Need to change it and got a bit confused about the "new" dot ratings. Last time I did it myself was like 15y ago.   What the hell is this LV rating? It is more expencive then the DOT 5.1 i was going for. Is there any benifit in using it over dot 5.1?  Max temp ratings seem to be the same. Oh and 2L will be enough right? 

 

Brembo Premium Brake Fluid DOT 4: suitable for all vehicles with ABS. Compared to current regulatory standards, it has a higher boiling point and lower viscosity.

Brembo Premium Brake Fluid DOT 4 LV: recommended for vehicles with latest-generation electronic control systems for braking and stability (ABS, ESP, ASR, TCS, EBD etc.), it features very low viscosity.

Brembo Premium Brake Fluid DOT 5.1: with characteristics such as resistance to high temperatures and its superior viscosity value, it is recommended for high performance vehicles.

 

 

Once, I checked to see what the spec was for the VW Group branded DOT4 brake fluid, and found that it is effectively DOT4+ or called DOT4 ESP or DOT4 Pro by some other providers, so I've always only ever bought brake fluid to that spec, yes when compared with basic DOT4 it is more expensive, but in application tables/listings, most modern cars get listed against the DOT4+/DOT4 ESP/DOT4 Pro.

 

You asked the question, so I've just given you my answer, some others justify just using the cheapest available.

 

Edit:- it seems a bit strange that Brembo include "lower viscosity" as a feature of its basic DOT4 when they also offer one listed as a DOT4 LV  and lists it as "very low viscosity".

Edited 7 October, 20223 yr by rum4mo

The most desirable characteristic of replacement brake flud is that it's fresh and not old and stale, 2L is far more than you need, 1L is ample.

49 minutes ago, rum4mo said:

Once, I checked to see what the spec was for the VW Group branded DOT4 brake fluid, and found that it is effectively DOT4+ or called DOT4 ESP or DOT4 Pro by some other providers, so I've always only ever bought brake fluid to that spec, yes when compared with basic DOT4 it is more expensive, but in application tables/listings, most modern cars get listed against the DOT4+/DOT4 ESP/DOT4 Pro.

 

You asked the question, so I've just given you my answer, some others justify just using the cheapest available.

 

Edit:- it seems a bit strange that Brembo include "lower viscosity" as a feature of its basic DOT4 when they also offer one listed as a DOT4 LV  and lists it as "very low viscosity".

So guessing brembo dot4 lv is the one I should go for. 

I would suggest firstly, the filler cap USUALLY states the required fluid but then, like oil, you can buy sufficient oil and you can pay for oil that may well far exceed the requirements for the vehicle you have. Whilst the Brembo stuff states "For high performance vehicles", would you really consider a Skoda Fabia Vrs, as a high performance vehicle?

Yes, when compared to a basic, Vauxhall Corsa or Fiesta, etc but when compared to a Ferrari , Bugatti, Maserati or a McLaren  for example, then, well you know the answer to that!

 

I am unsure about the later types of fluid but it also used to be said that you can UPGRADE fluid but you shouldn't put lower spec stuff in. (Put say, Dot 4 in a vehicle that used to use Dot 3 but not the other way around).

15 hours ago, murcGuru said:

So guessing brembo dot4 lv is the one I should go for. 

 

Buy what you like, it's your money, it really doesn't matter, you don't need an "upgrade", just brand new fresh fluid.

7 hours ago, mrgf said:

I would suggest firstly, the filler cap USUALLY states the required fluid but then, like oil, you can buy sufficient oil and you can pay for oil that may well far exceed the requirements for the vehicle you have. Whilst the Brembo stuff states "For high performance vehicles", would you really consider a Skoda Fabia Vrs, as a high performance vehicle?

Yes, when compared to a basic, Vauxhall Corsa or Fiesta, etc but when compared to a Ferrari , Bugatti, Maserati or a McLaren  for example, then, well you know the answer to that!

 

I am unsure about the later types of fluid but it also used to be said that you can UPGRADE fluid but you shouldn't put lower spec stuff in. (Put say, Dot 4 in a vehicle that used to use Dot 3 but not the other way around).

Well there only is like a 4-5€ price difference between the standard dot 4 stuff and the dot 4-lv and dot 5.1 for the amount needed.

 

And as far as oil goes I vould not put cheap oil in a twincharge engine 

2 hours ago, murcGuru said:

Well there only is like a 4-5€ price difference between the standard dot 4 stuff and the dot 4-lv and dot 5.1 for the amount needed.

 

And as far as oil goes I vould not put cheap oil in a twincharge engine 

 

There is a VW minimum standard specification for oil and as long as what you buy meets that standard then it doesn't matter how much it costs does it?

 

You're mistakenly conflating cost with quality instead of concentrating on value, it's an easy mistake that non-technical people make which is widely exploited by advertisers when marketing branded products.

 

Buy what you want but don't kid yourself that treating your beloved car to fine wines and Belgian chocolates will make a blind bit of difference, it won't and the car certainly doesn't care.

"Price is a percieved indicator of quality", one of the basic economic principles taught at very early stage in an MBA course, for me most of the learning was simply being able to put a name or a phrase to what I had already worked out and knew instinctively from working at markets and also buying & bicycles from a very early age.

 

Wasn't it one of the car companies that had an advertising campaign that said "Reassuringly expensive!" that is like having you over, rubbing your nose in it and laughing at you.

Edited 8 October, 20223 yr by J.R.

While that's true to a point, don't forget that there are ways to meet minimum parameters on a spec which are not necessarily the most technically appropriate. The whole 'spirit of the law' vs 'letter of the law' concept.

 

Material specs are a list of measurable parameters that the group setting the spec reckon will give a suitable material when met, based on what is technically known at the time.

 

Inevitably someone will look for ways to meet the spec as cheaply as possible, consequences be damned. The result is not always good for the consumer. This is why standards and specs evolve, the need to account for a novel way to subvert the current spec.

 

I tend to aim for products from known brands in the middle of the price range, where I can have some confidence that they're not trying to fleece me on price or with sub-standard products.

7 minutes ago, chimaera said:

While that's true to a point, don't forget that there are ways to meet minimum parameters on a spec which are not necessarily the most technically appropriate. The whole 'spirit of the law' vs 'letter of the law' concept.

 

Material specs are a list of measurable parameters that the group setting the spec reckon will give a suitable material when met, based on what is technically known at the time.

 

Inevitably someone will look for ways to meet the spec as cheaply as possible, consequences be damned. The result is not always good for the consumer. This is why standards and specs evolve, the need to account for a novel way to subvert the current spec.

 

I tend to aim for products from known brands in the middle of the price range, where I can have some confidence that they're not trying to fleece me on price or with sub-standard products.

 

This is a torrent of absolute drivel, engineering specs are incredibly specific and not subject to interpretation, they're like the ingredients in a formula which can be accurately tested once made.

 

The perfect case in point is the VW 505.01 oil spec for PD engines, if the oil meets that spec then the PD engine carries on working properly, if not, it wears out the cam and followers in less than 100 miles.

 

So it doesn't matter who makes the oil or how much it costs as long as it meets that spec.

20 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

 

This is a torrent of absolute drivel, engineering specs are incredibly specific and not subject to interpretation, they're like the ingredients in a formula which can be accurately tested once made.

 

The perfect case in point is the VW 505.01 oil spec for PD engines, if the oil meets that spec then the PD engine carries on working properly, if not, it wears out the cam and followers in less than 100 miles.

 

So it doesn't matter who makes the oil or how much it costs as long as it meets that spec.

Just the response I expected from you. Engineering specs are as specific as they can be at the time they are set within the limits of knowledge at that time. They cannot accommodate future novel attempts to subvert them because that knowledge is not available at that time. This, combined with the need to accommodate technological progress is why standards are continuously updated. If you really are an engineer you should know this.

 

Blind faith that manufacturers will adhere to standards in good faith is not a good idea.

1 hour ago, sepulchrave said:

 

This is a torrent of absolute drivel, engineering specs are incredibly specific and not subject to interpretation, they're like the ingredients in a formula which can be accurately tested once made.

 

The perfect case in point is the VW 505.01 oil spec for PD engines, if the oil meets that spec then the PD engine carries on working properly, if not, it wears out the cam and followers in less than 100 miles.

 

So it doesn't matter who makes the oil or how much it costs as long as it meets that spec.

Running shell helig 5w30 oil but read somwhere that goin 5w40 would be better in the twinchare. Oil change comming up in ~1000km or so should I stick with 5w30 or change at the same time?

7 minutes ago, murcGuru said:

Running shell helig 5w30 oil but read somwhere that goin 5w40 would be better in the twinchare. Oil change comming up in ~1000km or so should I stick with 5w30 or change at the same time?

 

Stick with the spec. so much dribbling guff written about relative viscosity, the most important thing is the additive pack used and that it be fully synthetic, SAE numbers are largely meaningless when used as a measure of quality.

 

On 09/10/2022 at 13:45, sepulchrave said:

 

This is a torrent of absolute drivel, engineering specs are incredibly specific and not subject to interpretation, they're like the ingredients in a formula which can be accurately tested once made.

 

The perfect case in point is the VW 505.01 oil spec for PD engines, if the oil meets that spec then the PD engine carries on working properly, if not, it wears out the cam and followers in less than 100 miles.

 

So it doesn't matter who makes the oil or how much it costs as long as it meets that spec.

Whilst I agree with your point about a technical spec being met or not, I don’t think you need to be quite so blunt.

 

That first line of your reply just isn’t needed.

 

@chimaera

 

There might be some specs where it can be somewhat beaten, but dot4 is well understood. Plus it’s Brembo, so I’d say it’s much of a muchness.

 

For example I used to run DOT 5.1 when I was doing a lot of autobahn driving as having to hit the brakes hard at 140mph when a caravan pulled out in front of you left the brakes spongy. It’s better at high brake temperatures, but I seem to remember less good at other aspects such as water absorption requiring more frequent changes.

 

 

If it was me I’d just use fresh unopened tubs of a decent brand of dot 4.

Edited 10 October, 20223 yr by cheezemonkhai

@murcGuru

Regarding the engine oil and keeping to Spec.

 

Your 2010 1.4 TSI 136 kW engine / car in 2010 quite likely has not a Flexible / Variable Service regime code as that was only from 2011 for many of the Mk2 vRS.

 

So the Oil for Fixed Servicing was and is VW502 00 which is 5w 40 FS.   Best used with the vRS's and has saved many an engine that can use VW504 00 / 507 Long Life engine for Fixed or Variable servicing.

 

If you are using Super Unleaded and the additives / detergents that come with that you can well do without more detergents in the long life oil. 

 

5w40 FS to VW502 00 will do the engine good and do it no harm. 

The Castrol Crap that VW Group recommended certainly has for over 20% of CAVE engines, as did the OE plugs they fitted until 2012, and the software and oil spray jets.

 

If you have a good running 12 year old car then stick with the Spec, and stick with the Oil for Fixed Service Regimes.  IMO.

& 3.9 / 4.0 litres oil is more like the right quantity not 3.6 litres as VW Group had it. 

1 hour ago, roottoot said:

@murcGuru

Regarding the engine oil and keeping to Spec.

 

Your 2010 1.4 TSI 136 kW engine / car in 2010 quite likely has not a Flexible / Variable Service regime code as that was only from 2011 for many of the Mk2 vRS.

 

So the Oil for Fixed Servicing was and is VW502 00 which is 5w 40 FS.   Best used with the vRS's and has saved many an engine that can use VW504 00 / 507 Long Life engine for Fixed or Variable servicing.

 

If you are using Super Unleaded and the additives / detergents that come with that you can well do without more detergents in the long life oil. 

 

5w40 FS to VW502 00 will do the engine good and do it no harm. 

The Castrol Crap that VW Group recommended certainly has for over 20% of CAVE engines, as did the OE plugs they fitted until 2012, and the software and oil spray jets.

 

If you have a good running 12 year old car then stick with the Spec, and stick with the Oil for Fixed Service Regimes.  IMO.

& 3.9 / 4.0 litres oil is more like the right quantity not 3.6 litres as VW Group had it. 

 

So, stick with the spec then, Jeezus pleezus, I could have sworn that's what I said!

Indeed.  First and fore most know the spec. 

Then know why there are suggestions and recommendations over the past 12 years why to not use 5w 30 FS II with a CAVE engine. 

So not the VW504 00 / 507 00 Spec Long Life oil, unless you want to. 

Edited 11 October, 20223 yr by roottoot

1 hour ago, roottoot said:

Indeed.  First and fore most know the spec. 

Then know why there are suggestions and recommendations over the past 12 years why to not use 5w 30 FS II with a CAVE engine. 

So not the VW504 00 / 507 00 Spec Long Life oil, unless you want to. 

 

I don't need to know the spec. I can look it up, that's why specs are written down!

@sepulchraveMy hero.

  You are fantastic, a font of knowledge but not the OP that comes to a forum asking a question and getting passed your amazing knowledge, sometimes totally gained from forums rather than working on or running the actual vehicles. 

 

 

1 minute ago, roottoot said:

@sepulchraveMy hero.

  You are fantastic, a font of knowledge but not the OP that comes to a forum asking a question and getting passed your amazing knowledge, sometimes totally gained from forums rather than working on or running the actual vehicles. 

 

The Internet is brimming with anecdotal nonsense, let me give you a recent example:

 

I was repairing an Alfa 16V TS that had eaten its cambelt immediately followed by all sixteen valves for pudding.

 

Rebuilding the existing head would have been prohibitively expensive so I sourced a guaranteed good secondhand head from a specialist breakers.

 

The owner called me in a panic, he'd been reading on the interwebs a widely circulated myth that you have to replace all the big end shells when this engine bends the valves as the sudden load on the piston will dent the shells! I kid you not!

 

Anyway I had to calmly explain that it wasn't necessary because if the bottom end were that fragile then the big end shells wouldn't survive the internal combustion process either.

 

He then asked if we could do it just to be on the safe side, so I said no, I'd finish the work we'd agreed needed to be done then when the engine was restarted if there was any noise from the bottom end I'd investigate further.

 

Needless to say all was well and it was just a load of anecdotal internet mythology, which is a polite euphemism for a load of something else!