[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:55:55 GMT, Destroy <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not up on all the pro's and con's for each fluid but the fact that mineral oil has to be
>>changed much less since its not water absorbing is a huge plus.
>>
>>If one flushes the system out, can a DOT3 system be converted to mineral oil with no ill effects?
>
> No, you'll destroy the seals Martin
Why not change to DOT 4 -- it's compatible, less hygroscopic, and doesn't require a thorough
cleaning (in fact, you can mix it so no cleaning at all is required, just a good flushing with the
DOT-4)? It's what I've been using in all vehicles for the last 10 or more years. I've found that it
makes a real difference in the Jeep's hydrolic clutch -- when someone else works on my Jeep (I get
tired of messing with that the BIG HEAVY transmission/ transfer case) and refills it with DOT-3,
I'll start having clutch problems withing a year. Drain and replace with DOT-4 and it goes away. I
don't even have to replace the master or slave cylinders. In the cars, when I bleed the brakes, the
fluid's always clear looking, not black and gunky from the acids that form and from what they do to
the lines. YMMV.
David
