Ribbed steel radiator hoses?

Does anyone have any expierence with this type of product? http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/...tom-0/p-2010175/N-111+10201+600001651/c-10101
Good, bad, or completely useless?

I've seen them on alot of hot rods w/open engine compartments, seen them on some pretty expensive exotics too. Have no idea if they are functional or just another 'hurricane turbo inserts' for the throttle bodies...

Yeah, that's what I was wondering.They would probally never bust is one definate thing. But they would crush instead of bouncing back into shape. Of course, if you don't hit them with anything, that wouldn't be a problem. I also wonder if they're prone to leaking. Would they ribs actually interfere with smooth water flow and decrease cooling efficiency? Hmm...anybody?

I don't see the need.

If youre going to spend the money then buy silicone hoses.

cmotsvt said:

If youre going to spend the money then buy silicone hoses.

Click to expand...

I was going to do exactly that but just wanted to explore other options. Want to try something other than regular rubber ones. I know someone who knows someone that put these silicone hoses on and said they seem indestructable. (Of course we all know nothing really is.) I just wanted to see if anybody used these stainless hoses on anything before. I don't really think they would add any coolling ability since very little fresh air would travel over them. They might even detract from cooling. I know they would be mostly for show for most people. Thought they might have other advantages though .... maybe?

Are they CRES all the way through, or CRES over rubber, or CRES over silicone? I haven't looked at the link - but I've seen that sort of hose before, and it was CRES over rubber.

If they're CRES over something, then the ribs shouldn't interfere with flow much, because the inside of the hose would still be rubber. I can't see them going with all-CRES, simply because vibration would still be a problem (and relative motion between the engine and chassis would eventually cause fatigue failure.)

I've been kicking around doing something similar - bending large-bore copper to shape, and having "vibration stubs" at the joints. Kinda like my copper heater hoses, only larger. That would eliminate rubber hose just about everywhere, and I'd need only small, straight hose stubs to service the system (servicing my heater hoses went from about $120 to about $4 once I soldered up the copper lines. I can send out pix upon request - I haven't had a chance to fix the pic on my site yet.)

There are advantages to using a rigid hose to connect things, but you'll still have to allow for vibration - which is a very real problem. For engine hardlines, working distance at junctions should be 3/4" to 1", with rubber stubs to connect.

5-90

I have used something similar to that on my '59 Ford, mostly for looks, but also because I needed some really odd shapes after a custom radiator swap. I haven't experienced any noticeable difference in cooling. I had a similar hose issues on my pickup, so I used them there as well. I don't put very many miles on either rig, so I have no idea how well they would work in a daily driver, but mine have been doing fine for the last four years...




Neither of these engines would properly be referred to as 'smooth', so I know they can swing the vibrations in the short term at least. They do have rubber connections on either end, so that might help with the vibration problem somewhat.

Zebaru said:

I have used something similar to that on my '59 Ford, mostly for looks, but also because I needed some really odd shapes after a custom radiator swap. I haven't experienced any noticeable difference in cooling. I had a similar hose issues on my pickup, so I used them there as well. I don't put very many miles on either rig, so I have no idea how well they would work in a daily driver, but mine have been doing fine for the last four years...

Neither of these engines would properly be referred to as 'smooth', so I know they can swing the vibrations in the short term at least. They do have rubber connections on either end, so that might help with the vibration problem somewhat.

Click to expand...

What year pickup is that? Looks like a 65-66 with a 429/460 in it? I have a 65 with the 429 that I am going to be building. I would love to see more details and pics of yours?

kleake said:

What year pickup is that? Looks like a 65-66 with a 429/460 in it? I have a 65 with the 429 that I am going to be building. I would love to see more details and pics of yours?

Click to expand...

That is a '65 that is basically stock (2wd custom cab) except for a few bits and pieces. Aside from the engine, I have a 66 grille - which is much nicer than the '65, I put in '79 I-beams with discs, and run a mid 80's F250 master/booster. I freshened up the interior, but nothing fancy.

The engine is a 390 that I built to replace the tired 352 it originally came with. Nothing special there, basic low performance rebuild with a mild cam, Ford 4 barrel intake and Motorcraft carb off some 60's era car (?), Accel distributor, Cheap (Headman?) headers into homeade 2.5" dual exhaust. I think 300 HP is a stretch - but maybe - by 1965 numbers... That air cleaner is actually the stock piece from my '59 car - pretty restrictive, but this isn't a drag racer or anything so who cares...

I have taken it to a few shows around town, and even had it at Hot August Nights a couple years back, but it is not a show car by any stretch of the imagination, just my basic work truck that I try to keep clean. I dont drive it much anymore due to the 10MPG and $3 a gallon gas...

The only other decent picture I have online right now:



If you need any real details shoot me a PM...

Zebaru said:

That is a '65 that is basically stock (2wd custom cab) except for a few bits and pieces. Aside from the engine, I have a 66 grille - which is much nicer than the '65, I put in '79 I-beams with discs, and run a mid 80's F250 master/booster. I freshened up the interior, but nothing fancy.

The engine is a 390 that I built to replace the tired 352 it originally came with. Nothing special there, basic low performance rebuild with a mild cam, Ford 4 barrel intake and Motorcraft carb off some 60's era car (?), Accel distributor, Cheap (Headman?) headers into homeade 2.5" dual exhaust. I think 300 HP is a stretch - but maybe - by 1965 numbers... That air cleaner is actually the stock piece from my '59 car - pretty restrictive, but this isn't a drag racer or anything so who cares...

I have taken it to a few shows around town, and even had it at Hot August Nights a couple years back, but it is not a show car by any stretch of the imagination, just my basic work truck that I try to keep clean. I dont drive it much anymore due to the 10MPG and $3 a gallon gas...

The only other decent picture I have online right now:

If you need any real details shoot me a PM...

Click to expand...

Awesome truck,, very sharp... Here is a pic of mine,,, which is needing restored very badly and is on the list of to do's... 65 short bed, 73 429 mostly stock except headers. I used to have a hopped up 302 in it with a 3 spd,,, but put it in a mustang II... I love driving it, but I only get 7-8 mpg for some reason!! :dunno: My plans are to build it into a very clean street sleeper with somewhere around the 500 hp range....