Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Testing Critical Properties of Brake Fluids

63a74acc-58d6-c11b-d1ee-e1346171760c.jpegBrake fluids are unique among hydraulic fluids because they are considered safety-critical vehicle equipment by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Their primary function is to transfer braking force from the pedal to the wheels while protecting brake system components. Savant Labs conducts comprehensive tests on brake fluids to ensure they maintain appropriate viscosity across various temperatures, remain compatible with different rubber materials used in brake systems, and do not damage metal components. Key tests include kinematic viscosity measurement, compatibility checks, and assessments of fluid stability under chemical and temperature stressors.

Incompressibility is another crucial property of brake fluids, as it ensures the effective transfer of force within the braking system. To prevent the formation of compressible gas pockets, brake fluids must have high boiling points and avoid air absorption. The Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point (ERBP) tests measure the fluid's boiling point under both dry and wet conditions. Given these rigorous testing protocols, Savant Labs can build a testing package to meet your needs for a variety of applications.
 

Brake Fluid Classification

Brake fluids fit into classific0ae6115b-6830-57ed-77ed-feb64a754839.jpegations depending on their chemical composition, viscosity, and boiling point. The Department of Transportation specifies DOT 3, DOT 4, DOT 5, and DOT 5.1 in FMVSS 116. SAE specifications J1703, J1704, J1705, and ISO Class 3, 4, 5.1, and 6 mostly align with the DOT classifications with a few minor differences. Even though the Department of Transportation does not designate classes DOT 4+ or SUPER DOT 4, manufacturers often apply these designations to fluids meeting the additional requirements of ISO Class 6. Table 1 shows the relationship between these classifications.

Table 1. Comparison of classification specifications [1, 2, 3, 4].
902f1e3f-c7e0-d798-3ae6-4e9af21a8a33.jpg

The compatibility tests are almost identical across all DOT classes. Of course, because silicone fluid does not mix with water, tests for DOT 5 SBBF sometimes have different requirements. When testing to DOT 3, 4, or 5.1 specifications, the technician must mix water into the fluid. For DOT 5 SBBF, the technician must instead humidify the fluid. In some cases, such as for chemical stability and pH, there is no requirement for silicon-based fluids. Table 2 shows the tests and requirements for component compatibility in FMVSS 116.

Table 2. Component compatibility test requirements [1].
5dc57d73-2f9c-2fb4-a8c0-d9ea4ff43a96.jpg

There are a few subtle differences between DOT and SAE limits for the stability and compatibility tests, so a fluid meeting the specifications for one classification may not necessarily meet the specifications for the comparable classification. Therefore, the actual test result is critical for understanding if a fluid meets both specifications. While the tests are nearly identical, SAE specifications call out test methods according to ASTM or DIN designations, and the FMVSS describes the test procedures and refers to SAE or ASTM standards only for materials, equipment, or calibration procedures.

The most significant difference between the SAE and FMVSS specifications is in testing for damage to mechanical equipment from repeated motion. The FMVSS uses a simulated brake system with referee standard braking cylinders. In contrast, the SAE specifications use an SRV tribometer, which measures friction and wear under oscillating motion.

Brake Fluid Specification Compliance
b5557577-2ead-cc4a-bc76-ef0e5f14ebc7.jpgIn the US, manufacturers and packagers must self-certify that their brake fluids meet FMVSS-116 specifications. Manufacturers must conduct adequate testing to ensure compliance with DOT classification and provide certification to packagers, who must, in turn, ensure the fluid remains uncontaminated and complies with labeling requirements [5]. Both ISO and SAE classifications follow a similar self-certification process [6]. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) enforces these standards by randomly testing products. If a sample fails the FMVSS-116 test procedure, manufacturers may be requested to recall the product, and legal action can ensue if they do not comply. Consumers can also report non-compliant products to the NHTSA for investigation [5].

Savant Labs offers brake fluid testing to the specifications of SAE J1703, SAE J1704, and FMVSS-116, providing manufacturers with confidence in their product certifications and offering spot checks for packagers. Testing is crucial as some fluids may fail to meet the required standards due to manufacturing variability or contamination. Savant Labs ensures all processes are correctly followed, and equipment is functioning properly during testing. Companies must closely monitor their brake fluids to maintain compliance and avoid costly recalls.

A complete list of brake fluid testing provided by Savant Labs is available.  Contact Savant Labs to request a quote.

4347798f-51ed-40bf-9b3d-9eb4e290570a.jpg


[1] FMVSS 49 CFR 571.116 (10/1/2023) https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2023-title49-vol6/CFR-2023-title49-vol6-sec5 71-16. Accessed, May 5, 2024.
[2] SAE J1703TM MAR2024 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid.
[3] SAE J1704 TM MAR2024 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid Based Upon Glycols, Glycol Ethers, and the Corresponding Borates.
[4] Remmen Brakes. (2019, January 22). Brake Fluid: What you Need to Know [Part 2] – Standards. Accessed May 5, 2024. https://www.remmenbrakes.com/brake-fluid-standards/
[5] Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, OVSC Mission, March 18, 2013.  https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/ovsc_mission.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2024.
[6] J. Light, SAE International, personal communication December 18, 2023

 

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • My 2025 Silverado 1500 had to receive a brand-new engine (long block) under warranty last month at only around 16,500 miles. Before the replacement, the truck repeatedly displayed "Engine Oil Level Low" warnings, even though the Oil Life Monitor still showed around 50% remaining after about 6,000 miles since my last oil change. After seeing the warning several times, I checked the dipstick with the engine cold, and the oil level was completely normal. The next day, the message escalated to "Add Engine Oil." At first, I assumed it was just a faulty oil level sensor, so I brought the truck to the dealership. After inspecting the engine, they found internal cylinder wall scoring and ultimately replaced the entire long block under warranty. Before this happened, I was planning to install a 4-inch lift and suspension upgrade on my truck. After needing a new engine at just 16,500 miles, I honestly don't see the point anymore. I also contacted GM to ask whether my vehicle qualified for a buyback, but I was informed that it does not at this time. Anyway, this experience has left me with serious concerns about the long-term reliability of this engine. I sincerely hope NHTSA expands the current investigation or recall to include 2025 model and performs a thorough inspection of affected vehicles. My biggest concern is that these engines may fail shortly after the powertrain warranty expires. If GM truly stands behind this engine, then at the very least, please consider extending the powertrain warranty to 10 years for affected owners. That would go a long way toward restoring customer confidence.
    • Without exception but then I'm the odd duck, right? I know what goes into that test, how it is calculated and thus how to beat it. But EPA values are often not beaten by the general public and the government has in past years adjusted the means and methods to come to those values to more closely approximate "Joe Average".    The only real trick to beating that EPA average is don't drive like "Joe Average".    It's the same method you used to profit from "Economic Migration" and in doing so beat the 'stats'. But you, like me, are not "Joe Average".     The thing you don't seem to grasp is this "Purchasing Power Index" isn't forward looking. It doesn't predict what it going to be but looks backward and states what it was. They are not telling us what the THINK, they are telling us what they MEASURED. Example:    Wife says "I'm going to lose 40 pounds by Christmas". May she does, maybe she doesn't but the doctors office who weighed her when she made that statement and again at Christmas only REPORTS what the RESULT was. You and I can banter about what was possible and what aunt Tilly did till the cows come home but the result is the result. Arguing otherwise is.....irrational. That's all I'm saying. This isn't about:      What you are calling a 'Statistic' is a RESULT not a CALCUATION and as a result the RULE. Like gravity as a rule, it can not be broken. 
    • Just wanted to say thank you for posting this. Years later, your thread is still helping Silverado owners.   I bought my 2025 Silverado 1500 in January 2025, and I've had what feels like the exact same rattle since day one. After reading your findings, I believe my truck has the same issue with the cable carrier contacting the rear sliding window. To be honest, I had pretty much given up on pursuing the issue. It wasn't until I recently drove another brand's pickup that I realized just how quiet their cabin was—and how noisy mine has been all along. On my truck, the rattle happens on almost any paved road, gets even worse on rougher pavement, and I can even hear it during braking and acceleration.   I actually referenced your thread when submitting my case to GM, hoping they'll recognize this as a recurring issue instead of treating it as an isolated incident. The reason I reached out to GM first is because my dealership told me they would need to keep the truck for at least two days just to diagnose the problem. I was concerned that even after two days, they still might not be able to identify the source of the rattle before giving the truck back to me. I had also asked a few dealerships about this issue during previous service visits, but none of them seemed to know what was causing it or had a solution. That's why I decided to contact GM directly first, hoping they might already have an official repair procedure or guidance for this issue.   I also hope GM eventually comes up with an official fix for this problem. I have a feeling there are many Silverado owners experiencing the same rattle, but most either choose to live with it or simply don't know what the cause is.   Really appreciate you taking the time to document your diagnosis. Your post is still making a difference years later.
    • I have 2 choices. 
    • Do you have access to BP fuels? Some stations have Silver 91 E-0 priced the same as their 93 E-10.  There is a local Marathon with 90 alky free for $6 a gallon but I go down the road to BP for $5-ish. They also have a 100 E-0 but that stuff is $10 a pop. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...