I can't believe it!

[SwitchbladeII]

I can't believe that after all this time no one has found the correct lower radiator hose. Not sure how many V8's in I6 position out there but probably more than V8's in forward position. The raised portion of the frame is more of an issue for hose contact in the rear position. I have searched old post here and the internet. The best I found was a hose with one end 1/4" in ID smaller than required, it will work but needs expanding. Someone must of found a molded hose that will work. I have tired 3 different hoses, close but still rub. I could shield it but want it to look correct. If you can help it would be greatly appreciated!

[Steeveedee]

I have a big block and use a Gates 20610. The fan clutch is about 3/8" from the radiator, so I would call that the "forward" position. It clears everywhere by at least 3/8".

[SwitchbladeII]

Originally Posted by Steeveedee

I have a big block and use a Gates 20610I. The fan clutch is about 3/8" from the radiator, so I would call that the "forward" position. It clears everywhere by at least 3/8".

Thanks Steeveedee, I will check it out.

[Steeveedee]

Originally Posted by SwitchbladeII

Thanks Steeveedee, I will check it out.

20610. I don't know where that "I" came from, except for fat fingers.

[RustyPile]

My '71 was born with an I6.. Some previous owner installed a 454 and used fabricated mounts.. It's mounted really "forward" and also a bit lower than stock.. Too close to the radiator for a fan clutch and too low for a fan shroud.. Electric fans and fabricated shroud.. Lower hose is a Gates 19670.. It clears everything, touches nothing..

[Bones72Super]

If you have an issue with it rubbing the frame you can take a portion of the old radiator hose about 3 in Long and slit it and fit over your hose to act like a sleeve to take the rubbing / abuse. I have been doing this for many years without issue, I hope that helps

[FirstOwner69]

The original GM number for the small block lower radiator hose with the engine in the correct location is 3918487. If you Google "3918487 hose" you'll find lots of places that sell reproductions. I got mine from Classic Industries. I have no idea if would fit your application though.

Incidentally, when new the trucks included a large flexible spring inside the lower hose. I still have mine. I assume that was just included to prevent kinking at the bends.

[pjmoreland]

Aren't the V8 engines in K10/20 trucks in the farther back position? Maybe you could search for a K10 lower hose.

[tim_mc]

My V8 is in the rearward I6/4x4 SBC position and the lower hose has the proper molded bend to clear the frame "flange" or curl on my '67. Check out Gates 20694 or ACDelco 24035L to see one of those will work for you.

[SwitchbladeII]

Originally Posted by FirstOwner69

The original GM number for the small block lower radiator hose with the engine in the correct location is 3918487. If you Google "3918487 hose" you'll find lots of places that sell reproductions. I got mine from Classic Industries. I have no idea if would fit your application though.

Incidentally, when new the trucks included a large flexible spring inside the lower hose. I still have mine. I assume that was just included to prevent kinking at the bends.

Thank you Firstowner69 for your information. I have that one in my inventory and because of the setback it rubs on the lip. Back in the day I had a friend that owned a NAPA store I could go behind the counter and match things that I needed. Even if I still could do that chances of finding the right hose would be slim to none. Parts store carry limited stock and I think what I am looking for might fit a 53 Buick!

[Davidf]

Originally Posted by FirstOwner69

The original GM number for the small block lower radiator hose with the engine in the correct location is 3918487. If you Google "3918487 hose" you'll find lots of places that sell reproductions. I got mine from Classic Industries. I have no idea if would fit your application though.

Incidentally, when new the trucks included a large flexible spring inside the lower hose. I still have mine. I assume that was just included to prevent kinking at the bends.

The "spring" in the lower hose is not to prevent kinking, but rather to prevent the hose from collapsing due to the suction of the water pump.

[SwitchbladeII]

Originally Posted by tim_mc

My V8 is in the rearward I6/4x4 SBC position and the lower hose has the proper molded bend to clear the frame "flange" or curl on my '67. Check out Gates 20694 or ACDelco 24035L to see one of those will work for you.

Thank you Tim_mc for the information. I have the Gates 20694 and still have the same clearance problem. In case anyone is wondering the motor mounts and the core support mounts are new.

[SwitchbladeII]

Originally Posted by Davidf

The "spring" in the lower hose is not to prevent kinking, but rather to prevent the hose from collapsing due to the suction of the water pump.

Davidf you are absolutely correct all lower hoses should have a spring. The hoses I recently bought didn't have one but I had an old hose which had the spring. If I ever find the right hose I will add the spring.

[tim_mc]

Man, that's a tough one. I doublechecked my lower hose and it definitely clears the curled-up lip on the frame rail. The lower hose connection on the radiator should be angled upward.
I wonder if the lower outlet is angled differently to cause the hose to tilt downward against the frame? FWIW, I'm using a Champion CC369 radiator:
https://www.championradiators.com/product/CC369

[jimijam00]

Originally Posted by SwitchbladeII

Davidf you are absolutely correct all lower hoses should have a spring. The hoses I recently bought didn't have one but I had an old hose which had the spring. If I ever find the right hose I will add the spring.

This is incorrect. Was true 50 years ago though. Hoses today are made to resist the vaccum collapse, just as is the Gates 20610 referenced above.

[SwitchbladeII]

Originally Posted by tim_mc

Man, that's a tough one. I doublechecked my lower hose and it definitely clears the curled-up lip on the frame rail. The lower hose connection on the radiator should be angled upward.
I wonder if the lower outlet is angled differently to cause the hose to tilt downward against the frame? FWIW, I'm using a Champion CC369 radiator:
https://www.championradiators.com/product/CC369

The radiator is a Mishimoto and the lower outlet curves up about 30 degrees. Not sure if there is a difference between frames and mount location between 4x4 and 2wd. Knowing what I know now when things were apart the "lip" would of had some cosmetic surgery and made frame look like the drivers side!

[FirstOwner69]

Originally Posted by Davidf

The "spring" in the lower hose is not to prevent kinking, but rather to prevent the hose from collapsing due to the suction of the water pump.

Thanks for the info. Makes sense. This proves a person is never too old to learn something new!

[SwitchbladeII]

Originally Posted by jimijam00

This is incorrect. Was true 50 years ago though. Hoses today are made to resist the vaccum collapse, just as is the Gates 20610 referenced above.

I don't agree, so lets agree to disagree. Someone else who thinks springs are still a good idea!

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/avoi...hose-collapse/

[Fbks_Cruiser]

Originally Posted by tim_mc

Man, that's a tough one. I doublechecked my lower hose and it definitely clears the curled-up lip on the frame rail. The lower hose connection on the radiator should be angled upward.
I wonder if the lower outlet is angled differently to cause the hose to tilt downward against the frame? FWIW, I'm using a Champion CC369 radiator:
https://www.championradiators.com/product/CC369

I have the problem where the lower hose fitting on the radiator does not angle up. I suspect the correct OEM radiator has that feature. The fitting on my radiator is horizontal and points right at the frame rail. I suspect that a PO installed a radiator from a later model year.
Situation is complicated by the fact that the radiator fitting and water pump fittings are different diameters. I found a hose that bends up and around the frame rail. It is from a later model gm truck.
I think I went with ACDelco AC24053L. Fits okay by applying a little twist when clamping it in. Not perfect, but it work.

See this thread: http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=625730

[Fbks_Cruiser]

Why is that portion of the frame rail curled up? Is that a 2wd thing? Definitely not needed on a 4x4.

[twoskies]

I ended up using a hose from a Dodge Dakota, dont remember what year but the year or years they had a V8 in them, came with a fiber sleeve already on it, did use a double clamp on the lower pump, but dont think its really needed, i looked for a number or receipt, couldnt find, Good Luck

[jimijam00]

Originally Posted by SwitchbladeII

I don't agree, so lets agree to disagree. Someone else who thinks springs are still a good idea!

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/avoi...hose-collapse/

Yeah, I disagree with decades old technology. Advances in engineering and technology are awesome, which is why I am now getting reliable 500 hp out of my C10 and Chevelle. Neither have rusty springs in the hoses. I trust Gates' engineers.

[garyd1961]

I had to sleeve my lower hose when I swapped motors. I noticed the angle of the intlet on my old water pump was at a different angle than the new one I used. I'm pretty sure this is the problem here, with the correct water pump the hose doesn't hit the frame.

[tim_mc]

Originally Posted by Fbks_Cruiser

Why is that portion of the frame rail curled up? Is that a 2wd thing? Definitely not needed on a 4x4.

Looks like the frame was rolled up at that point to provide additional clearance for the oil filter on I6 engines.


photo is from user blkcorvair on another forum thread showing I6 engines.

[tim_mc]

Originally Posted by garyd1961

I had to sleeve my lower hose when I swapped motors. I noticed the angle of the inlet on my old water pump was at a different angle than the new one I used. I'm pretty sure this is the problem here, with the correct water pump the hose doesn't hit the frame.

That's a possibility. I'm running a short pump on my setup. '61-'72 SBC C10 pump on the left, '69 SBC Chevelle pump on the right.