Once an Evo owner told me to stay away from the RBF 600 and Castrol SRF because they are hygroscopic(more than conventional). They need to be changed more often.

After reading this technical inform, it seems the opposite. Castrol SRF is LESS hygroscopic than convetional brake fluids.

Read here:
http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/srf1.htm


Is there some SRF user that can confirm this information?

 

I'd like to know too

 

bump

 

You might get more responses by posting this in the motorsports forum as it is more likely to be read by people who track their cars and hence use these fluids. Good luck.

 

That is some of the best stuff to use, the problem is, it's VERY expensive. I heard that they only make so much of that stuff at one time, and keep the batches very small.

For all but the extreme end of racing, RBF600 is plenty.

 

Cost analysis:

2-3 Pints per flush

You'll need prolly 2 of those. 1 won't be enough.

SRF = $160
RBF600 = $45

Pretty significant.

 

Yeah, it's pricey. I didn't know if took that much to flush??? I thought only a pint?
I'm happy with Motul @ $15!

 

Takes at least 2 for me. I dont want to risk missing some.

Although to just bleed once it's in, it's less than a half a pint used.

 

There are some evidences that Motul RBF 600 is MORE hygroscopic than conventional brake fluids.

Yes, Castrol SRF is expensive, but it seems that outperforms the RBF 600 by a large margin.

I really need to know if Castrol SRF is LESS hygroscopic than conventional fluids, if confirmed, I would say that it worth the extra money. The Brembo brakes deserve a top quality brake fluid.

 

SRF is better because it has a very high wet boiling point, so even when it absorbs water it still works very well.