Posted on Wednesday, 30 July, 2003 - 10:16 pm:    the suggestion to convert Shadows to LHM is a good one. It has been done recently to an ID 19 with great success. Whilst that would be a good solution in that a guaranteed good result would be achieved, viewing the drawings of the SS hydraulic system posted by David Gore would indicate it will be much more difficult task. Everything looks so complex compared to the inards of Citroen, especially the height corrector!!!. Is the height corrector and other components of an LHM car the same so a simple transfer can be made of the more complex components leaving just pipe seals to contend with. I think this was done with this ID to a large extent which made the job fairly simple if time consuming. Incidentally I saw Bob Dirks at the Bastille Day display and not only is 'Buttercup' running beautifully he has formulated a standard for the colour of hydraulic components on a canola car - purple. So on Citroens we now have Black for LHS, Green for LHM and Purple for Canola. I look forward to our joint meeting in November, I hope it is the first of many.   Robert Dunn Unregistered guest Posted From: 205.188.209.10 Posted on Monday, 25 August, 2003 - 01:15 pm:    Gentlemen, all of you seem to be quite knowlegable in the brake area of the silver shadow. One of my customers has aquired an SS1-SS2-Cloud and a princess. The problem I'm having is the 1967 Shadow has the brake system with the leveling rams built into it and we are unsure of what the fluid type to use, some sites I have visited say this system requires mineral oil and that it is green in color, no color can be distinguished when I remove the 2 reservior caps. He had me replace the rear accum. with one he bought off the web. The accum. did not have the port to screw the brake warning pressure switch into. This led me to believe that this could be the wrong accum, but I installed it anyway. I followed the book for the bleeding procedure but was not able to get any pressurized fluid from the rear calipers (this is the reason the accum was changed in the first place) So I opened the bleeder at the acumm itself and also got no fluid When I opened the front accum with the engine running(slowly)the fluid shot out like a cannon. Could the pump at the camshaft be at fault.The original problem with this system was that the pedal sinks to the floor and that intermittantly the right rear will lock up solid. So I initially bled the brakes according to the book and thats when I found the rear accum that had no pressure. I hear all of these complaints on different sites about the cost of RR363, who really cares, is the cost so overwhelming that you would risk your life or others to save $20 bucks. From what I have read on the web if you add the wrong fluid and need to overhaul the system down the road, youre looking at $8-$10,000 dollars US curancy. So I dont see the problem with RR363. My question is do I have RR363 or mineral oil. The book says to use fluid equivalant to Castrol Girling SAE to crimson 70R3 , whatever that means. I posted a similar message to Davids E-Mail , but he is on vacation till the end of August. Anything you guys can do to help out an old Boston boy would be much appreciated Thank You, Robert Dunn   Jim Bettison Unregistered guest Posted From: 203.166.107.242 Posted on Monday, 25 August, 2003 - 09:25 pm:    I don't own or use a vehicle using DOT363 hydraulic fluid and the more I see of discussions like this thread the more grateful I become ... while feeling for those affected ..., I excerpt below a para from an article by Tony James in the RREC Bulletin of July/August 2003, Issue 259 p.14. Tony is reporting on an inter-club meeting held at the Hunt House, Paulerspury, a few days after the (RREC) Annual Rally, which latter was held at the Towchester Racecourse near the Hunt House. He says: "The hydraulic fluid RR363, as used on Shadows, was discussed. We were told that the specification for this fluid was changed in 1998 and problems with seals and hoses resulted. RR363 in cans is to the original specification - the changed fluid was distributed in plastic bottles with built-in spout. The specification was subsequently changed so that the current fluid is satisfactory." There we have it - or do we? Did RROC(A) have any attendees at that meeting? Can they further enlighten us? Tony's account mentions that Bill Slater, of Bentley Motors chaired the meeting, and that Jack Barclay had two people (Terry Lupton and Ricky Cooper) present. (We all know that Jack Barclay are actively promoting the Crewe Spares business.) Maybe these are avenues for enquiry by affected/concerned owners/carers. Jim Bettison.   Jim Bettison Unregistered guest Posted From: 203.58.167.131 Posted on Monday, 25 August, 2003 - 09:27 pm:    I don't own or use a vehicle using DOT363 hydraulic fluid and the more I see of discussions like this thread the more grateful I become ... while feeling for those affected ..., I excerpt below a para from an article by Tony James in the RREC Bulletin of July/August 2003, Issue 259 p.14. Tony is reporting on an inter-club meeting held at the Hunt House, Paulerspury, a few days after the (RREC) Annual Rally, which latter was held at the Towchester Racecourse near the Hunt House. He says: "The hydraulic fluid RR363, as used on Shadows, was discussed. We were told that the specification for this fluid was changed in 1998 and problems with seals and hoses resulted. RR363 in cans is to the original specification - the changed fluid was distributed in plastic bottles with built-in spout. The specification was subsequently changed so that the current fluid is satisfactory." There we have it - or do we? Did RROC(A) have any attendees at that meeting? Can they further enlighten us? Tony's account mentions that Bill Slater, of Bentley Motors chaired the meeting, and that Jack Barclay had two people (Terry Lupton and Ricky Cooper) present. (We all know that Jack Barclay are actively promoting the Crewe Spares business.) Maybe these are avenues for enquiry by affected/concerned owners/carers. Jim Bettison.   David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 98 Registered: 4-2003 Posted on Monday, 25 August, 2003 - 09:32 pm:    Hi Robert, Back home again and will answer your email direct due to the detail required. There are a number of possible causes for the problems you describe which will require a process of elimination however following basic information will answer a number of your enquiries: 1. MINERAL OIL CANNOT AND MUST NOT BE USED IN THIS VEHICLE AS IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE ACCUMULATOR DIAPHRAGMS AND SEALS USED IN THE HYDRAULIC SYSTEM. 2. THE ONLY FLUIDS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE ARE CASTROL RR363 AND FLUID TO THE CITROEN LHS SPECIFICATION [this is extremely difficult to obtain as it appears to be no longer produced in Europe] 3. The original RR363 was pale yellow in colour whereas the later reformulated version is virtually colourless. In regard to Jim's advice re the Hunt House meeting; George Shore from the ACT Branch was at this meeting and his report was published in the February 2003 edition of "Praeclarum"; it is my understanding that Castrol have provided UK R-R/B service dealers with a fluid that stops the suspension noise problems and I suspect this is a revised formulation being field-tested by Castrol before release to the market. It appears this fluid has been available in the UK now for over a year but no sign of it being made available elsewhere in the world. (Message edited by david_gore on August 25, 2003)   BO UK Unregistered guest Posted From: 195.93.32.8 Posted on Tuesday, 26 August, 2003 - 03:14 am:    For Robert Dunn It is possible that the rear pump is not working. however the pressure relief valve which dumps the excess back to the reservoir via a rubber hose with hose clips ( nominal pressure )may be jammed open. The accumulators are screwed to the valve bodies al la Citroen style -- they designed it. The acumulator bleed screws are fited to the valve bodies. To check slip off the dump hose and start engine if fluid comes out in pulses then the pump is working. The reservoir side of this hose should be plugged otherwise you will drain the reservoir. The pumps are driven by push rods which can break. This can happen if the car is stood idle for a long time-- the pump jamms and the rod breaks when the engine is turned. The car has a master cylinder ( 1965- 1976 shadow 1 ) The master cylinder gives the brake pedal feel. When the master pushes back it applies the power brakes. If the master has failed then the pedal will go to the floor. The master works --with NO power assistant -- one piston each side of the rear brakes. I suspect that the r/h rear flexible to the caliper is faulty and it is causing the caliper to drag.--- very common. Change all the hoses if they are more than 4 years old--- IMPORTANT. The master cylinder push rod lenght is adjustable, if to long the rear brakes can drag because the master is holding pressure. However both rear brakes will drag not one. If too short you get too much pedal travel. The master I suspect on your car is faulty they are cheap at £75 UK. They are rebuildable but the kits supplied are service kits not repair kits. The manual system or low pressure system as the master side is properly called gets it fluid from no2 reservoir. It can be hard to bleed because the angle at which the master is fitted entices an air bubble to stay inside. take front wheels off drop real low on jack then jack rear high. Engine is not needed for bleeding the low pressure. RR363 is Dot 3 with an additive to lubricate the pumps. While repairing the car it is ok to use regular DOT 3/4 , and then change to RR363 when your happy that the brakes are ok. The pedal travel is controlled by the master cylinder not the brake valves. In the rat trap you will see 2 prongs that when the master fails hit a stop and cause the mechanical compensator to apply the power brakes. When working right the feed back moves the compensator. If you need you can Email me on reddington1@hotmail.com and I will explian mechanic to mechanic. R Reddington CAE MIMI   Robert Dunn Unregistered guest Posted From: 152.163.252.194 Posted on Friday, 29 August, 2003 - 12:56 pm:    Thank you David Thank you Bo UK The information you guys have given me is invaluable. Now at least I have some weapons at my dispossal I found this web site through shear luck and perserverance...thank God I kept looking The customer wants me to drain and flush the entire brake system this Sunday on the 67 Shadow, fearing that the DOT 4 has contaminated it. Is this nessasary, and if so, is denatured alcohol the right course. I would like to avoid wasted time and concentrate on the real issues this system might have (ie flex hoses, master cylinder, pump push rod...etc)..And to think that I thought that Teves and Bosch ABS systems back in the day we're complicated. They are nothing to master compared to this antiquated system....but I digress. Now knowing that these flex hose require changing every 4 years regardless...we only change 'em in the states, if thier is an apparent problem, then again USA systems dont operate at close to 2000 PSI. That said how do I go about getting parts for these cars. I fully intend to change the hoses and master cylinder, I just cant go to my local parts store and get them. Who has heard of a brake conversion for these cars. His 79 Shadow has a Chevy 350 in it and the brakes have been converted as well, their are no accumutators, but I dont recognize any of the parts that are used. Thoughts and input on this subject would be very helpfull. Though Im sure it will strike a nearve will the RR/B loyalists, Sorry in advance. You guys must know some reputable people. If thier is a web site or a catalouge that I should have please let me know This web site just became my new best friend, along with everyone on it. Thank you all Robert Dunn http://Tpi86mtc@aol.com   William H. Trovinger II Experienced User Username: bill_trovinger Post Number: 7 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Friday, 29 August, 2003 - 02:08 pm:    Robert; I know where you are coming from on the way we change hoses here in the States. I just blew a flex hose from the front accumulator. I good dealer to check with in the States is Zionsville Bentley (Formerly Albers' RR/Bentley) Craig Albers is the parts manager and their web site is www.albersrollsbentley.com . However, wait till you hear the price on the hose I just blew! After talking with Craig I did some local hunting and found a race shop that was able to provide me with a hose of higher rating for 1/10 the price. I hope to install and test it this weekend and will advise you if this works or spending the big bucks is required. On the SS with a 350 I have not seen one. I have seen a few SC's that where converted to Chevy blocks and Ford rear ends.   Bob UK Unregistered guest Posted From: 195.93.32.8 Posted on Saturday, 30 August, 2003 - 02:46 am:    The Dot 4 will not have contaminated anything. You can use DOT 4 for flushing. or meths -- de nat alcohol. I use both First meths then DOT 4 when testing the brakes don't compare then with the Chevy Shadow because I suspect the brakes won't be up to snuff on the Chevy Shadow because if the Chevy has no accs then it must have I guess a vacuum assisted system. There are 2 brake hoses that are between the front subframe and the rat trap. These often get overlooked.   Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 195.93.32.8 Posted on Sunday, 31 August, 2003 - 02:32 am:    Due to a bug a bit was mising from my last post. It is not a good idea to modify the brakes on a Shadow. If you fit a vacuum assited system I suspect that the will not feel right. It would be necessary to get the front to back balance right. The amount of fluid that is displaced when the brakes are used would mean that your average master cylinder would have excessive travel. Add a vacuum booster and you will have I think horrible spongy pedal. Also one would be legally liable especally if one were to convert the car in the course of business.   Robert Dunn Unregistered guest Posted From: 152.163.252.194 Posted on Sunday, 31 August, 2003 - 09:54 am:    As a matter of fact these 4 RR's are for his limo co.The '56 cloud has the chevy 350, but what appear to be factory brakes. The '79 Shadow also has the chevy 5.7L, but the brakes have been converted, prior to his purchase. The '67 Shadow, well we all know about that one, to my surprise the 67 is the best engine of the 4, smoothest and quickest response. It starts almost as easy as if it we're injected. The 63 Bentley Princess he just recieved three weeks ago. Someone out in California put a Ford strait six 4.9 L 300CID into it, I have no idea why, I noticed a single wire O2 sensor in the manifold so I figure it is early 80's. The brake system on the princess is stock 4 wheel drum. This is to be my next project after I finish the 67. " AM I DOOMED TO FAIL" I think the Princess is going to need a master cylinder due to the fact that the frame rail was covered in fluid and when I pulled the boot back it was soaked inside. Also the resivior was dry. The car sat for 13 years out in Cali. before he came across it. I have already freed the engine up and wired a new universal ignition switch and she started right up, and purres like a kitten. But again I digress. This is all discusion for a later date. On the note of brake conversions, the 79 has a remarkable brake pedal with good response and feel to it. If only I could figure out what type of parts we're used on it. Well thank you all again, I'll let you know how I make out Robert Dunn http://Tpi86mtc@aol.com   Jon Rothwell Unregistered guest Posted From: 61.9.128.174 Posted on Sunday, 31 August, 2003 - 10:49 pm:    On the subject of brake conversions. I have a 1966 Bentley T1 with a Ford booster and master cylinder, and a 1975 Silver Shadow with standard Rolls Royce system. There is almost no difference in driving as far as the brakes are concerned. Either car will pull up easily from high speed, and the brakes on the Bentley, while not as sensitive, are more than up to the job. The Bentley retains its 4 front calipers and standard rear calipers. From my point of view the bottom line is that you can convert a Shadow, and it will work, and most people who drive it will not know that it has been converted. After all, the proof is in the driving! I'm more concerned about my Shadow as it has just had all the brakes rebuilt and is filled with the newer fluid. At this stage I have not noticed any problems at all with the brakes, but I would hate to have to convert it due to suitable fluid not being made any more. And on the subject of legal liability. There seems to be a general opinion that all is not well with RR363, does this mean that we are now liable if the brakes fail due to problems with the fluid?   William H. Trovinger II Experienced User Username: bill_trovinger Post Number: 8 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Monday, 01 September, 2003 - 01:24 am:    Jon; On the legal liability issue, I would say not. After all this new (modified) fluid is being made with RR's approval and carrying the proper number and being distributed by their (Bentley/Crewe) dealers. Therefore, liability would fall on VW and Castrol. However, if you under take a brake conversion then you very well might be opening yourself to liability and depending on your country and insurance regulations even giving your carrier an out should you have a major accident.   David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 100 Registered: 4-2003 Posted on Monday, 01 September, 2003 - 10:07 am:    On the question of legal liability, Australian Common Law precedents require you to prove negligence before you have any chance of winning damages - without a "whistle-blower" inside the supplier who can provide the detailed information you need; it is very difficult to succeed. The greatest risk to your family finances would be your insurer refusing to accept responsibility for damages as you had modified the car from original specification which is a breach of your contract with them. If you have advised the insurer of the modifications and they have amended your policy to include the modications then you may be covered. The attitude of insurers to modified cars in the present climate suggests such inclusion will be very hard to obtain and require expensive engineer's reports and approval. With regard to cars with height control systems, it is very important to remember the primary role of the hydraulic system is to operate the height control system not to operate the brakes. The rear suspension geometry has be kept within the design parameters for proper handling and to prevent accelerated wear/failure of the drive shaft and suspension components. The use of the high-pressure hydraulics for the brakes was a bonus.   William H. Trovinger II Frequent User Username: bill_trovinger Post Number: 11 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Wednesday, 03 September, 2003 - 08:13 am:    Robert; In my earlier post I told you that I obtained a replacement flex hose from a local race shop. To update you, I did get around to installing it and finding DOT 4 (hard to find as Harley Bikers had bought out all the stores this past week) to use for pressure testing it. The hose is working find how the scary part is putting this new RR 363 in and praying it works.