greg75vette
The Traffic Baron
Yeah that's up there, but they are easy to install. I'll have to weigh out the options. I wouldn't have buy a tubing flare tool, for one.
Braided Fuel Line recommendation?
- Thread starter greg75vette
- Start date
There is one other thing to consider if it applies in your application. Because you don't have to leave room to get a flaring tool die on the end of the line you can usually (depends on tool and die set) get the swagelok fitting closer to a bend in the tube. Just something to know if you have space restrictions and don't want the losses associated with a 90* fitting or if the tube is stubbed out on a component and the die won't fit.
Grampy
Grampy
Jsup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 812
There are compression fittings that go on hard line and adapt to flex line. I used them on my transmission lines. They work well. Since it's a compression fitting you don't need to flare the line. It's a compression fitting like under your sink on the feed lines.
greg75vette
The Traffic Baron
Bump!
I figured I would just continue this thread instead of starting a new one.
I wound up getting some great stuff for fuel lines. All braided lines are PTFE (Teflon) lined which requires a special hose end used; Steel instead of aluminum.
So my question is, where I have these Steel AN hose ends meeting aluminum AN connectors, should I have some sort of anti-seize on the threads to prevent galling?
That's all! Thanks guys.
I figured I would just continue this thread instead of starting a new one.
I wound up getting some great stuff for fuel lines. All braided lines are PTFE (Teflon) lined which requires a special hose end used; Steel instead of aluminum.
So my question is, where I have these Steel AN hose ends meeting aluminum AN connectors, should I have some sort of anti-seize on the threads to prevent galling?
That's all! Thanks guys.
denpo
Carburated Nihilist
Where if you get this info from?
I've been sold PTFE lined hose and aluminum fitting purposely designed for such hose, from the same vendor.
Between the vendor and you someone is wrong, I hope his you :twitch::lol:
MYBAD79
Moderator
aluminum fittings should be fine, why wouldn't they ?
anti seize is always a good idea, very few exceptions like strut rod ends (the adjustable ones) and control arm shaft bushing bolts ... that said, i installed my AN fittings dry... no seized threads and no leaks....but if i did it again i would use lubrication on the threads and even on the conical sealing surfaces
anti seize is always a good idea, very few exceptions like strut rod ends (the adjustable ones) and control arm shaft bushing bolts ... that said, i installed my AN fittings dry... no seized threads and no leaks....but if i did it again i would use lubrication on the threads and even on the conical sealing surfaces
greg75vette
The Traffic Baron
I don't think either is wrong, it's just what that particular manufacturer uses. Red Horse and Aeroquip use steel hose ends like these:
Cool. I just started putting these together so I'll put a little on the threads and a touch on the cone. Definitely don't want that floating through the system. Thanks!
Last edited:
Belgian1979vette
Well-known member
I understand that teflon lined would be best. But in that category, there's a limited selection of -10 hoses and hose ends.
Would the perform-o-flex that i have now, also pose problems with the fuel in Europe.
I read somewhere that it depends on the additives in the fuel. Apparently that's not the same in Europe and the us.
Thx
Would the perform-o-flex that i have now, also pose problems with the fuel in Europe.
I read somewhere that it depends on the additives in the fuel. Apparently that's not the same in Europe and the us.
Thx
Its ethanol that attacks the rubber hoses so I think its the same in Europe too. I don't think anybody really knows what other additives do in the long run.
I chose teflon but I think if you are carefull and replace rubber hoses every now and then (2-3 years?) you will be ok.
I chose teflon but I think if you are carefull and replace rubber hoses every now and then (2-3 years?) you will be ok.
redvetracr
Well-known member
use what you like but Aeroquip recommends rubber lined hose for fuel not Teflon lined, as to hose ends (fittings) all the AQP hose ends for Teflon lined hose are steel with a replaceable sleeve....
http://www.youblisher.com/p/3647-Eaton-Aeroquip-Racing-High-Performance-Catalog/
http://www.youblisher.com/p/3647-Eaton-Aeroquip-Racing-High-Performance-Catalog/
Belgian1979vette
Well-known member
On one of the other forums i was following a similare discussion, a manufacturer stated that the regular hose was ok for use with race gas and not for use with pump gas for the simple reason they would start weeping. They recommended teflon lined hose.
Food for thought but i'm pretty sure the alcohol content of pump gas has a lot to do with it.
As for the timeline, some seem to start weeping almost immediatly.
Seen the risk involved...not a good idea i would say. Sadly i already bought a lot of fitting before finding this out.
greg75vette
The Traffic Baron
Ethanol does eat rubber. I wasn't confident that the material contained in 'normal' braided hose would hold up to Ethanol and I've had my own experience of low pressure rubber fuel lines leaking only after a year installed.
My personal theory as to why so many people can smell gas in their garage from installing full length braided hose is due to the core being eaten by additives such as ethanol.
Once I found out that it is perfectly acceptable to use PTFE hose as fuel tubing, I went for it. I can flow just about anything through it without issue. It isn't outrageously expensive, so for me it was worth the extra coin.
With that being said, if I had normal braided hose already, I would run it until I smelled or saw gas weeping. As long as a consciencious eye was kept on it, I think it would be ok. But if and when it failed, I'd replace it with PTFE in a second.
My personal theory as to why so many people can smell gas in their garage from installing full length braided hose is due to the core being eaten by additives such as ethanol.
Once I found out that it is perfectly acceptable to use PTFE hose as fuel tubing, I went for it. I can flow just about anything through it without issue. It isn't outrageously expensive, so for me it was worth the extra coin.
With that being said, if I had normal braided hose already, I would run it until I smelled or saw gas weeping. As long as a consciencious eye was kept on it, I think it would be ok. But if and when it failed, I'd replace it with PTFE in a second.
greg75vette
The Traffic Baron
Bumping an old thread in order to ask a routing question. I'm finally looking into routing my fuel lines and I have a dilemma. There seems to be two routing options with the current configuration and both have some drawbacks. Keep in mind this is on the driver's side.
First up is routing the fuel line from the frame rail to the fender and around everything, including the vacuum booster. The line would then cross as the picture shows:
It's currently laying between the booster and MC. I have insulating wrap I can put on so nothing chafes. I understand the MC will get hot, but the wrap should help with that. I like this install the most because it keeps the fuel completely out of the way of everything else.
The second way is between the head and firewall. I'm not crazy about this due to the proximity to the exhaust. It is also a much busier area with the wiring and vacuum hoses.
In that last picture, the bolt that is half in my valve cover is for the coils, so keep in mind they will also be in the area.
I would also have to buy another elbow for the second option, but that is a minor problem.
So what do you all think? The first is my favorite, but are there unseen drawbacks? I've looked at a few swap pics that others have done and it at least one other had it draped over the MC/booster. So I'm inclined to think it's ok.
First up is routing the fuel line from the frame rail to the fender and around everything, including the vacuum booster. The line would then cross as the picture shows:
It's currently laying between the booster and MC. I have insulating wrap I can put on so nothing chafes. I understand the MC will get hot, but the wrap should help with that. I like this install the most because it keeps the fuel completely out of the way of everything else.
The second way is between the head and firewall. I'm not crazy about this due to the proximity to the exhaust. It is also a much busier area with the wiring and vacuum hoses.
In that last picture, the bolt that is half in my valve cover is for the coils, so keep in mind they will also be in the area.
I would also have to buy another elbow for the second option, but that is a minor problem.
So what do you all think? The first is my favorite, but are there unseen drawbacks? I've looked at a few swap pics that others have done and it at least one other had it draped over the MC/booster. So I'm inclined to think it's ok.
Last edited:
I think the fuel line over the booster looks a little weird. It should work, but it kinda looks like an afterthought.
denpo
Carburated Nihilist
Over the head cover is wrong IHMO, any leak on this line would lead to fuel dripping right over to the headers.
Not thrilled by the firewall path either.
I'm not LS1 expert, but I assume the stock setup is pretty much like the SBC setup (fuel line coming from the front of the engine).
Any rational for not going this way?
If I had to go by the back driver side of the engine I'd go over the pedal box them dive down toward the vapor canister.
It's a matter of cleareance with the hood.
Not thrilled by the firewall path either.
I'm not LS1 expert, but I assume the stock setup is pretty much like the SBC setup (fuel line coming from the front of the engine).
Any rational for not going this way?
If I had to go by the back driver side of the engine I'd go over the pedal box them dive down toward the vapor canister.
It's a matter of cleareance with the hood.
TimAT
Addict, Cruise-In Bird-Run 1 Veteran
How about moving the line toward the centerline of the car at the rear and over the trans tunnel above the insulation? With that, you can place the drop anyplace on the firewall you want.
I'd not do that with the braided line, but running hard line is not to tough, and there are hard line adapters you can install to keep the braided section as short as possible.
Just a thought.
I'd not do that with the braided line, but running hard line is not to tough, and there are hard line adapters you can install to keep the braided section as short as possible.
Just a thought.
greg75vette
The Traffic Baron
Thanks for the replies.
I agree it looks like an afterthought with the first option.
The fuel rail nipple is directly to the right of the fuel line in the first picture. It's perpendicular to the fuel rail and is dead level so coming from the front or back of the engine will require me to go over the valve cover and that'll be tight with the coils.
I looked a little more at it this afternoon and I might be able to go under the MC but I need a way to hold the fuel line close to the fender. I'm using PTFE hose and it's real stiff so if I don't anchor it right, it'll do whatever it wants. I thought of riveting a bracket to the fender (at the drip rails) but I'm not sure of another anchor point.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk 2
I agree it looks like an afterthought with the first option.
The fuel rail nipple is directly to the right of the fuel line in the first picture. It's perpendicular to the fuel rail and is dead level so coming from the front or back of the engine will require me to go over the valve cover and that'll be tight with the coils.
I looked a little more at it this afternoon and I might be able to go under the MC but I need a way to hold the fuel line close to the fender. I'm using PTFE hose and it's real stiff so if I don't anchor it right, it'll do whatever it wants. I thought of riveting a bracket to the fender (at the drip rails) but I'm not sure of another anchor point.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk 2
68/70Vette
Well-known member
In 1962, I got a summer job at Aeroquip in Jackson, Michigan. It was a summer job between my Junior and Senior years in University. It was a lab job. My job was to destructively destroy new hose connector designs and also, as a part of quality control, to destroy hoses picked at random off the assembly lines. Some of these hose connectors then, and I suppose now, were astounding. They had quick disconnect hose connectors......the lines could be pressurized at 2000 psia, and you could twist the connectors by hand and disconnect them with about a liquid drop of hydraulic fluid loss. Similary, you could reconnect them by hand. I would use a paper towel segment to document the fluid loss from disconnecting 2000 psia lines. Failing the hoses and connectors with hydraulic fluid was pretty much a relaxing job. When they failed they would just spurt an ounce or so of hydraulic fluid...that would be it. Failing hoses and connectors with compressed air was nerve racking. The hoses were in a thick steel cabinet..when a hose with compressed air failed, it went off with an explosive force. My body always jumped when the hose exploded.
It was only much later in life that I realized that I was often destroying hose couplings worth many hundreds of dollars, with some it was probably in the thousands of dollars. At 18 years, I had no clue.
The gas lines on my 68...everything included...pumps, filters, lines, fittings,..tools for bending..probably cost about $1000. This was in maybe 2008.
Final statement..Aeroquip stuff, today, is expensive. For sure based on nostalgia, I like to buy it. ....Oh, I forgot..as a 21 year old I flew from Dayton, Ohio to Jackson, Michigan on Aeroquip corporate airplane, a twin engine AeroCommander...I got to fly in the right seat!
It was only much later in life that I realized that I was often destroying hose couplings worth many hundreds of dollars, with some it was probably in the thousands of dollars. At 18 years, I had no clue.
The gas lines on my 68...everything included...pumps, filters, lines, fittings,..tools for bending..probably cost about $1000. This was in maybe 2008.
Final statement..Aeroquip stuff, today, is expensive. For sure based on nostalgia, I like to buy it. ....Oh, I forgot..as a 21 year old I flew from Dayton, Ohio to Jackson, Michigan on Aeroquip corporate airplane, a twin engine AeroCommander...I got to fly in the right seat!
Last edited:
What about a formed line down behind the engine and connect the hose to that?
mrvette
Phantom of the Opera
For the FI on my Volvo 4 cyl 2343cc Bayliner 20' boat, I used Aeroquip hose, and the typical FI hose clamp with the screw/nut arrangement, not the usual worm hose clamp.....same with the Goat, and now the vette....
not so far away is a company called Hose Power on Industrial Loop, they have every damn hose setup you can imagine, from little shit like we talking about to fire hose, to stuff I just stare at in wonder.....:flash:
Needless to say, they have all the fittings also, and I think the prices are cheep, and the guys on the counter seem to know their shit pretty good too, so anyone need anything, I be happy to do some shopping for you all.....
:hi:
not so far away is a company called Hose Power on Industrial Loop, they have every damn hose setup you can imagine, from little shit like we talking about to fire hose, to stuff I just stare at in wonder.....:flash:
Needless to say, they have all the fittings also, and I think the prices are cheep, and the guys on the counter seem to know their shit pretty good too, so anyone need anything, I be happy to do some shopping for you all.....
:hi: