Brake Line Replacement

Me again with this '88 Civic project. This car has been parked for about 8
months now, and a mechanic recently told me that this is very bad for the
brake lines. He said I should replace all the steel lines to prevent
problems down the road. This involves a lot of extra work though; is it
really necessary?

Chris F. > wrote:
> Me again with this '88 Civic project. This car has been parked for about 8
>months now, and a mechanic recently told me that this is very bad for the
>brake lines. He said I should replace all the steel lines to prevent
>problems down the road. This involves a lot of extra work though; is it
>really necessary?

I'd certainly change the brake fluid before putting it on the road, and
I'd look at the fluid. The fluid is hydroscopic and it will absorb water
if the system isn't perfectly sealed. If you drive it a lot, the heat
of operation will drive off a lot of the water. If you don't drive it,
it won't, and the lines will tend to rust inside.

I don't think the Civic is particularly prone to brake line problems, but
i'd want to inspect the system and change the fluid before putting it on
the road.

After 20 years, though, it may well be time to change the brake lines,
especially if you're in a place where there are general rust problems
with cars. They might be fine, too. If the fluid comes out clear, and
not brown or cloudy, I wouldn't worry. If it looks nasty, I'd worry.

Also, of course, if you have the undercarriage all apart anyway and
you're cutting into the underside to fix rust damage, you might as well
just go ahead and replace the lines near where you are working with
stainless steel and be done with it. Because sooner or later they _will_
go bad and it's easier to do it when everything is apart than to have
to deal with it a decade down the road.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 8 Mar 2009 14:32:35 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Chris F. > wrote:
>> Me again with this '88 Civic project. This car has been parked for about 8
>>months now, and a mechanic recently told me that this is very bad for the
>>brake lines. He said I should replace all the steel lines to prevent
>>problems down the road. This involves a lot of extra work though; is it
>>really necessary?
>
>I'd certainly change the brake fluid before putting it on the road, and
>I'd look at the fluid. The fluid is hydroscopic and it will absorb water
>if the system isn't perfectly sealed. If you drive it a lot, the heat
>of operation will drive off a lot of the water. If you don't drive it,
>it won't, and the lines will tend to rust inside.
>
First off, I won't disagree that this old car has internal brake
corrosion. I'd replace all brake lines on a car this old.
Failure can cause an accident. If the cylinders are operating
correctly, I'd just leave them be, but expect their lifespan is
questionable. But it's not too expensive to replace them really, to
be on the safe side. Brakes aren't the place to pinch pennies.
Putting pins in the headliner and not fixing scratches is that place.
I've posted in these groups more than once about a seeming obsession
about the "hygroscopic" nature of brake fluid, and the fact that I've
never changed brake fluid, and never had brake components go bad.
(None that I would attribute to brake fluid.)
And after 13 years of the original fluid in my '88 Celebrity I never
experienced fade from boiling.
Folks didn't like that, because it challenged "common wisdom."
And it just ****es people off when you ask them why a non-leaking
brake system with 14-year-old fluid doesn't overflow with water,
shorting the ignition. Especially the Honda guys who change their
fluid every damn year. It's fun to **** 'em off that way though.
There are charts out there that show moisture content going to crazy
levels, and reducing boiling point. I never bought that because they
never had data, and because of my experience.
I ran across this, and find it very interesting. Maybe it's not the
last word, but it seems to dispel the common notions about moisture
absorbtion and color change of brake fluid.
It doesn't argue against fluid change, but argues that it is necessary
because of copper contamination, not moisture.
I'd like to hear what the hands-on brake guys here think about it.

http://www.babcox.com/editorial/bf/bf50412.htm

And it makes me wonder why steel brake lines are still copper-coated.
But maybe they're not.
I don't know what kind of brake lines were on my Celebrity, as they
never failed before I junked it due to body rust.

--Vic

Chris F. wrote:
> Me again with this '88 Civic project. This car has been parked for about 8
> months now, and a mechanic recently told me that this is very bad for the
> brake lines. He said I should replace all the steel lines to prevent
> problems down the road. This involves a lot of extra work though; is it
> really necessary?
>
>
Sounds like bull**** to me.

Brake lines only corrode from the outside, IME. Change the brake fluid
and inspect the hoses. Unless you live where salt is used extensively in
the winter, the brake lines will most probably be alright.


Ulf

Vic Smith > wrote:
>First off, I won't disagree that this old car has internal brake
>corrosion. I'd replace all brake lines on a car this old.
>Failure can cause an accident. If the cylinders are operating
>correctly, I'd just leave them be, but expect their lifespan is
>questionable. But it's not too expensive to replace them really, to
>be on the safe side. Brakes aren't the place to pinch pennies.
>Putting pins in the headliner and not fixing scratches is that place.
>I've posted in these groups more than once about a seeming obsession
>about the "hygroscopic" nature of brake fluid, and the fact that I've
>never changed brake fluid, and never had brake components go bad.

Okay, you've just contradicted yourself. If there is internal brake
corrosion, it's because the brake fluid is not doing its job properly.

If the brake fluid does what it's supposed to do and the system is
kept completely sealed, the brake lines will be brand new inside and
all you will ever have to worry about is external corrosion. Sadly,
life isn't perfect like that. I've seen the occasional car that was
pretty close, though.

>And after 13 years of the original fluid in my '88 Celebrity I never
>experienced fade from boiling.

That's another totally different issue that has nothing to do with
corrosion. Brake fade due to boiling is something that nobody should
be encountering in the modern era. Back in the sixties it was a big
deal for performance cars, but it's not anything anybody today will
ever have to worry about off the racetrack.

>Folks didn't like that, because it challenged "common wisdom."
>And it just ****es people off when you ask them why a non-leaking
>brake system with 14-year-old fluid doesn't overflow with water,
>shorting the ignition. Especially the Honda guys who change their
>fluid every damn year. It's fun to **** 'em off that way though.

Because the brake fluid can only absorb a fairly small amount of
water. It becomes saturated pretty quickly... but once it becomes
saturated, the lines start to corrode.

>There are charts out there that show moisture content going to crazy
>levels, and reducing boiling point. I never bought that because they
>never had data, and because of my experience.

Got access to a megger? Pull an ounce of your fluid, and pull an ounce
of new fluid, and measure the conductivity. Try it again with some
fluid from a can that's been open a few days. You'll see a difference
due to absorbed moisture. You really do need a megger... a DVM won't
do the job because the amount of water is relatively small. But it's
not zero.

>I ran across this, and find it very interesting. Maybe it's not the
>last word, but it seems to dispel the common notions about moisture
>absorbtion and color change of brake fluid.
>It doesn't argue against fluid change, but argues that it is necessary
>because of copper contamination, not moisture.
>I'd like to hear what the hands-on brake guys here think about it.
>
>http://www.babcox.com/editorial/bf/bf50412.htm

What's causing the copper contamination? Copper is stable stuff, it
doesn't just flake off. If you're getting copper in the fluid, it
is because the copper is corroding and you're getting copper salts in
there. Why would copper corrode in the absence of oxygen and water?

>And it makes me wonder why steel brake lines are still copper-coated.
>But maybe they're not.

Because cars aren't built to last a long time, and the brake lines are
built to last only as long as the rest of the car. Thing is, some people
want to keep cars running for far longer than the manufacturer ever dreamed
they'd last.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 8 Mar 2009 16:32:23 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Vic Smith > wrote:
>>First off, I won't disagree that this old car has internal brake
>>corrosion. I'd replace all brake lines on a car this old.
>>Failure can cause an accident. If the cylinders are operating
>>correctly, I'd just leave them be, but expect their lifespan is
>>questionable. But it's not too expensive to replace them really, to
>>be on the safe side. Brakes aren't the place to pinch pennies.
>>Putting pins in the headliner and not fixing scratches is that place.
>>I've posted in these groups more than once about a seeming obsession
>>about the "hygroscopic" nature of brake fluid, and the fact that I've
>>never changed brake fluid, and never had brake components go bad.
>
>Okay, you've just contradicted yourself. If there is internal brake
>corrosion, it's because the brake fluid is not doing its job properly.
>
Never said it won't happen. Especially when a car is 21 years old.
Most are junked well before that.

>If the brake fluid does what it's supposed to do and the system is
>kept completely sealed, the brake lines will be brand new inside and
>all you will ever have to worry about is external corrosion. Sadly,
>life isn't perfect like that. I've seen the occasional car that was
>pretty close, though.
>
Right.

>>And after 13 years of the original fluid in my '88 Celebrity I never
>>experienced fade from boiling.
>
>That's another totally different issue that has nothing to do with
>corrosion. Brake fade due to boiling is something that nobody should
>be encountering in the modern era. Back in the sixties it was a big
>deal for performance cars, but it's not anything anybody today will
>ever have to worry about off the racetrack.
>
Boiling is still used as a selling point for changing fluid though.

>>Folks didn't like that, because it challenged "common wisdom."
>>And it just ****es people off when you ask them why a non-leaking
>>brake system with 14-year-old fluid doesn't overflow with water,
>>shorting the ignition. Especially the Honda guys who change their
>>fluid every damn year. It's fun to **** 'em off that way though.
>
>Because the brake fluid can only absorb a fairly small amount of
>water. It becomes saturated pretty quickly... but once it becomes
>saturated, the lines start to corrode.
>
>>There are charts out there that show moisture content going to crazy
>>levels, and reducing boiling point. I never bought that because they
>>never had data, and because of my experience.
>
>Got access to a megger? Pull an ounce of your fluid, and pull an ounce
>of new fluid, and measure the conductivity. Try it again with some
>fluid from a can that's been open a few days. You'll see a difference
>due to absorbed moisture. You really do need a megger... a DVM won't
>do the job because the amount of water is relatively small. But it's
>not zero.
>
>>I ran across this, and find it very interesting. Maybe it's not the
>>last word, but it seems to dispel the common notions about moisture
>>absorbtion and color change of brake fluid.
>>It doesn't argue against fluid change, but argues that it is necessary
>>because of copper contamination, not moisture.
>>I'd like to hear what the hands-on brake guys here think about it.
>>
>>http://www.babcox.com/editorial/bf/bf50412.htm
>
>What's causing the copper contamination? Copper is stable stuff, it
>doesn't just flake off. If you're getting copper in the fluid, it
>is because the copper is corroding and you're getting copper salts in
>there. Why would copper corrode in the absence of oxygen and water?
>
>>And it makes me wonder why steel brake lines are still copper-coated.
>>But maybe they're not.
>
>Because cars aren't built to last a long time, and the brake lines are
>built to last only as long as the rest of the car. Thing is, some people
>want to keep cars running for far longer than the manufacturer ever dreamed
>they'd last.

All good points, and made me think a little deeper.
What has me a bit puzzled is the article's contention that it's the
copper oxidation that is accelerating the corrosion.
And that mostly due to inhibitor breakdown.
But the moisture started the copper working, so it's a chicken/egg
thing.
It also poo-poos moisture testing.
On a second reading I noticed it recommends testing for copper
content. Using "The patented FASCAR® technology."
Hehe - maybe I was had.
Still probably won't change my brake fluid as part of a scheduled
maintenance regime. Simply haven't found it necessary.
Or maybe I'm just a bit lazy. Or lucky.
BTW, my '90 Corsica probably has the original fluid in it and brakes
fine. I bought it 11 years ago. Last year a rear line rusted through
from the outside. So it got a dose of new fluid for the bleed.

--Vic

"Chris F." > wrote in
:

> Me again with this '88 Civic project. This car has been parked for
> about 8
> months now, and a mechanic recently told me that this is very bad for
> the brake lines. He said I should replace all the steel lines to prevent
> problems down the road. This involves a lot of extra work though; is it
> really necessary?
>
What *kind* of steel? stainless steel doesn't rust as I'm sure you know.
You do *not* want to replace stainless steel lines with *anything* else.
Sounds like a "sales gimick".

Vic Smith > wrote:
>On 8 Mar 2009 16:32:23 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>Okay, you've just contradicted yourself. If there is internal brake
>>corrosion, it's because the brake fluid is not doing its job properly.
>>
>Never said it won't happen. Especially when a car is 21 years old.
>Most are junked well before that.

Maybe this is where the difference comes in, because I don't consider
21 years to be all that old a car, and if I have a new car I want to
maintain it with the expectation that it will last longer than that.

That said.... you never know what is going to happen. I bought a BMW
that had been horribly treated by the previous owners, then left on a
dealer's back lot with the trunk open for five years. When I drained
the transmission fluid, it was white and foamy. But when I flushed
the brake fluid, it was nice and clean with no discoloration. I did
have to replace a number of brake lines due to external rust, but
when I cut them open they were nice and clean inside. So here was
thirty-year-old fluid (because I _know_ these bozos never changed
anything on any schedule), doing its job perfectly well.

On the other hand, I had a '72 Corolla that, after only 15 years of
service, had a sticky caliper. Pulled the cylinder and it was full
of all kinds of brown gunk. Purged the system and got an amazing amount
of crap out of there. Started changing the fluid every couple of
years and had no issues.

Yeah, I know, it's anecdotal evidence, but these are both good examples
of when things worked and when things didn't, and neither one of these
was really predictable.

>All good points, and made me think a little deeper.
>What has me a bit puzzled is the article's contention that it's the
>copper oxidation that is accelerating the corrosion.
>And that mostly due to inhibitor breakdown.

It could be, I don't know the inhibitor chemistry in these things.

>But the moisture started the copper working, so it's a chicken/egg
>thing.
>It also poo-poos moisture testing.
>On a second reading I noticed it recommends testing for copper
>content. Using "The patented FASCAR® technology."
>Hehe - maybe I was had.

Dunno, the thing about all of this testing is that it's easier just
to change it every now and then than to test it. On the other hand,
moisture testing is easy to do and copper testing isn't so easy.

>Still probably won't change my brake fluid as part of a scheduled
>maintenance regime. Simply haven't found it necessary.
>Or maybe I'm just a bit lazy. Or lucky.

That's basically the way I think about it. If the system is perfectly
sealed, there's no real need to change it, but I worry about how well
sealed it really is.

>BTW, my '90 Corsica probably has the original fluid in it and brakes
>fine. I bought it 11 years ago. Last year a rear line rusted through
>from the outside. So it got a dose of new fluid for the bleed.

I'm currently having an inexplicable clutch issue that is clearly
related to the hydraulics. Changed out _everything_ over the course
of a couple years, including both cylinders and all the piping, and
I thought it had gone away until the warm weather started up and now
it's back again. Either air is mysteriously getting into the system
somewhere, or there's a particle somewhere in the system that is moving
around. I've flushed everything several times now.... may be related
to fluid breakdown, then again maybe it's not...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Chris F. wrote:
> Me again with this '88 Civic project. This car has been parked for about 8
> months now, and a mechanic recently told me that this is very bad for the
> brake lines. He said I should replace all the steel lines to prevent
> problems down the road. This involves a lot of extra work though; is it
> really necessary?
>
>

Is this a project car or a beater? On an 88 that's seen 20 winters with
lots of snow and salt and stuff, the brake lines are probably pretty
much compressed rust. My winter beater's a 90 Beretta and the lines are
pretty much done - I had to splice one in recently after it sprung a
leak and the rest of the lines all pretty much look like crap.

Brake lines are cheap. Replacing them on a project car = good idea and
way easier to run the lines when there's less stuff in the way.
Preemptively replacing all the brake lines on a beater = waste of money.
Either replace them when they burst and risk an accident, or find the
rusty parts and splice in new lines (you can flare the line right on the
car) or don't drive a beater.

(I had to drive home using nothing but the e-brake when the line blew.
You can do it, but it's nerve wracking as hell and you have to leave a
****load of room. the car still had front brakes but was leaking bad, I
stopped for more fluid on the way home. I probably should have taken a
cab and gone back with my truck and trailer, but I'm too stubborn.)

Ray

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:34:20 -0600, Vic Smith
> wrote:

>On 8 Mar 2009 14:32:35 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Chris F. > wrote:
>>> Me again with this '88 Civic project. This car has been parked for about 8
>>>months now, and a mechanic recently told me that this is very bad for the
>>>brake lines. He said I should replace all the steel lines to prevent
>>>problems down the road. This involves a lot of extra work though; is it
>>>really necessary?
>>
>>I'd certainly change the brake fluid before putting it on the road, and
>>I'd look at the fluid. The fluid is hydroscopic and it will absorb water
>>if the system isn't perfectly sealed. If you drive it a lot, the heat
>>of operation will drive off a lot of the water. If you don't drive it,
>>it won't, and the lines will tend to rust inside.
>>
>First off, I won't disagree that this old car has internal brake
>corrosion. I'd replace all brake lines on a car this old.
>Failure can cause an accident. If the cylinders are operating
>correctly, I'd just leave them be, but expect their lifespan is
>questionable. But it's not too expensive to replace them really, to
>be on the safe side. Brakes aren't the place to pinch pennies.
>Putting pins in the headliner and not fixing scratches is that place.
>I've posted in these groups more than once about a seeming obsession
>about the "hygroscopic" nature of brake fluid, and the fact that I've
>never changed brake fluid, and never had brake components go bad.
>(None that I would attribute to brake fluid.)
>And after 13 years of the original fluid in my '88 Celebrity I never
>experienced fade from boiling.
>Folks didn't like that, because it challenged "common wisdom."
>And it just ****es people off when you ask them why a non-leaking
>brake system with 14-year-old fluid doesn't overflow with water,
>shorting the ignition. Especially the Honda guys who change their
>fluid every damn year. It's fun to **** 'em off that way though.
>There are charts out there that show moisture content going to crazy
>levels, and reducing boiling point. I never bought that because they
>never had data, and because of my experience.
>I ran across this, and find it very interesting. Maybe it's not the
>last word, but it seems to dispel the common notions about moisture
>absorbtion and color change of brake fluid.
>It doesn't argue against fluid change, but argues that it is necessary
>because of copper contamination, not moisture.
>I'd like to hear what the hands-on brake guys here think about it.
>
>http://www.babcox.com/editorial/bf/bf50412.htm
>
>And it makes me wonder why steel brake lines are still copper-coated.
>But maybe they're not.
>I don't know what kind of brake lines were on my Celebrity, as they
>never failed before I junked it due to body rust.
>
>--Vic


Interesting article. I ran across an article quoting Ford engineers
about the whole 'water in brake fluid' thing. In short, they have
studied it and found that the amount of water that's absorbed gets
absorbed early on and then stabilizes. Unless you keep opening the
system up they concluded that there was no reason to flush the system
other then flushing it when you did normal brake service for pads,
etc. It can't hurt to flush but some people are way too anal about
it.