64 Heater Hoses

[Rick G.]

I have a 64 327/365 HP. I can't find the correct routing for the heater hoses to the heater core. Every book I have does not show this clearly.
I had my car judges recently (got top flight) and a judge said they were connected wrong but I am doubting it.
Thanks,
Rick Gaska

[Stuart F.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Rick;

There are not a whole lot of possibilities on this. Actually, I think the assembly manuals only serve to confuse. If you connect the right hose between the correct engine connection and the heater connection, there are very few practical routes they can take assuming you don't cut them too long or too short and you use the bracket correctly. If I were you, I'd check other cars and every picture in any book on the subject such as Noland Adams restoration guide. Beyond that, it's a matter of using the correct clamps and tie straps (if used). The short piece between the "T" and the tank should be long enough to give you good nipple engagement for clamping, a couple inches of flexibility, and allow the one hose to align in a bundle with the other.

stu Fox

[Dan H.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Rick, the routing is shown in the 64 AIM sect 1, sheet 6.00, should help!
Dan

[Timothy B.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Rick,

If 64 is like 63 which I think it is, the lower hose from the heater core goes under and over the top hose thus becoming the top hose. This is done to keep the hose away from the exhaust manifold. Also the "T" fitting is on a 45* angle and the clamps are turned outboard so the hose does not rub anything. Study the AIM and you will understand.

[Stuart F.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Tim;

Thanks for stepping in to explain better. I stayed away from specifics as I have found in the past there are so many differences between the 63's (like mine and yours) and practically any other mid year. I can see from looking at the JG and AIM there are indeed some differences, although minor. Your reference to positioning of the clamps on the "T" is correct according to the 63 AIM. However, the JG shows the open ends of the clamps at 45* inward (towards the engine) instead of outward. The "T" is indeed also at a 45* angle as you mentioned. Also, the JG states that the aluminum hose straps, used at either side of the expansion tank "T" on the 63, are replaced on the 64 with hose clips at the same positions.

All this is moot if he has heater delete, Ha!

Stu Fox

[Dan H.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Stu, you're right, there are differences between 63 and 64 AIM in regards for the corbin clamp angle, 64 being more specific and showing them turned towards the engine to avoid rubbing the hoses. My 64's have had the metal vrs aluminum hose ties/clamps, assume very early 64's still had the aluminum straps still. There were many vendors for the hoses so I suppose the 'correct' markings will always be a can of worms!
Dan

[Stuart F.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Rick;

Just took a close look at my 63 with the AIM and JG at hand and realized I don't have mine arranged exactly like the books. Instead of crossing the lower hose under the top hose and over the "T", I have mine bundled (strapped) one atop the other. I recall I did that for a purpose, and that being I am using a repro tar top battery with caps and wanted as much access to the battery in order to top up and/or check the cells. With the hose positioned in the factory (judging) position, the outer cells are more difficult to access. Also, I use a trickle charger on my battery and having the lower hose cross that (inner) end of the battery would make it more difficult to connect and disconnect. if you strap the hoses together well enough there is no concern for the bottom hose getting too close to the engine as was pointed out in a previous post. Again, my method would not pass judging, but it passes my needs test. The 63 AIM shows the clamps positioned at 45* outward, and that too would impinge on the lower hose where it crosses the "T". The JG shows the revised positioning inward at 45* which would be correct. My clamps are 45* outward, but it doesn't matter because my hose is not there (another good reason).

Stu Fox

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Rick,

If 64 is like 63 which I think it is, the lower hose from the heater core goes under and over the top hose thus becoming the top hose. This is done to keep the hose away from the exhaust manifold. Also the "T" fitting is on a 45* angle and the clamps are turned outboard so the hose does not rub anything. Study the AIM and you will understand.

I think Tim has the hoses very near correct. Could possibly use a bit shorter hose from the tank to the "T" and maybe a bit more angle on the "T" fitting. The T angle should be roughly 45*.

Nice detail. Fuel filter fitting should be zincad, not plain brass.

[Stuart F.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Mike;

I agree that Tim's pictures are very good, and I'm sure he's passed judging in that area very well. He is, however, using a sealed battery instead of a Tar Top w/caps, which demonstrats my point. Also, his clamps on the TEE satisfy the description for a 63 in the AIM. A later revision shown in the JG, possibly that for a 64, shows them tilted toward the engine. I prefer that concept of keeping the clamp ends away from the hose above it. So again, mine aren't correct, but they fit my "driving" needs very well for safe operation and serviceability.

Stu Fox

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Mike;

I agree that Tim's pictures are very good, and I'm sure he's passed judging in that area very well. He is, however, using a sealed battery instead of a Tar Top w/caps, which demonstrats my point. Also, his clamps on the TEE satisfy the description for a 63 in the AIM. A later revision shown in the JG, possibly that for a 64, shows them tilted toward the engine. I prefer that concept of keeping the clamp ends away from the hose above it. So again, mine aren't correct, but they fit my "driving" needs very well for safe operation and serviceability.

Stu Fox

Ok, I think I understand what your saying but rotating the T fitting closer to the 45* angle will increase clearance between the hoses and battery. I have a taller than original in my 63 and the hoses clear without problem.

There's a great pic in the Noland Adams book that is an overhead shot of a near new 63 car. It shows the hose routing and also shows, I think, the ears of the Corbin clamps pointing inboard, toward the engine.

[Stuart F.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Thanks Mike. I'll check it out. I refer to Noland's book often as a reference, and believe I even suggested it as a source earlier in this thread. I have one in my family room library and another in my garage (and they ain't cheap). I'm sure if one follows the AIM and then adjusts hose lengths and clamp positions slightly, all concerns can be met. I've had my battery in and out several times in the last few years, including once for a heater core change so I'm always aware of service and operating safety considerations.

Stu

[Mike M.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Hi Guys,
The current Judging consensus for M-Y's (Some consider arguably) is that the small hose has only the "GM" and the larger hose has only the "Ribs".
One thing that is consistent, wherever the ribs are positioned on the heater core, let's say 12:00, the ribs will be in the same 12:00 position at the nipple.
HaND

[Michael H.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Hi Guys,
The current Judging consensus for M-Y's (Some consider arguably) is that the small hose has only the "GM" and the larger hose has only the "Ribs".
One thing that is consistent, wherever the ribs are positioned on the heater core, let's say 12:00, the ribs will be in the same 12:00 position at the nipple.
HaND

Mike,

I've had a few original hoses, some NOS, some excellent used. Still have a few. I've learned that there is no such thing as "one size has the GM and the other has grooves.
There were a few sources for these hoses and each had it's own ID. Some had the GM logo and others had grooves.
It's entirely possible to see an original set on any 63-67 car with NO GM logo, at all. It was usually a random assortment of GM/grooved on one car.
The reproduction hose GM logo hoses mostly have the wrong color and incorrect GM character style. Long story.

Owners should have a choice. GM or grooved for any/all hoses. (my choice would definitely be grooves)

Unlike a typical 63-65 reproduction hose, the original GM logo was so faint, it was difficult to see, even when new.
The 66 and later GM was more pronounced, although a different color.

[Donald T.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

To Michael's point on the GM logo, here is a pic of the difference. This is a PCV hose rather than a heater hose, but still the same concept. The original hose on the bottom is an early take-off from a 65, and a current repro on the top. You can clearly see the difference in the font. Not sure why they can't correctly duplicate the logo.

[Mike M.]

Re: 64 Heater Hoses

Thank you, Donald.
Excellent pic.
HaND