[HWYSTR455]

Rock guard for 1/2" line, example:

https://4lifetimelines.com/products/ltgg12-16

Others make it too, not hard to find.

$30 for 16 feet is inexpensive, if you feel you need it.




.

[Tim Corcoran]

Originally Posted by BILL BOWMAN1

Does anyone still make 1/2 steel straight lengths? I can’t find anything. I want 1/2 line but not braided, and nothing that comes in a roll.

1/2 aluminum fuel line is readily available at Summit, Jegs etc. It's easy to bend and will last longer than rubber steel braided line. And it does come in a roll.

[78w72]

Isnt the ni-cop line supposed to be better than aluminum, & easier to work with?

[72projectbird]

Originally Posted by 78w72

Isnt the ni-cop line supposed to be better than aluminum, & easier to work with?

It's very very very easy to work with. I use it a lot.

[JLMounce]

Originally Posted by Schurkey

^^^ Yes.


No.

Different brands/styles of hose have different internal dimensions. My experience with the hose I've actually worked with has been that most "Dash 6" hose is smaller than 3/8 ID, although some--the minority--actually was 3/8 ID. The same goes for the other sizes. "Dash 8" is rarely a true half-inch ID, Dash 12 is generally not 3/4" ID. MOST hose is approximately the same ID as tubing. There are some exceptions.

Some examples:

Aeroquip "AQP FCN06xx" has an ID of .380, slightly larger than 3/8".
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/aer-fcn0606

Summit house-brand Teflon-liner hose SUM-220985 has an ID of only .320.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-220985

Vibrant Performance -6 Teflon-liner hose also has an ID of only .320.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/vpe-18976

Fragola -6 Teflon hose is only .312 ID.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fra-602026

Aeroquip "AQP FCA06xx" rubber-liner hose ID is .340.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/aer-fca0620

In short...verify what you're buying, and make damned sure the hose ends you get match the hose.

And I still say it's nucking futs to use more hose than absolutely necessary. If it doesn't NEED to flex...you shouldn't be using hose in that application.

Thanks for the added information. Goes to show you've got to do the research on the individual selection.

Looks like hardline ID is all over the place as well. I've seen anywhere from .3 to .34 for 3/8's in steel, stainless and aluminum. Aluminum tending to have the smallest ID.

My lived experience with a car that gets driven in changing climates and often is that the PTFE hose has held up well. Right at about 30k miles since 2015 on Earles Push lock stuff. Summer, winter, dry and wet. Of course YMMV.

[78w72]

Originally Posted by 72projectbird

It's very very very easy to work with. I use it a lot.

If/when I change to a in tank pump set up I will most likely use that for the return line. Where do you buy it at? couldnt find it at places like summit.

[72projectbird]

Originally Posted by 78w72

If/when I change to a in tank pump set up I will most likely use that for the return line. Where do you buy it at? couldnt find it at places like summit.

I thought I got all mine from Summit. I'll look around and see if I can find it

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by HWYSTR455

Like I've said for years, IF you are doing a new system, no matter what your power level, at least -8 or 1/2 for feed and return. That way you will never have to do it again.

Most aluminum 'fuel' hard line is .035 wall and handles 250psi. There used to be some vendors of AN stuff offer hard line in dash sizes, which ensured the inner diameter, not sure they still do, been a while since I looked.

.500 (1/2") - wall thickness of .035 = .465 . That will move considerable fuel, so should really be no concern of inside diameter.

.

If the wall thickness is .035, the actual flow inside diameter is .430"

We are talking a "tunnel" here, not a flat plate.

1/2" measured "outside diameter" tubing will be .500" when measured with a caliper.

I have seen this mistake posted on the board many times over the years.
And here it is again.

TV

[Schurkey]

Originally Posted by HWYSTR455

There use to be some concern over puncture risk for aluminum, from like rocks and stuff, but unless you're doing pikes peak, think it a non-issue. If there are areas you're concerned about that seem to be exposed, you can use the spiral line covers. (Rock guard)

Anything is possible.

Far as I know, the concern with aluminum and copper tubing is vibration--the tubing is subject to work-hardening and then the hardened sections crack and leak. Note that I'm talking about "real" copper tubing, not the better, more expensive "NiCopp" nickle/copper alloy.

Originally Posted by HWYSTR455

Try to use AN fittings instead of less expensive JIC stuff, those can be frustrating to thread at times and sometimes leak.

I spent ten years working with "JIC stuff" on engine installations on city buses. We used tens of thousands of "JIC" fittings, adapters, and hose ends.

We did have some problems, nearly always resulting from The F'n New Guy who didn't pay attention when I told him/her how to do things. The second most-common problem was Aeroquip -4 female hose ends cracking from being over-tightened.

In short, except for what I consider to be a questionable design decision on the Dash 4 hose ends leading to them being overly-sensitive to installation torque (the sealing surface was a radius rather than a flat taper, so it could be used on 37 degree tapered fittings as well as 45 degree tapers) there is NOTHING wrong with "JIC" as long as you aren't using it on an aeroplane or spacecraft. For "ground transportation" they're Friggin' Wonderful.

Now--and I've gone off on this previously--There is no such thing as "AN" or "JIC" any more.

REAL "AN" is an obsolete standard for AEROSPACE/MILITARY use, "Army/Navy". Similarly, "JIC" was "Joint Industry Council", again an obsolete set of standards. The parts looked the same, and it was possible to use the high-grade, aerospace stuff in an application that only needed "industrial" quality--the threads were the same size and thread pitch, both used 37 degree tapers. They'd screw together just fine. The aerospace-quality stuff cost even more than the industrial-grade, and that is plenty expensive.

Both the Aerospace-grade items and the similar-looking "industrial" versions are now covered by SAE standards.

If someone is trying to sell you "AN" fittings, they're almost certainly actually providing industrial-grade stuff, that used to be considered "JIC" but isn't any more. Summit, for example, is NOT selling spacecraft/fighter-plane fittings out of their stock. Summit also does not sell "$400 toilet seats" and "$2000 coffee makers", either. Leave that to Government suppliers.

Originally Posted by Tim Corcoran

1/2 aluminum fuel line is readily available at Summit, Jegs etc. It's easy to bend and will last longer than rubber steel braided line. And it does come in a roll.

MAYBE that depends on what fluid you're transporting inside that tubing. But ordinary gasoline/diesel, you're probably right.

Originally Posted by 78w72

Isnt the ni-cop line supposed to be better than aluminum, & easier to work with?

I have very little experience with NiCopp tubing. I've made ONE pair of rear-axle brake tubes from the 3/16 stuff, and I had a terrible time producing a decent flare. I can flare the usual double-wall seamless steel tubing in 3/16 with no problem. The NiCopp forms so easily that I was getting wrinkles in the tubing instead of a decent flare.

I own a roll of some other NiCopp tubing sizes, but I haven't worked with it. I have no idea how my tooling would flare other sizes.

Originally Posted by JLMounce

Thanks for the added information. Goes to show you've got to do the research on the individual selection.

Looks like hardline ID is all over the place as well. I've seen anywhere from .3 to .34 for 3/8's in steel, stainless and aluminum. Aluminum tending to have the smallest ID..

Let's discuss plumbing.

PIPE is measured by the ID. So 1/2" pipe would have a nominal ID of 1/2 inch. Of course, most commonly-available iron pipe and iron pipe fittings/reducers/elbows are now coming from China, the threading is terrible and the ID is roughly-formed (it never was beautiful.) Brass pipe, elbows, reducers, etc., is formed nicely, also comes from China. The ID is closer to the nominal size.

TUBING is measured by the OD. So 1/2" tubing has a 1/2" OD, and the ID varies with the wall-thickness of the tube. Thinwall tube has a larger ID, thickwall tube has a smaller ID. The thickness of the wall is dependent on the material it's made from and also the pressure it's expected to take. So it's no surprise that aluminum tubing would need a thicker wall than steel, or it's rated for lower pressure, or both. When The Bus Company started building CNG- and LNG-fueled buses, we started getting acquainted with Swagelok fittings and the thickest-wall tubing I'd ever seen. But that's to be expected when the fuel is under 2000 psi plus some safety margin for the plumbing.

HOSE is kinda-sorta based on TUBING sizes, specifically a more-or-less equivalent to a similar-ID tube. And in the high-quality world, "AN", "JIC" or the equivalent modern SAE standards, it's usually described in sixteenths of an inch--a "Dash 4" hose is 4/16 or 1/4-inch, roughly equivalent to the fluid pathway of "typical" 1/4" tubing. Dash 8 hose is 8/16 or 1/2 inch, roughly equivalent to the fluid pathway of "typical" 1/2" tubing.




It makes me crazy when folks call plumbing "line" "lines" or "hardline" . Lines are imaginary objects in geometry. I try to make a point of using the terms "pipe" "tubing" or "hose" to describe my plumbing.

Are there exceptions to this description of "pipe" and "tubing"? Sure. Exhaust "pipe" is sometimes sold by ID and sometimes sold by OD, to make it easy to build slip-fit "lap joints". Are there hoses that are not spec'd to be similar to typical tubing? Sure. Is some plastic tubing flexible in a way you'd expect from hose? Sure.

[HWYSTR455]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

If the wall thickness is .035, the actual flow inside diameter is .430"

We are talking a "tunnel" here, not a flat plate.

1/2" measured "outside diameter" tubing will be .500" when measured with a caliper.

I have seen this mistake posted on the board many times over the years.
And here it is again.

TV

Good catch Tom, and thank you AGAIN! Heheh! Believe you caught me on that one before!



.

[HWYSTR455]

Schurkey, you are correct on many and most comments, but some people use 'familiar' or 'common' terminology so they're not mistaken.

As for AN/JIC, I believe thread tolerance was once difference between the two, and have experienced 'packaged JIC' fittings that required close attention and patience when screwing them together.

I generically say JIC to differentiate between fittings that either are not marked 'AN' and/or are generally 'less expensive' (cheap). Which is obviously not 'correct', but most can relate.

In the automotive aftermarket, the term 'AN' is widely used, even if it is outdated. You walk up to someone at a SEMA booth and ask them for a 8/16 hose fitting you will get laughed at.

With all that said, please continue to provide your comment/education, you are a wealth of knowledge and am very appreciative you share! Mean that sincerely.


.

[65 Lamnas]

The 1/2" Ni-cop tubing is what I've chosen. It's fairly thin-wall at .028" so the ID should be .440-ish and I'm a bit of a "if some is good, more is better" kind of guy...I'm just wired (weird) like that. I probably don't need it as I'm damn near certain up to 850hp or more can be supported by the system I'm building.... lol. Thanks for the responses. A good education for me and others regarding the differences between "hose" and "pipe" or "tubing", and the differing/varying ways they're sized even when nominally, they ought to be the same. Moral of the story is just know what you're buying and caveat emptor and all that rot.

[Cliff R]

Not really enough information to provide exact recommendations, but for sure more is better than less with these things.

In tank pump is good, but what is the output of the pump in GPH? What pressure unregulated? Where are you mounting the regulator? Is it a bypass style regulator?

On the output side of the pump you can get away with less. I'd still do 1/2" metal lines for the main run or the better -8 if you are going to hose. I've set up quite a few systems here over the years but most have had pumps mounted outside the tank. No problem at all running -8 from tank to pump, then -6 from the regulator to the carb, even a Q-jet, but in most cases I'll still do -8 everywhere just for simplicity in buying hose and fittings..

I've come to like the push-loc fittings and black hose instead of the pretty colors offered. You'll also find a wide variety of hose available, from simple braided line to teflon core with "alligator" hide on to help prevent rips, tear and wearing where it lays on something.....

[65 Lamnas]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

Not really enough information to provide exact recommendations, but for sure more is better than less with these things.

In tank pump is good, but what is the output of the pump in GPH? What pressure unregulated? Where are you mounting the regulator? Is it a bypass style regulator?

On the output side of the pump you can get away with less. I'd still do 1/2" metal lines for the main run or the better -8 if you are going to hose. I've set up quite a few systems here over the years but most have had pumps mounted outside the tank. No problem at all running -8 from tank to pump, then -6 from the regulator to the carb, even a Q-jet, but in most cases I'll still do -8 everywhere just for simplicity in buying hose and fittings..

I've come to like the push-loc fittings and black hose instead of the pretty colors offered. You'll also find a wide variety of hose available, from simple braided line to teflon core with "alligator" hide on to help prevent rips, tear and wearing where it lays on something.....

Tank pump choice is either 67GPH @80psi or 90 GPH @90psi, bypass regulator mounted underhood within ~30 inches of carb.

[Cliff R]

Yikes, that's a lot of pressure.

Test the system once installed. It needs to be able to fill a gallon jug under 20 seconds and you'll be fine at that power level.

I love not having a suction line to the pump. Keeps things simple and you don't have to worry nearly as much about fuel delivery to the pump or the pump heating up as it's sitting in the fuel to help keep it cool......

[HWYSTR455]

Is your regulator able to pass that much psi to get it to carb territory? Are you restricted to using 1 of those 2 pumps?


.

[Don 79 TA]

when i did the fuel tank/line update back in '18 i went with Earl's #8 lines/fittings
PTFE hoses, no fuel smell, not braided, super strong, heat resistant, etc
well worth it
so easy to work with, but do get the kit to test connections, sometimes getting the ends sealed properly takes a little time, or you can find out the hard way if you wont mind fuel leaks and the mess/smell
it was their upper end stuff and well worth it, super flexible too, WAY easier than braided, again NO smells, and now i can run what ever fuel i want without issues.
i'm using the aeromotive tank kit with the regulator and setup the return feed too
i needed that once i moved to the dessert area....

stay within your budget and follow the advice on here, as there's a lot of good ones
i can't believe the costs of things now, so just remember safety and budget.

[JLMounce]

Originally Posted by 65 Lamnas

Tank pump choice is either 67GPH @80psi or 90 GPH @90psi, bypass regulator mounted underhood within ~30 inches of carb.

Are you sure on those specs? Typically pumps flow more fluid at lower pressures, less at higher pressures.

I'm assuming your chosen fuel pump is something like this?

https://walbrofuelpumps.com/450lph-w...0267.html.html

Here's one thing to think about. Fuel systems, more isn't always better if it's too much. If your engine makes 550hp and the fuel pump feeding it is supportive of something like 850 hp, you can create issues for yourself.

Except for pumps designed to work with PWM controllers, the pumps wants to live in a specific pressure range and voltage. This may cause you to pass a lot of fuel back to your tank. If the return system is not designed properly, you can create pressure in return lines that causes pressure creep at your regulator. Additionally the large volume of fuel moving through the tank and system can collapse the tank if it's not vented properly.

Point being, if you don't need enough fuel to support 850hp, I wouldn't necessarily give it that much fuel. Instead, select a pump that would be running at about 70-80% duty cycle for your given hp needs. At 600 hp, you are going to need roughly 60gph, or a little less depending on how much fuel you're giving the engine.

I'd be looking at a Walbro 255 or 340. Especially at the pressures you need for your carb, the Walbro 255 would be a good choice for your combo, but doesn't necessarily provide you much future growth potential. The 340 would, while also not being so massive as to potentially cause fuel system headaches.

[65 Lamnas]

Originally Posted by JLMounce

Are you sure on those specs? Typically pumps flow more fluid at lower pressures, less at higher pressures.

I'm assuming your chosen fuel pump is something like this?

https://walbrofuelpumps.com/450lph-w...0267.html.html

Here's one thing to think about. Fuel systems, more isn't always better if it's too much. If your engine makes 550hp and the fuel pump feeding it is supportive of something like 850 hp, you can create issues for yourself.

Except for pumps designed to work with PWM controllers, the pumps wants to live in a specific pressure range and voltage. This may cause you to pass a lot of fuel back to your tank. If the return system is not designed properly, you can create pressure in return lines that causes pressure creep at your regulator. Additionally the large volume of fuel moving through the tank and system can collapse the tank if it's not vented properly.

Point being, if you don't need enough fuel to support 850hp, I wouldn't necessarily give it that much fuel. Instead, select a pump that would be running at about 70-80% duty cycle for your given hp needs. At 600 hp, you are going to need roughly 60gph, or a little less depending on how much fuel you're giving the engine.

I'd be looking at a Walbro 255 or 340. Especially at the pressures you need for your carb, the Walbro 255 would be a good choice for your combo, but doesn't necessarily provide you much future growth potential. The 340 would, while also not being so massive as to potentially cause fuel system headaches.

This is what I'm looking at:

https://rickstanks.com/shop/#!/Ricks...gory=139929319

[JLMounce]

Originally Posted by 65 Lamnas

This is what I'm looking at:

https://rickstanks.com/shop/#!/Ricks...gory=139929319

Yeah the Walbro 255 is a great pump and will do what you need it to do. OEM quality, not overly loud. Simple and robust design.

Here is the flow chart. Fat black line is fuel flow, narrow black line is amp draw.



Since you're running this with a carb, you're pretty close to free flow where this pump is flowing a lot of fluid. At 58psi which is common for most current aftermarket EFI systems, it's flowing enough fluid for about 600hp.