Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16
| [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16 [message #258833] |
Thu, 14 August 2014 19:13  |
Kingsley Coach
Messages: 2691
Registered: March 2009
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Karma: -34
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Netters
It is my belief that the original gas lines on my '77 Kingsley with 403
engine were 3/8 .
What would happen if I dropped down to 5/16 since I have lots of that
tubing? Would the slight reduction affect gas flow in the real world?
Just wondering?
Thanks
Mike in NS
--
Michael Beaton
1977 Kingsley 26-11
1977 Eleganza II 26-3
Antigonish, NS
I am not an alcoholic; alcoholics go to meetings.
I am a drunk; I go to parties !
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16 [message #258842 is a reply to message #258833] |
Thu, 14 August 2014 19:57  |
jimk
Messages: 6734
Registered: July 2006
Location: Belmont, CA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I would want you to consider if that would cause the hose to split in
several years, also the length of the line without an auxiliary pump at the
back can cause more negative pressure and invite vapor lock.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Kingsley Coach
wrote:
> Netters
>
> It is my belief that the original gas lines on my '77 Kingsley with 403
> engine were 3/8 .
> What would happen if I dropped down to 5/16 since I have lots of that
> tubing? Would the slight reduction affect gas flow in the real world?
> Just wondering?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike in NS
>
> --
> Michael Beaton
> 1977 Kingsley 26-11
> 1977 Eleganza II 26-3
> Antigonish, NS
>
> I am not an alcoholic; alcoholics go to meetings.
> I am a drunk; I go to parties !
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16 [message #258878 is a reply to message #258833] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 07:35 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kingsley Coach wrote on Thu, 14 August 2014 20:13Netters
It is my belief that the original gas lines on my '77 Kingsley with 403 engine were 3/8 .
What would happen if I dropped down to 5/16 since I have lots of that tubing? Would the slight reduction affect gas flow in the real world?
Just wondering?
Thanks
Mike in NS
Mike,
That started a thought train rumbling through my head and it was a long one, it held up the crossing forever. Now that it is gone, I decided to look at your question in engineering terms.
None of my pipe design tables go that small, but a 1/4 S80 steel pipe (larger, but internally rougher) would be expected to have a head loss of 9.16'/100' at 0.4GPM with water (somewhat higher kinematic viscosity - water is thicker).
Translation: (without conversion to metric units)
Something with a ID of 0.302" flowing about 24gal/hr (~3mpg at 70 mph) should expect a drop of about 9'of water head (~4psi) per 100' of straight pipe. So, if you can get 6mpg, and only need 25' of pipe, we are looking at less than a 1psi pressure drop to the carburetor, probably closer to half that as the head loss is a square function of flow.
So, the answer this engineer would give you is .... Nagh
Could this little change in head loss aggravate vapor lock?
Possibly, but the shorter latency in the transport could counter that easily.
Conclusion: It's at worst a crap shoot.
So, Why did GMC put 3/8 line in there 40 years ago?
To answer this, you have to understand the industry.
* The tank pickup, the fuel pump and the carburetor inlet were all already 3/8.
* In this period, 3/8 was a pretty standard fuel line size.
* A 3/8 line is less likely to be damaged during assembly.
* Weight was not yet a killer issue.
* There was probably no difference in cost from their regular suppliers.
Well, that's my answer.
When I re-built my fuel system with metal, I used existing sizes only because that was easier than changing sizes everywhere.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16 [message #258889 is a reply to message #258878] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 09:35 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I am kinda thinking a different direction here. What do you think about the
existing possibility of the 3/8 " dia. hoses, due to a slightly larger
cross section than the 5/16", having a greater potential for producing
vapor lock. Seems to me that higher pressures would aid in this respect as
would rigid lines under higher pressures. 2 or 3 psi make a measurable
difference in the fuels that we have to contend with today. Just
speculatin' on my part. No scientific evidence to support my comments, just
seat of the pants.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
78 GMC ROYALE 403
On Aug 15, 2014 5:36 AM, "Matt Colie" wrote:
> Kingsley Coach wrote on Thu, 14 August 2014 20:13
>> Netters
>>
>> It is my belief that the original gas lines on my '77 Kingsley with 403
> engine were 3/8 .
>> What would happen if I dropped down to 5/16 since I have lots of that
> tubing? Would the slight reduction affect gas flow in the real world?
>> Just wondering?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Mike in NS
>
> Mike,
>
> That started a thought train rumbling through my head and it was a long
> one, it held up the crossing forever. Now that it is gone, I decided to
> look
> at your question in engineering terms.
>
> None of my pipe design tables go that small, but a 1/4 S80 steel pipe
> (larger, but internally rougher) would be expected to have a head loss of
> 9.16'/100' at 0.4GPM with water (somewhat higher kinematic viscosity -
> water is thicker).
> Translation: (without conversion to metric units)
> Something with a ID of 0.302" flowing about 24gal/hr (~3mpg at 70 mph)
> should expect a drop of about 9'of water head (~4psi) per 100' of straight
> pipe. So, if you can get 6mpg, and only need 25' of pipe, we are looking
> at less than a 1psi pressure drop to the carburetor, probably closer to half
> that as the head loss is a square function of flow.
>
> So, the answer this engineer would give you is .... Nagh
> Could this little change in head loss aggravate vapor lock?
> Possibly, but the shorter latency in the transport could counter that
> easily.
>
> Conclusion: It's at worst a crap shoot.
>
> So, Why did GMC put 3/8 line in there 40 years ago?
> To answer this, you have to understand the industry.
> * The tank pickup, the fuel pump and the carburetor inlet were all already
> 3/8.
> * In this period, 3/8 was a pretty standard fuel line size.
> * A 3/8 line is less likely to be damaged during assembly.
> * Weight was not yet a killer issue.
> * There was probably no difference in cost from their regular suppliers.
>
> Well, that's my answer.
>
> When I re-built my fuel system with metal, I used existing sizes only
> because that was easier than changing sizes everywhere.
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt & Mary Colie - Members GMCMI, GMCES
> '73 Glacier 23 - Still Loving the Applied Rear Brake Control Arms
> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16 [message #258893 is a reply to message #258891] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 10:30 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sorry, I did not clarify that well. Trying to keep it short. My incorrect
assumption here was that everyone here was in agreement with the idea about
using pusher electric pumps, either tank mounted internal ones or slightly
downstream frame mounted ones that pushed fuel at 7 - 10 psi. Just because
that was where my head was does not preclude that youall' knew what the
heck I was thinking about.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
On Aug 15, 2014 8:22 AM, "Billy Massey" wrote:
> Jim, where would the increase in pressure come from?
>
> fuel pumps suck
> bdub
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of James Hupy
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:36 AM
>
> I am kinda thinking a different direction here. What do you think about the
> existing possibility of the 3/8 " dia. hoses, due to a slightly larger
> cross
> section than the 5/16", having a greater potential for producing vapor
> lock.
> Seems to me that higher pressures would aid in this respect as would rigid
> lines under higher pressures. 2 or 3 psi make a measurable difference in
> the
> fuels that we have to contend with today. Just speculatin' on my part. No
> scientific evidence to support my comments, just seat of the pants.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16 [message #258898 is a reply to message #258893] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 10:44 |
k2gkk
Messages: 4452
Registered: November 2009
Karma: -8
|
Senior Member |
|
|
As far as I know, engines don't run on the pressure of the fuel, but the volume of the fuel. As someone else here has written, dropping from 3/8 to 5/16 inch fuel lines drops some 30% or more of the cross-sectional area of that fuel line. If you are attempting to climb a hill, your engine wants a greater volume of fuel. A lack of that required volume will APPEAR to be the dreaded vapor lock. That turned out to be the cause of the bogging down and even complete stalling on my coach's trip home from its purchase. Once I replaced the fuel pump to carb inlet hose that was leaking, the problem ceased.
There is NO way I would reduce the size of the fuel supply lines. That is similar to using wiring of insufficient diameter (cross sectional area).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ TZE166V101966 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ '76 ex-Palm Beach ~ ~ ~
~~ k2gkk + hotmail dot com ~~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
______________
*[ ]~~~[][ ][|\
*--OO--[]---O-*
> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 08:30:23 -0700
> From: jamesh1296@gmail.com
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16
>
> Sorry, I did not clarify that well. Trying to keep it short. My incorrect
> assumption here was that everyone here was in agreement with the idea about
> using pusher electric pumps, either tank mounted internal ones or slightly
> downstream frame mounted ones that pushed fuel at 7 - 10 psi. Just because
> that was where my head was does not preclude that youall' knew what the
> heck I was thinking about.
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, Or
> On Aug 15, 2014 8:22 AM, "Billy Massey" wrote:
>
>> Jim, where would the increase in pressure come from?
>>
>> fuel pumps suck
>> bdub
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: On Behalf Of James Hupy
>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:36 AM
>>
>> I am kinda thinking a different direction here. What do you think about the
>> existing possibility of the 3/8 " dia. hoses, due to a slightly larger
>> cross
>> section than the 5/16", having a greater potential for producing vapor
>> lock.
>> Seems to me that higher pressures would aid in this respect as would rigid
>> lines under higher pressures. 2 or 3 psi make a measurable difference in
>> the
>> fuels that we have to contend with today. Just speculatin' on my part. No
>> scientific evidence to support my comments, just seat of the pants.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16 [message #258901 is a reply to message #258898] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 10:57 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mac, I was not proposing that anyone use smaller diameter fuel lines than
the ones the factory equipped the coach with. And yes, you are correct
about the volume of fuel being important. Excessive pressure,(the amount
that would overpower the carb inlet valve) is not a good thing, but if we
do not have more pressure in the lines than the RVP of the fuel we are
using, we are going to encounter vapor lock at high altitudes and elevated
temperatures. Just a fact of the times. It is what we have. Understanding
how to combat the tendency of today's fuels to form bubbles in lines and
tanks and carbs, is the key to controlling vapor lock, fuel boil-off,
vaporization, etc. Vapor lock is like hard drives. There are only two types
of people out there. Those who have crashed hard drives, and those who
haven't yet crashed one. If you have not experienced vapor lock, your turn
is coming.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:44 AM, D C _Mac_ Macdonald
wrote:
> As far as I know, engines don't run on the pressure of the fuel, but the
> volume of the fuel. As someone else here has written, dropping from 3/8 to
> 5/16 inch fuel lines drops some 30% or more of the cross-sectional area of
> that fuel line. If you are attempting to climb a hill, your engine wants a
> greater volume of fuel. A lack of that required volume will APPEAR to be
> the dreaded vapor lock. That turned out to be the cause of the bogging down
> and even complete stalling on my coach's trip home from its purchase. Once
> I replaced the fuel pump to carb inlet hose that was leaking, the problem
> ceased.
>
> There is NO way I would reduce the size of the fuel supply lines. That is
> similar to using wiring of insufficient diameter (cross sectional area).
>
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
> ~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
> ~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
> ~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
> ~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ TZE166V101966 ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ ~ ~ '76 ex-Palm Beach ~ ~ ~
> ~~ k2gkk + hotmail dot com ~~
> ~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ______________
> *[ ]~~~[][ ][|\
> *--OO--[]---O-*
>
>
>> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 08:30:23 -0700
>> From: jamesh1296@gmail.com
>> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16
>>
>> Sorry, I did not clarify that well. Trying to keep it short. My incorrect
>> assumption here was that everyone here was in agreement with the idea
> about
>> using pusher electric pumps, either tank mounted internal ones or
> slightly
>> downstream frame mounted ones that pushed fuel at 7 - 10 psi. Just
> because
>> that was where my head was does not preclude that youall' knew what the
>> heck I was thinking about.
>> Jim Hupy
>> Salem, Or
>> On Aug 15, 2014 8:22 AM, "Billy Massey" wrote:
>>
>>> Jim, where would the increase in pressure come from?
>>>
>>> fuel pumps suck
>>> bdub
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: On Behalf Of James Hupy
>>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:36 AM
>>>
>>> I am kinda thinking a different direction here. What do you think
> about the
>>> existing possibility of the 3/8 " dia. hoses, due to a slightly larger
>>> cross
>>> section than the 5/16", having a greater potential for producing vapor
>>> lock.
>>> Seems to me that higher pressures would aid in this respect as would
> rigid
>>> lines under higher pressures. 2 or 3 psi make a measurable difference
> in
>>> the
>>> fuels that we have to contend with today. Just speculatin' on my part.
> No
>>> scientific evidence to support my comments, just seat of the pants.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16 [message #258905 is a reply to message #258880] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 11:18 |
roy1
Messages: 2126
Registered: July 2004
Location: Minden nevada
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i think the pressure would be controlled by the small sized orifice in the carburetors needle and seat with either sized line.but the rule of thumb for an old hot rodder is bigger is better when it comes to fuel line. by the way i haven't had vapor lock since i mounted 2 electric pumps outside the frame and ran the fuel line up the rear of the engine and did away with the mechanical pump.
Roy Keen
Minden,NV
76 X Glenbrook
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16 [message #258955 is a reply to message #258901] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 18:27 |
Kingsley Coach
Messages: 2691
Registered: March 2009
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Karma: -34
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gentlemen
Thank you for the thoughts/answers to my question.
Someone once said, " When in doubt; don't ! "
So I didn't and won't.
I went to the auto parts supplier today and picked up a roll of 3/8 tubing
and accessories to do the job as per factory.
Thanks guys!
Mike in NS
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:57 PM, James Hupy wrote:
> Mac, I was not proposing that anyone use smaller diameter fuel lines than
> the ones the factory equipped the coach with. And yes, you are correct
> about the volume of fuel being important. Excessive pressure,(the amount
> that would overpower the carb inlet valve) is not a good thing, but if we
> do not have more pressure in the lines than the RVP of the fuel we are
> using, we are going to encounter vapor lock at high altitudes and elevated
> temperatures. Just a fact of the times. It is what we have. Understanding
> how to combat the tendency of today's fuels to form bubbles in lines and
> tanks and carbs, is the key to controlling vapor lock, fuel boil-off,
> vaporization, etc. Vapor lock is like hard drives. There are only two types
> of people out there. Those who have crashed hard drives, and those who
> haven't yet crashed one. If you have not experienced vapor lock, your turn
> is coming.
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, OR
> 78 GMC Royale 403
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:44 AM, D C _Mac_ Macdonald
> wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, engines don't run on the pressure of the fuel, but the
>> volume of the fuel. As someone else here has written, dropping from 3/8
> to
>> 5/16 inch fuel lines drops some 30% or more of the cross-sectional area
> of
>> that fuel line. If you are attempting to climb a hill, your engine
> wants a
>> greater volume of fuel. A lack of that required volume will APPEAR to be
>> the dreaded vapor lock. That turned out to be the cause of the bogging
> down
>> and even complete stalling on my coach's trip home from its purchase.
> Once
>> I replaced the fuel pump to carb inlet hose that was leaking, the problem
>> ceased.
>>
>> There is NO way I would reduce the size of the fuel supply lines. That
> is
>> similar to using wiring of insufficient diameter (cross sectional area).
>>
>> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>> ~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
>> ~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
>> ~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
>> ~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
>> ~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
>> ~ ~ ~ ~ TZE166V101966 ~ ~ ~ ~
>> ~ ~ ~ '76 ex-Palm Beach ~ ~ ~
>> ~~ k2gkk + hotmail dot com ~~
>> ~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
>> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>> ______________
>> *[ ]~~~[][ ][|\
>> *--OO--[]---O-*
>>
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 08:30:23 -0700
>>> From: jamesh1296@gmail.com
>>> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
>>> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16
>>>
>>> Sorry, I did not clarify that well. Trying to keep it short. My
> incorrect
>>> assumption here was that everyone here was in agreement with the idea
>> about
>>> using pusher electric pumps, either tank mounted internal ones or
>> slightly
>>> downstream frame mounted ones that pushed fuel at 7 - 10 psi. Just
>> because
>>> that was where my head was does not preclude that youall' knew what the
>>> heck I was thinking about.
>>> Jim Hupy
>>> Salem, Or
>>> On Aug 15, 2014 8:22 AM, "Billy Massey" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim, where would the increase in pressure come from?
>>>>
>>>> fuel pumps suck
>>>> bdub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: On Behalf Of James Hupy
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:36 AM
>>>>
>>>> I am kinda thinking a different direction here. What do you think
>> about the
>>>> existing possibility of the 3/8 " dia. hoses, due to a slightly
> larger
>>>> cross
>>>> section than the 5/16", having a greater potential for producing
> vapor
>>>> lock.
>>>> Seems to me that higher pressures would aid in this respect as would
>> rigid
>>>> lines under higher pressures. 2 or 3 psi make a measurable difference
>> in
>>>> the
>>>> fuels that we have to contend with today. Just speculatin' on my
> part.
>> No
>>>> scientific evidence to support my comments, just seat of the pants.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Michael Beaton
1977 Kingsley 26-11
1977 Eleganza II 26-3
Antigonish, NS
I am not an alcoholic; alcoholics go to meetings.
I am a drunk; I go to parties !
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas line 3/8 or 5/16 [message #258963 is a reply to message #258955] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 20:08 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bloody Troublemaker! :>)
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kingsley Coach
Gentlemen
Thank you for the thoughts/answers to my question.
Someone once said, " When in doubt; don't ! "
So I didn't and won't.
I went to the auto parts supplier today and picked up a roll of 3/8 tubing
and accessories to do the job as per factory.
Thanks guys!
Mike in NS
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 16 17:14:26 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03585 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
