Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (October 1998, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:38:39 -0400
Reply-To:     John Anderson <janderson@IOLINC.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         John Anderson <janderson@IOLINC.NET>
Subject:      Re: Fuel lines, one more time...
Comments: To: vanagon@vanagon.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

>This brings up a question I've been pondering for a while. Several times on >this list I've heard recommendations to stay away from the cotton covered hose.

Some people have made the claim that the cotton covered hose is more subject to degradation from who knows, UV, ozone, whatever than the "FI" hose which is smooth and rubber covered. Personally I do NOT have this opinion. I really doubt it makes a whit of difference, seems to me that as both hoses are often by the same manufacturer (Continental?) there is probably no formulation difference whatsoever in the rubber which is what is going to be most importantly subject to degradation. To me it seems the cotton covered hose is far better reinforced as the rubber "FI" hose has much less braid between its rubber layers. As a totaly unscientific single point test, about 3 years ago I installed cotton covered hose on the '78, rubber on the '77, both were run about even amounts (not a lot) and subject to the same ambient conditions. Looking at either today shows no great difference, at least here in my local. Some claimed that in smog ridden areas the cloth covered broke down faster, like I've said, I don't know. I will say suprisingly I noted on the '87 the other day that the rubber covered line I used was already cracking a little past the clamps (you know, towards the joint where that last little bit of hose flares out) maybe because I overtightened, but neither the '77 or '78 exhibit this behavior with an older installation, so perhaps noted differences are due to batch and formulation or manufacturer. And finally VW superceded the cloth covered in late '76 or '77 so they thought rubber covered was superior apparently, though the hose they used from '77-'85 or so was not like the rubber covered stuff sold today, it had a striated appearance on the outside. Basically I say, use whatever is handy, the rubber covered is merely a phone call away to RMMW, Bus Depot, Old Volks Home, wherever. If the cotton covered is available locally (which it often is) and you need it, use it. Either way inspect frequently and replace maybe every 5 years? Something I wonder about, RMMW and other sell a blue colored hose for brake fluid resevoirs in the same size, has anybody ever seen this in use, I know my buses do not use it, perhaps I'd seen it feeding the clutch in a Vanagon or Quantum, if I replace the feed tube in a bus should I use this instead?

John janderson@iolinc.net


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.