The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > 47 - Current classic GM Trucks > The 1967 - 1972 Chevrolet & GMC Pickups Message Board

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-29-2014, 06:19 PM   #26
leddzepp
Moderator
 
leddzepp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern Cal
Posts: 19,995
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

There are probably thousands of old cars on the road with rubber fuel lines. Just about every truck I see with a relocated gas tank under the bed has rubber lines all the way to the carb
__________________
1972 C/10 Cheyenne Super SWB. Restored, loaded, slammed.

1968 C/10 50th Anniversary LWB. Unrestored, stock, daily driver/work truck.


RIP ElJay
RIP 67ChevyRedneck
RIP Grumpy Old Man
leddzepp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 06:54 PM   #27
davepl
Registered User
 
davepl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 6,332
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

You could used braided stainless, but it's still rubber on the inside. I have this on one car and I'm worried about it because of ethanol in today's fuel.

I think you can't go wrong with mild steel tubing and a flaring tool. Takes a little practice but that's why it's not a Camry.
__________________
1970 GMC Sierra Grande Custom Camper - Built, not Bought
1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Coupe
1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Convertible
davepl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 08:50 PM   #28
tcrist
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Manteca, Ca.
Posts: 274
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

For me the main reason not to use rubber lines is because of the ethanol that they add to the fuel that we get now.

The newer cars have the Plastic/Teflon lines with a rubber coating. Guess this helps with the erosion. The least amount of rubber line is the best.

Rubber lines were ok years ago BEFORE they started adding this junk to the fuel.

Oh yea, don't worry about my comment on the location of the fuel line on the carburetor. If that is where that carburetor has it, guess that is where it is supposed to be. Just have never seen it on that side before.
__________________
Terry
Soon to be retired and moving to Bristol, TN.
tcrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 09:55 PM   #29
CST10
Registered User
 
CST10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Gonzales, La
Posts: 1,441
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

They actual make a rubber fuel line that is impervious to ethanol blends. A little more expense but worth it. It is still able to be burnt thru if touching the exhaust manifold though. Just like all rubber. It's rated for 250 psi.
__________________
MyToys:
Goldilocks the "Ol School Survivor" 1968 C10, SWB Stepside, 08/15 TOTM, 250 CI 6 cylinder, 3 on the tree, 3.73 rear, 3/5 static drop, 23,500 original miles.
Samson the 1970 CST10, LWB, 462Ci, Turbo 350 tranny, 3.08 rear gear, PB, PS, A/C, AM/FM, 2/4 Drop.
Brutus the 1998 Camaro Z28, 33,500 original miles, LS1, 519 RWHP/497 RWTQ.
Member of the Louisiana Classic Truck Club, LCTC
Member of the Louisiana C10 Club
Member of the Baton Rouge Drifters Car Club
CST10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 10:07 PM   #30
Steeveedee
Who Changed This?
 
Steeveedee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 10,294
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

That is way too much flexible tube for safety. I take it that you have an electric fuel pump? The pump should be placed between the tank and the carb, without a "rat race" of lines, that's just asking for trouble. In any event, the lines in question are not "rubber", as has been bandied about, as rubber would die a quick death with petroleum products running through it. They would be Neoprene and other new formulations, some with Teflon lining, as has been mentioned. Newer hoses can take some serious pressure, like with fuel injection. If you want to put a filter on the suction side of the fuel pump, make it a big one, since the pump isn't all that good at suction. I depends on an easy input, and doesn't like to generate a vacuum. The sock on the tank pickup takes most of the crud out. Buying good fuel and not letting it dry up in the tank will eliminate most of your crud concerns.

I would never use copper lines on anything on a motor vehicle. OK, on the refrigerator in a motor home, but that's it. Copper work hardens with vibration and is subject to cracking (and leaking) as a result. The manufacturers don't use copper for this reason. It also has about 1/10th the strength of steel lines. I've heard of people using it for brake lines because of its formability. Bad choice. It is eventually going to crack and leak, pretty much at the worst time, like when you have to stop fast to avoid hitting someone.
__________________
~Steven

'70 Chevy 3/4T Longhorn CST 402/400/3.56 Custom Camper

Simi Valley, CA
Steeveedee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 04:37 PM   #31
davepl
Registered User
 
davepl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 6,332
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
Yes, there is! US Coastguard safety standards require the use of a Coast Guard certified rubber hose between the mechanical fuel pump and carburetor on carbuerator equipped engines
I'm not trying to bust you on this, but can you provide a link?

I'm skeptical because I can understand a marine application needing a flex section between tank line and pump, but why between pump and carb? It makes no intuitive sense to me, anyway.

Between the vessel and pump I can see. Or if the pump isn't attached to the engine, then ok.
__________________
1970 GMC Sierra Grande Custom Camper - Built, not Bought
1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Coupe
1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Convertible
davepl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 04:41 PM   #32
davepl
Registered User
 
davepl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 6,332
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeveedee View Post
I would never use copper lines on anything on a motor vehicle.
I agree fuel pressure gauges and so forth, but my truck has (from the factory) a copper line from block to interior gauge. It's lasted 44 years and I didn't replace it during restoration either (I also didn't bend it around a lot because it does seriously work harden as you mention).

Part of the reason it survives is that as soon as it exits the block they wind it into a coil with about 10 loops so it's got plenty of ability to move around without actually bending anything.

If I don't care about being stock then electrical sending unit is the way to go. If you did need a tube for an old mechanical gauge then probably steel braided teflon. I'd actually just check the NHRA requirements because they've thought of this before.
__________________
1970 GMC Sierra Grande Custom Camper - Built, not Bought
1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Coupe
1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Convertible
davepl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 04:52 PM   #33
tcrist
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Manteca, Ca.
Posts: 274
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

Am I missing something here? There is talk about NHRA rules and marine rules/laws or whatever. Is this fuel line not on a pickup?

Does it really matter what NHRA. Marine applications, Nascar, Arca or whatever rules are?

Shouldn't this be just about safety?

I agree that running the fuel line right next to or rubbing on electrical wires is not a good idea.
__________________
Terry
Soon to be retired and moving to Bristol, TN.
tcrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 05:06 PM   #34
davepl
Registered User
 
davepl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 6,332
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

Quote:
Originally Posted by tcrist View Post
Am I missing something here? There is talk about NHRA rules and marine rules/laws or whatever. Is this fuel line not on a pickup?

Does it really matter what NHRA. Marine applications, Nascar, Arca or whatever rules are? Shouldn't this be just about safety?
Yes. And my assertion is that those sanctioning bodies and the Coast Guard know more about it and know it more authoritatively than us forum people. Why speculate when people that do this kind of thing for a living already have decided?

I don't see the fact it's on a pickup making a difference. A race car has to live 13 seconds (or 11 if its me) and that's it. A pickup has to handle potholes and gravel roads and speed bumps and heating up in traffic without airflow and a lot worse.

Is he legally required to replace it? I don't know, ask the state patrol. Should he? Yes. Should it take 34 posts to decide that? No. Is it any of our business what he does? No. People can fail the Darwin test all they want so long as its not at the gas station pump next to me.
__________________
1970 GMC Sierra Grande Custom Camper - Built, not Bought
1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Coupe
1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Convertible
davepl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 05:54 PM   #35
tcrist
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Manteca, Ca.
Posts: 274
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

Actually "NO" it does not matter what some sanctioning body's rules are unless the person is racing in that sanctioning body.

As far as marine use, I would guess that they could not care less what the vehicle that is towing the water vehicle to the water has in it for a fuel line either. They care what the water vehicle has for fuel lines.

I sure don't know it for a fact, but I would suspect that there is no law for how much rubber/flex-able fuel line someone uses on their vehicle. If there is then the newer vehicles with the rubber coated Teflon/plastic fuel lines would not pass inspection for the state the vehicle is registered in.

What does matter is that it is "FUEL" line. What does matter is safety.
__________________
Terry
Soon to be retired and moving to Bristol, TN.
tcrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 05:58 PM   #36
davepl
Registered User
 
davepl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 6,332
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

Quote:
Originally Posted by tcrist View Post
Actually "NO" it does not matter what some sanctioning body's rules are unless the person is racing in that sanctioning body.
By that logic helmets don't protect your head in states where they're not required by law.

Rules evolve for a reason - generally the mistakes of others learned the hard way. You're free to repeat them all yourself, but I'm smart enough to learn from them. So even if safety rules don't apply to you officially, they're still usually good ideas.

There's no law or sanctioning body that requires you to wear safety glasses when using a wire wheel either. You're not governed by OSHA at home, right? Yet we have a member that will tell you it's a good idea.
__________________
1970 GMC Sierra Grande Custom Camper - Built, not Bought
1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Coupe
1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Convertible
davepl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 07:32 PM   #37
tcrist
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Manteca, Ca.
Posts: 274
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

What???? Do you wear a helmet in your car just because the rules in NHRA, Nascar, whatever the motorcycle racing sanctions and such require it? If you want to in your car or on a motorcycle in a state that does not require it, then that is your choice.

But, getting back to what this thread is about, the routing and the rubber fuel lines that the previous owner of the vehicle that the OP has.

Sounds like there was a strange routing of the fuel lines and the OP fixed that like it has been fixed thousands of times before. Is that the safest way to run the fuel lines, no. But, it is his choice to change it or not using some of the suggestions that has been posted. Very good suggestions at that.

If the OP wants to change it to a setup that racers or marine craft has them, then that is the OP's choice.
__________________
Terry
Soon to be retired and moving to Bristol, TN.
tcrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 06:54 AM   #38
dirtyjim
Registered User
 
dirtyjim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: alvin, texas
Posts: 622
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

I see it as a temporary fix until you can run the fuel lines out of steel with a minimum of rubber flex line, typically 3" or less. many temporary fixes also end up being permanent until you burn the car down. if you've ever experienced a fuel related underhood fire you will how easy it is to loose the car unless your lucky and just happen to have fire extinguisher or water hose handy. I was lucky once and don't care to chance it again.

usually the first thing we do when we buy one of these old trucks is start fixing all of the previous owners hack job repairs and modifications. the majority of these repairs were probably meant to be a temporary fix till they had the time or money to do it right but most people are lazy so as long as its still working the temp fix becomes permanant
__________________
1967 C10 lwb two tone, 305 & rat fink style floor shifted 700r4, 20" steelies
2004 2500HD utility bed aka Brutus
dirtyjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 10:13 AM   #39
truckster
Senior Member
 
truckster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Orem, Utah
Posts: 7,872
Re: Com' On PO - Dangerous Fuel Lines

The fuel inlet hose and vent hose, and the hose running from the tank pickup tube to the steel line are all rubber. My 2001 Pontiac has rubber lines at the tank as well. The problem with rubber lines is when they are old and neglected. The OP has already demonstrated that he's not the kind who neglects such things....
truckster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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 Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1997-2022 67-72chevytrucks.com