When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The rep I spoke to mentioned that this is mainly in reference to folks over tightening their worm gear style clamps. He didn't see any problem with using oetiker clamps as as redundant slip protection as long as you're just using their standard plier style crimper and not some crazy ratcheting crimper.
I've built numerous cars in SCCA each with 20+ AN fittings most of which are socketless and I've never had a problem. I also use this bad boy:
Its well worth the investment if you're making more than a couple hoses.
I love the Koul tool, and agree it's worth the money no doubt. I too used the crimp clamps on my lines with no issue. I am using Red Horse though, who advocate the use of the clamps.
I have been using aeroquip socketless on the turbo oil drain, and on the oil cooler side, no problems with them!
Originally Posted by dguy
The rep I spoke to mentioned that this is mainly in reference to folks over tightening their worm gear style clamps. He didn't see any problem with using oetiker clamps as as redundant slip protection as long as you're just using their standard plier style crimper and not some crazy ratcheting crimper.
I've built numerous cars in SCCA each with 20+ AN fittings most of which are socketless and I've never had a problem. I also use this bad boy:
I have been using aeroquip socketless on the turbo oil drain, and on the oil cooler side, no problems with them!
Where are you guys finding -20 AN socketless? Seems like anything above -16 in socketless configuration is not readily available.
I was saying that each car has more than 20 AN hoses most of which are socketless (unless they need extra abrasion resistance). You're correct that -16 is the largest size (At least to my knowledge).
I've never had an issue either. However with something critical like pressurized fuel or oil, I feel more comfortable adding an oetiker clamp for extra safety.
Just a correction, it looks like Fragola is making -20 hose and fittings in their push lok/push lite series. I've only used Aeroquip at this point though.
i've had no issues with multiple FDs and at least ten 10an and 8an lines, without using an eotiker clamp on them.
and as far as "the representative saying it's to use an oetiker clamp on the push lok hose" don't you think engineering would have to have a general agreement with the instruction creators and other groups of the company that "no hose clamp" would be better, for that disclaimer to make it into the instruction manual?
to me it seems like adding a hose clamp is adding risk, as aeroquip clearly put a disclaimer in their instruction manual so they can deny warranty claims from people not installing hose clamps correctly. example: how tight is too tight, and how loose is useless?
just my two cents.
Last edited by jacobcartmill; 02-22-17 at 03:13 PM.
and as far as "the representative saying it's to use an oetiker clamp on the push lok hose" don't you think engineering would have to have a general agreement with the instruction creators and other groups of the company that "no hose clamp" would be better, for that disclaimer to make it into the instruction manual?
No, I don't. I can't tell you how often documentation writers and engineers don't agree/get it wrong in the software industry, it really isn't much different in small production run hardware manufacturing.
It could be something as simple as someone overhearing a conversation regarding overtorqued worm gear clamps and then applying the same stigma towards 'lightly' clamped oetiker clamps.
In the end though, you do you, and I'll keep using my oetiker clamps when I feel its necessary
Sort of a side issue, but the only issues I have seen regarding push-on hose is the fittings that use a cover that hides the hose ends to make the assembly "prettier." Those covers make it difficult to assess whether the hose is all the way onto the fitting. If the hose is not on far enough to totally cover the last barb, it can work itself loose and leak or totally come off.
This is because the cords at the end of the hose cannot carry any tension because by definition, the cord stops there. This allows the last few 1/10" at the hose end to be able to expand and loosen. So one needs to have the hose absolutely fully engaged, or the joint is questionable.
Sort of a side issue, but the only issues I have seen regarding push-on hose is the fittings that use a cover that hides the hose ends to make the assembly "prettier." Those covers make it difficult to assess whether the hose is all the way onto the fitting. If the hose is not on far enough to totally cover the last barb, it can work itself loose and leak or totally come off.
This is because the cords at the end of the hose cannot carry any tension because by definition, the cord stops there. This allows the last few 1/10" at the hose end to be able to expand and loosen. So one needs to have the hose absolutely fully engaged, or the joint is questionable.
this is easily resolved by marking the hose at the point where the decorative sleeve should come to if fully engaged.
Sort of a side issue, but the only issues I have seen regarding push-on hose is the fittings that use a cover that hides the hose ends to make the assembly "prettier." Those covers make it difficult to assess whether the hose is all the way onto the fitting. If the hose is not on far enough to totally cover the last barb, it can work itself loose and leak or totally come off.
This is because the cords at the end of the hose cannot carry any tension because by definition, the cord stops there. This allows the last few 1/10" at the hose end to be able to expand and loosen. So one needs to have the hose absolutely fully engaged, or the joint is questionable.
Normally the collar will spin pretty easily if the hose isn't fully mated to the fitting. Also the use of the Koul tool pretty much eliminates this possibility. If you're installing by hand, I can see where you may have some difficulty.
Normally the collar will spin pretty easily if the hose isn't fully mated to the fitting. Also the use of the Koul tool pretty much eliminates this possibility. If you're installing by hand, I can see where you may have some difficulty.
That's a neat tool. The next time I'm going to do more than 1 hose, I'm gonna get one!
I purchased the FFE kit in August 2014 w/ pushlock fittings and hose.
California 91 fuel, with California heat.
All intake and exhaust (Also fiberglass wrapped) were ceramic coated for heat management. The hose itself is still flexible/pliable, and not brittle like any other rubber.
Heck, the rubber hose for the brake booster, that goes into the UIM, hovering the downpipe is still unchanged since I purchased the car looks better then this.
This is after maybe less then 10,000 miles ~2+ years of use. These are Parker Jiffy Hose supplied by FFE. I have informed FFE as well.
If anyone knows of a fuel safe sillicon replacement please share. If not new rubber hoses will be used w/ removable/velcro heat sleeving, so I can check them. Besides the weird/horrible deterioration of the hose, no issues.
I purchased the FFE kit in August 2014 w/ pushlock fittings and hose.
California 91 fuel, with California heat.
All intake and exhaust (Also fiberglass wrapped) were ceramic coated for heat management. The hose itself is still flexible/pliable, and not brittle like any other rubber.
Heck, the rubber hose for the brake booster, that goes into the UIM, hovering the downpipe is still unchanged since I purchased the car looks better then this.
This is after maybe less then 10,000 miles ~2+ years of use. These are Parker Jiffy Hose supplied by FFE. I have informed FFE as well.
If anyone knows of a fuel safe sillicon replacement please share. If not new rubber hoses will be used w/ removable/velcro heat sleeving, so I can check them. Besides the weird/horrible deterioration of the hose, no issues.
How many miles on those hoses? I would recommend aeroquip aqp.
I purchased the FFE kit in August 2014 w/ pushlock fittings and hose.
California 91 fuel, with California heat.
All intake and exhaust (Also fiberglass wrapped) were ceramic coated for heat management. The hose itself is still flexible/pliable, and not brittle like any other rubber.
Heck, the rubber hose for the brake booster, that goes into the UIM, hovering the downpipe is still unchanged since I purchased the car looks better then this.
This is after maybe less then 10,000 miles ~2+ years of use. These are Parker Jiffy Hose supplied by FFE. I have informed FFE as well....
If anyone knows of a fuel safe sillicon replacement please share. If not new rubber hoses will be used w/ removable/velcro heat sleeving, so I can check them. Besides the weird/horrible deterioration of the hose, no issues.
That certainly looks like ozone cracking. Maybe the hoses were made in China with incorrect rubber compounding (wrong polymer or no AO's (anti-oxidants/ozonants).
02-20-17, 05:17 PM
Right - I shoulda said that...
