The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network - View Single Post

**Accelo** · 11-03-2021, 01:07 PM

mr.mud1
Good advice. Seems they are difficult to find. I checked with Napa as their application catalog typically is correct.

I found only the two rear hoses.
NAPA Part #: UP 36592 $14.59 / Each (13.25" Length)
NAPA Part #: UP 36564 (18.69" Length)
Both guaranteed to fit my vehicle. LOL, they both can't fit. However, it appears to be the correct two rear hoses for the 67-72 trucks. The shorter one on the right side and the later, longer, center hose.
Nothing for the front which is weird as they would likely be the better sellers.

Leave it to the brokers to assume the 1/2T and 3/4T hoses are the same.
I spent an exorbitant amount of time on what should have been "The simple brake stuff."
Was flat out lied to or just not given all the information I needed. It became obvious they knew the product they sold wouldn't fit as delivered. Did they lie by omission? Or is it plausible deniability? Plenty of room for vendor improvement in this area.

11-03-2021, 01:07 PM	#5
Accelo Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: washington Posts: 2,356	Re: Bagged 67c10 front brake hose? mr.mud1 Good advice. Seems they are difficult to find. I checked with Napa as their application catalog typically is correct. I found only the two rear hoses. NAPA Part #: UP 36592 $14.59 / Each (13.25" Length) NAPA Part #: UP 36564 (18.69" Length) Both guaranteed to fit my vehicle. LOL, they both can't fit. However, it appears to be the correct two rear hoses for the 67-72 trucks. The shorter one on the right side and the later, longer, center hose. Nothing for the front which is weird as they would likely be the better sellers. Leave it to the brokers to assume the 1/2T and 3/4T hoses are the same. I spent an exorbitant amount of time on what should have been "The simple brake stuff." Was flat out lied to or just not given all the information I needed. It became obvious they knew the product they sold wouldn't fit as delivered. Did they lie by omission? Or is it plausible deniability? Plenty of room for vendor improvement in this area.