Jump to content
Impact Bumpers
Northy

Fuel lines - go original or uprated?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, R2D2 said:

Shirish, I would interested in using yours to get a quote from Pirtek, would be helpful for other 3.2 users on here. Nathan

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R2D2 said:

Shirish, I would interested in using yours to get a quote from Pirtek, would be helpful for other 3.2 users on here. Nathan

Lemme see what I have - I’ve not looked in “M O T R O N I C” box for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SP72 said:

Lemme see what I have - I’ve not looked in “M O T R O N I C” box for some time.

Cheers dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the 3.2 is it just the engine bay ones you are interested in?  If so can I get second dibs on them Shirish and I will take them to Chris at FLM as a pattern?

Thank you

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Ian,

 

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

 

Regards

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My SC injector lines are metal.  The ones I am looking to replace (purely pre-cautionary as they look absolutely fine) are the ones going into the accumulator, from the filter and into the fuel head and the returns. This is the contents of a basket I assembled on D911:

Fuel hose. Porsche 911 SC 1980-83 Code: 91135608901 - £114.71

Fuel hose. Porsche 911 SC 1980-83 Code: 91135608701 - £171.99
 
Fuel line. Porsche 911 81-89 Code: 91135609102 - £69.13
 
Fuel line. Porsche 911 SC 81-83 Code: 93011049800- £136.59
 
FUEL LINE  06 Code: 93011051400£56.10
 
Total: 548.52 + 109.71 = £658.23
 
Presume they are Porsche parts. Don’t know if they are Ethanol safe. 
 
The usa USA source seems like quite good value for modern hand made stuff; but a bit concerned about that too - factory stuff sounds safer. 
 
Lets see what Chris turns up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good response.

Looking at PET for SC's and 3.2, my reading of PET gives the following for the tunnel pipes:

FLOW 

SC -79 and Turbo: 911 356 066 07

SC 80- and 3.2: 911 356 066 08

RETURN

SC -79 and Turbo: 911 356 062 07

SC 80- and 3.2: 911 356 062 08

I don't have PET for earlier IB's

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, R2D2 said:

Good response.

Looking at PET for SC's and 3.2, my reading of PET gives the following for the tunnel pipes:

FLOW 

SC -79 and Turbo: 911 356 066 07

SC 80- and 3.2: 911 356 066 08

RETURN

SC -79 and Turbo: 911 356 062 07

SC 80- and 3.2: 911 356 062 08

I don't have PET for earlier IB's

 

Aren’t saying though that we don’t need tunnel pipes as they are steel ? Or are they plastic on the 3.2 only?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ian Comerford said:

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.

Ian,

 

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

 

Regards

 

Chris

Carrera 3 (1977 not 1978!) have the rubber hose lines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

91135606607 is plastic

91135606608 is plastic and goes to 91135606615

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaps, plastic or metal don't they still have flexible rubber "ends" though? Sorry if I've missed something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Northy said:

My SC injector lines are metal.  The ones I am looking to replace (purely pre-cautionary as they look absolutely fine) are the ones going into the accumulator, from the filter and into the fuel head and the returns. This is the contents of a basket I assembled on D911:

Fuel hose. Porsche 911 SC 1980-83 Code: 91135608901 - £114.71

Fuel hose. Porsche 911 SC 1980-83 Code: 91135608701 - £171.99
 
Fuel line. Porsche 911 81-89 Code: 91135609102 - £69.13
 
Fuel line. Porsche 911 SC 81-83 Code: 93011049800- £136.59
 
FUEL LINE  06 Code: 93011051400£56.10
 
Total: 548.52 + 109.71 = £658.23
 
Presume they are Porsche parts. Don’t know if they are Ethanol safe. 
 
The usa USA source seems like quite good value for modern hand made stuff; but a bit concerned about that too - factory stuff sounds safer. 
 
Lets see what Chris turns up. 

Thanks Lewis.  I will compare your detail with that for my 79 SC and then share with Chris.  It would be good to arrive at a single source of the truth....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...