home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > Mechanical > maintenance & nonperformance

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-01-2020, 03:04 PM   #1
142 guy
Board Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Default Quality Fuel Line

When I rebuilt my 142 E 6 + years ago I had used Dayco FI hose on the fuel injection system and I found that it deteriorated (cracked) very quickly. I also had a go with some Gates fuel line (I don't think it was the Barricade hose) which also was not particularly long lived. On the recommendation of another party, I tried Parker Push-on abrasion king hose and it lasted longer; but, I noticed yesterday that the supply hose to the fuel rail and return from the regulator is started to check quite a bit and the surface is getting hard. That is rather disappointing. The particular Parker hose no longer appears to be listed as a product so I am unable to confirm its temperature ratings.

I do have a chunk of Good Year Insta Grip 2G-1C-14C/33 between the rail and the regulator inlet and the exterior of that hose does appear to be in good condition, or at least much better than the Parker hose. However, I did a little checking and Good Year appears to have exited this product line with the Insta Grip being taken over by Continental. A little checking on the Continental application guides indicates that the insta grip appears to be unrated for fuel line - even though it seems to have been more durable than any of the dedicated fuel hoses that I have tried so far. Continental does sell some specific fuel line rated hoses that meet the SAE 30R9 standard which is rated to 135 C. However, there have been some interesting comments about the outside jacket of the hose getting gooey when exposed to gasoline - go figure.

Does anybody have some suggestions for fuel line? Something that is rated for use on fuel injection systems and has been in use for more than a couple of years without showing obvious deterioration? This is a D jet with an MS2 retrofit retaining all the original 5/15" barbed fittings so hose for use with AN fittings are not applicable.

I have a Honda and an Acura product and the Acura has fuel lines that are now 20 years old and showing no obvious signs of deterioration. Why do the OEMs seem to be able to source good hose and all the aftermarket stuff appears to be dodgy?
142 guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2020, 03:29 PM   #2
OttoB
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: E(Seattle!Vancouver! San Francisco!LA!) Helsinski
Default

I've been lurking on these:
https://www.finjector.com/eng/polyamide_tubes-212
OttoB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2020, 04:32 PM   #3
142 guy
Board Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Default

No good for lurking if you have barbed fittings!
142 guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2020, 04:50 PM   #4
hiperfauto
The Librarian
 
hiperfauto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: So Cal
Default

We've been using CRP hose 'cause that's what Worldpac sells but it's been developing deeps cracks in the rubber and some leaks. We've had to call customers back in to have it replaced before it causes a fire.

I parked my 142E for a couple of months and when I went to move it recently it wouldn't start and there was a puddle of fuel on the ground. I pulled the fuel pump tray down, energized the pump and was treated to a shower of fuel from hundreds of pinholes in the hose between the pump and filter. It looked the fountain at the Bellagio.

We're now using Cohline fuel line and so far it's been holding up well.
hiperfauto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2020, 05:52 PM   #5
142 guy
Board Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiperfauto View Post
We've been using CRP hose 'cause that's what Worldpac sells but it's been developing deeps cracks in the rubber and some leaks. We've had to call customers back in to have it replaced before it causes a fire.

I parked my 142E for a couple of months and when I went to move it recently it wouldn't start and there was a puddle of fuel on the ground. I pulled the fuel pump tray down, energized the pump and was treated to a shower of fuel from hundreds of pinholes in the hose between the pump and filter. It looked the fountain at the Bellagio.

We're now using Cohline fuel line and so far it's been holding up well.
Nice to know that I am not the only one suffering from poor hoses.

Which Cohline are you using? Their on-line resources are not particularly helpful. The 2122 hose seems to have a lot of bad comments about premature failure. The 2240 looks to be the more normal hose which appears to meet the SAE 30R9 standard. However, it may be academic since sourcing Cohline may be a problem for me.
142 guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2020, 05:55 PM   #6
iamrolling
Board Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Default

I've heard nothing but good things about Barricade, but it's in imperial widths so you'd likely have to fight some hoses on and clamp down others a bit hard.
iamrolling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2020, 06:31 PM   #7
hiperfauto
The Librarian
 
hiperfauto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: So Cal
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 142 guy View Post
Which Cohline are you using?
We're using this stuff.

https://www.belmetric.com/smooth-hig...5mm-p-958.html
hiperfauto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2020, 02:57 AM   #8
tintintin
Board Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 142 guy View Post
No good for lurking if you have barbed fittings!
Can't you heat the end of the hose with a heat gun and quickly jam it on the barbed fitting? Custom fit!
tintintin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2020, 06:05 AM   #9
OttoB
Board Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: E(Seattle!Vancouver! San Francisco!LA!) Helsinski
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 142 guy View Post
No good for lurking if you have barbed fittings!
Yes, D-Jet is a disaster with hoses and clamps. I choose new fuel rail and new injectors.

Last edited by OttoB; 08-02-2020 at 06:11 AM.. Reason: Wrong comment...
OttoB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2020, 02:01 PM   #10
142 guy
Board Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tintintin View Post
Can't you heat the end of the hose with a heat gun and quickly jam it on the barbed fitting? Custom fit!
No, the harder plastics tend to permanently deform with the application of heat. That solution would likely never seal.
142 guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2020, 02:06 PM   #11
alschnertz
Enough already!
 
alschnertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CT
Default

I thought only the US was forced to use ethanol blended gasoline.
__________________
Differences of opinions should be tolerated, but only if they're not too different. - Sharon Craig
alschnertz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2020, 02:06 PM   #12
142 guy
Board Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoB View Post
Yes, D-Jet is a disaster with hoses and clamps. I choose new fuel rail and new injectors.
I have the MS2 set up with the correct characteristics for the 036 injectors so it runs just fine. I think replacing injectors, injector mounts, fuel rail, fuel pressure regulator and the fuel lines running into the engine bay so that I can use hose meant for AN fittings is slight over-kill. Plus, I have no guarantee that the AN hoses don't have their own issues. Given the amount of engine movement that the B20E exhibits I would be reluctant to make connections between the rail and firewall connections using a really stiff fuel line.

The original fabric covered fuel lines on my car were in remarkably good shape after 40 years. So, hoses and clamps are not an inherent disaster. However, I wasn't going to re install 40 + year old hoses. I think this is just a matter of working through the product list to determine what is garbage and what is not.
142 guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2020, 05:25 PM   #13
c1800
Board Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alschnertz View Post
I thought only the US was forced to use ethanol blended gasoline.
All of Canada and coming to the UK.

Shell in Alberta (maybe elsewhere) sells Non Ethanol premium, they’re able to do this as the Total volume of gasoline they sell meets the minimum annual average of 5% renewable alcohol in gasoline. Their regular is Up to 10%, and mid-grade 5%.
c1800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2020, 06:00 PM   #14
iamrolling
Board Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Default

If the hoses you need are 18" or less, the 5/16" Prestone injection hose from AutoZone has held up on my FPR feed for a few years now and still looks good. No cracks. Just make sure when you open the package that it's the right thing. One time I bought injection hose and noticed before putting it on that it was emissions hose.

Update on this one: I removed the Prestone FI hose from the FPR because of this thread, and it looks like it started cracking internally at one end already a little bit. It probably would have been fine for a few more years, but I just replaced it with some Barricade MPI while I had it off.

Last edited by iamrolling; 08-02-2020 at 08:01 PM..
iamrolling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2020, 06:06 PM   #15
c1800
Board Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Alberta
Default

I’ve read several threads on other forums describing early failure of J30R9, while rating for injection, failing prematurely, and only rated for 50 psi, and some further cautions its only intended for the return, not the pressure side. What is needed (I have surmised) is hose rated at 225psi. And resistant to ethanol.

Which is what I have installed on mine, its Gates Barricade, rated SAE J30 R14 Type 2, whatever that means.

To make matters worse , SAE whose standards fuel line are rated at, doesn’t publish online the explanations and uses of the various ratings. They charge some $80 to get a copy.

One might think that something this critical to safety would be provided free as a public service by SAE.

https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j30_201202/

https://www.sae.org/standards/conten...01202/preview/
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 288FA479-50AB-452A-9565-D6ACE03F87D4.jpg (191.9 KB, 73 views)
File Type: jpg 8AB35D81-A7CC-4085-BF7B-16A9AA077EB2.jpg (172.3 KB, 66 views)
c1800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2020, 07:10 PM   #16
iamrolling
Board Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c1800 View Post
Gates Barricade
Do you know where to get the 7/16" ID Barricade MPI? The closest I can find is 1/2". Gates' website shows that there is a 7/16" hose, but I can't find it anywhere.

There are two versions of the Barricade hose. The version for fuel injection systems is sold as Barricade MPI, but there is also Barricade carburetor hose. There are a few critical differences between these.
Barricade MPI is rated for 225 psi. Barricade for carburetors is rated mostly at 50 psi, but a few sizes are only rated for 25 psi. Barricade MPI is rated SAE J30R14 T2, and the carburetor Barricade is rated SAE J30R14 T1. There are a few things they have in common. The temperature ranges are similar. Both are safe for ethanol fuels. Neither are suitable for complete submersion in gasoline. The major difference between R14 T1 and T2 is apparently burst strength.

I too wish that SAE made this information more easily available.
iamrolling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 12:12 AM   #17
c1800
Board Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Alberta
Default

I got mine on Amazon. It appears Gates don’t make barricade in 7/16. At least I couldn’t find it.

Last edited by c1800; 08-03-2020 at 10:24 AM..
c1800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 01:49 PM   #18
142 guy
Board Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Default

The SAE is an industry standards organization that is likely funded by membership and sales of the standards documents. Don't expect to get free copies of the standards since they are not publicly funded or for the general use of the public. The standards are developed by committees of the members and often represent the least they could agree on (I have been on standards committees - not SAE). The standards just set out a performance requirement (burst pressure, vapor permeation, blah blah ...). It is up to a knowledgeable end user (an OEM) to determine whether a hose that meets a standard is adequate for their requirements. The fact that a hose complies with the standard does not mean that it is good for what you want to do. That is why a lot of OEMs (Honda, Ford ...) have their own standards that the suppliers have to comply with which may be different / beyond the minimal SAE standards.

The SAE standards may be a red herring anyway. My issue has been the accelerated deterioration / ageing of the hoses in the engine compartment and it has been a while; but, I don't recall the standards dealing with ageing / deterioration. This ageing is presumably due to heat. I have a piece of the Parker hose that was never installed from 6 years ago and it is in perfect condition compared to the stuff in-service in the engine compartment and the only difference is heat exposure. The SAE standard does set working temperature ranges for the hoses (J30R9 is up to 135 C). You would think that 135 C would be ample; but, everything ages and the standard may not set out the limits of life at 135 C.

The original fuel hoses on my 142 E were remarkably long lived, and the SAE hose standards may not have even existed when these hoses were designed. Something else is at play that the standards are not covering. That is why I solicit real world experience on long term (more than 1 year) durability.
142 guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 05:40 PM   #19
iamrolling
Board Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Default

I understand, 142 guy. The specifications sheet and the real world are two different places. I have fresh pieces of Barricade MPI on both sides of my fuel pressure regulator, so I'll try to report my results over time. They've survived the first two drives well enough. So if I report back within a few months, they're no good. If within a few years, they're about average. And if you hear nothing further from me on the hoses, then they're damn good hoses.

Does anyone know the type, length and ID of the hoses coming off the fuel tank on the 1993 940 Turbo? I have too much crap in my car to quickly flip down the seats and go into the sender portal.

Last edited by iamrolling; 08-03-2020 at 05:46 PM..
iamrolling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 06:31 PM   #20
142 guy
Board Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiperfauto View Post
That appears to be Cohline 2192. Cohline 2240 appears to be their recommendation for fuel line retrofits and has a much higher temperature rating of 135C which I think may be the cause of my ageing problem.

https://www.cohpro.com/cohline-fuel-hose

However, this may be academic since there are definitely no local suppliers and in fact it appears that the only vendors of 2240 are on the other side of the Atlantic.
142 guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 10:40 PM   #21
iamrolling
Board Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Default

Looking into the Cohline hose, there is a DIN standard for hoses, DIN 73379. And funny enough, a copy of its documentation costs around 80 euros.
DIN 73379-3D looks to be closest to our SAE J30R9. But that's as much as I can find so far.
iamrolling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2020, 08:33 AM   #22
Acke
Board Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Finland
Default

Cohline 2240 seems to be working fine. That said, I've only had it for 2 months /1000km. Before that I had another DIN 73379 specced hose that failed after 5 months of garage and 2 days/100km of driving... Bursted 10cms before the fuelrail and made a nice mess in the enginebay
The store that sold me the failed hose gave me a ss braided teflon as replacement, so I might replace the Cohline with that later.
Acke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2020, 09:43 AM   #23
sjulier
Board Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Hamden CT
Default

I'm using Gate Barricade 5/16" ID in both cars. Fuel rail to fuel pressure regulator. No issues. Original hoses were cracked on the inside.

Another option might be:

https://www.belmetric.com/multifuel-...ed-p-9854.html

Sam
__________________
1993 Classic Wagon Teal Green #1446/1600 140k
1993 Classic Sedan Teal Green #140/1600 153k

Last edited by sjulier; 08-04-2020 at 10:09 AM..
sjulier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2020, 11:33 AM   #24
iamrolling
Board Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acke View Post
Cohline 2240 seems to be working fine. That said, I've only had it for 2 months /1000km. Before that I had another DIN 73379 specced hose that failed after 5 months of garage and 2 days/100km of driving... Bursted 10cms before the fuelrail and made a nice mess in the enginebay
The store that sold me the failed hose gave me a ss braided teflon as replacement, so I might replace the Cohline with that later.
I've seen a few types of DIN 73379 hose while searching out information. So far, DIN 73379 3A, 3D, and 3E, with 3D and 3E both compared to SAE J30R9 by the vendor. So DIN 73379 by itself may be an incomplete description. And even if a spec list follows that shows the hose meets your needs, you'll still need to monitor it for a while for the reasons mentioned by c1800.
Maybe eventually we can make a list of the best types of fuel hose to use on bricks. But if I were to guess, the OEM hose would top the list, with Cohline 2240 and Gates Barricade or whatever Belmetric sells as acceptable substitutes.
iamrolling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2020, 12:16 PM   #25
iamrolling
Board Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Default

I've found a site with a datasheet for DIN 73379 type 2A. It is rated for -30 to 90C and 145psi. There is a DIN 73379 type B with similar specifications to type 2A but with braid on the exterior.
Neither have any mention of ethanol in the description, so I can't assume compatibility. But Cohline 2192 which is rated DIN 73779 type 2A is supposedly compatible with E10. However, the site that makes this claim also has it rated for 87psi instead of the 145psi from the other datasheet, so I'm not sure what to make of type 2A.

DIN 73379 type 3D is supposed to be ethanol compatible, and rated for -35 to 135C and 100psi.
DIN 73379 type 3E is Cohline 2240's rating. It is rated for -40 to 135C and 145psi.

I also found this page which has more information about a few of these standards.

Last edited by iamrolling; 08-04-2020 at 12:32 PM..
iamrolling is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.