Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:52:41 -0500
Reply-To: Derek Drew <derekdrew@RCN.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Derek Drew <derekdrew@RCN.COM>
Subject: 7mm Fuel Hose Land--DIN code mystery
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
While I had the transmission out of the vehicle I did a little research
about changing hoses.
I found out a lot about 7mm hose, and came up with a puzzler, which is that
there are two current factory 7mm "7x3" fuel hoses for Vanagon Syncro
(probably for all vans).
One is DIN VW600 class TL522 55E while the other is DIN VW780, class TL524 24.
Does anybody have the foggiest idea what the above two numbers mean?
I cannot find a DIN guide anywhere that lists DIN specs for fuel hose, and
I have neaver heard of these TL ratings. Has anybody else?
A review of the archives shows that posters refer to 7mm fuel hose
generically,
and say to get the high pressure kind. But a scan of EKTA/ETOS and some
emails I have had shows that there are two kinds of hose. Possibly they
have differences
that are important, but more likely it will turn out not. Not sure. In any
case, here is the mystery:
HOSE #1: Some factory hoses used to have part number N 020 281 1 but now
have supercession part number N 103 035 01 and appear to cost $15.83 per
meter at dealer Camelback, or going by the old part number, $6.95 per meter
at Bus Depot and $2.30 per foot at Ken's vanagain.com. These are the ones
with DIN VW600 class TL522 55E.
HOSE #2: Other factory 7mm fuel hoses used to have part number N 900 253 19
but now have supercession part number of N 903 387 02 and appear to cost
$20.70 per meter at dealer Camelback and are not listed at Bus Depot or
vanagin.com. These are the ones with DIN VW780 class TL524 24.
Both Ken and Bus-Boys.com proudly state that their N0202811 hose is
Continental brand (I assume that means Continental Hose company), and that
it is smooth and superior to the hose the vans came with.
So my question is whether there is a distinction between these hoses
because some is intended for inside the gas tank and some is intended for
inside the engine compartment, and what the DIN an TL number differences
are supposed to be. Presumably, the HOSE #2 identified above is better in
some way because it costs more and was more recently introduced. There
raises the propsect that these hoses should be put where the ETOS/EKTA says
to put them and not reversed or substituted without experiencing premature
wear.
Ron, Ken, if you could weigh in that would be great. I you don't know the
answer to this question, I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps volksdragon can
dig something up.
I searched the Internet for a DIN code reference guide but quite without
result.
_______________________________________________
Derek Drew New York, NY
CEO & Co-Founder
http://www.ConsumerSearch.com/
===========================
"Best Expert Review Site"
for product reviews on the Internet
Jan. 2001, PC World Magazine
==========================
80 South Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10038
derekdrew@rcn.com
212-580-6486
Alternate numbers for the industrious phone caller that wants to try every
avenue: 917-848-6425 (cell); 202-966-7907 (Work), 212-580-4459 (Home),
202-966-0938 (Home), 978-359-8533 (fax [efax]), 212-269-3188 (Seaport
office), 212-269-3188 (Seaport main number).
