I was having an email discussion with Chris at FLM on this and sent what turned out to be the wrong illustration from PET. He passed the test by noticing this and responded as below. Is the 3.2 the same in that the tunnel lines are steel? If so it sim0lifies th8ngs a little as we only need the engine bay and fuel pump end pipes.
I you look carefully at your PET drawing (201-10) you will see that it covers the Turbo Model and I would agree that these are flexible lines.
If you look at 201-05 this drawing states an SC Model and the lines appear to be steel and the 180 degree swivel nut fittings isn’t used on Item 4 on this alternative drawing.
Sadly it appears to be a complete ‘bugger’s muddle’.
We currently have 1 x 1978 car and 1 x 79 car in the unit and have discovered the following:
The 78 Car – which may be a Carrera 3 but fitted with an SC Motor has the flexible lines in the engine bay as per 201-10. The lines we have appear in good condition but the car had been stored for many years.
The 1979 car has steel lines in the engine bay but the short flexible line Item 4 on 201-05 is different in appearance and has the 180 degree swivel nut fitting.
I am not too sure that there is a great deal of consistency and when we drop back to 2.7 litre cars it may be even worse.
If it is the engine bay pipes that are worst affected it must be a combination of chemistry and temperature and I will try to learn if ‘percolation’ rates are influenced by temperature.
As percolation is possibly a diffusion type reaction it is probably governed by an Arrenhius Equation which will be exponential with respect to temperature.
The hose with the lowest percolation is an ‘R14’ type but hose with this designation only seems to have a pressure rating of around 3.5 bar which I don’t think is adequate.
Interesting set of challenges J