C2 Brake Hose v DOT Judging?

[Alan D.]

Rumor has it that brake hose lines can be replaced with the double crimp DOT hoses and not get a deduction due to safety reasons! (C2)
Unable to find just where that exception is. Is it a written someplace?

Really do not want to go back to the non DOT hoses however if it means picking up a Point I will.

Also note the original hoses have double yellow lines which run the entire length and as shown sometimes puddles at end.

[William C.]

Re: C2 Brake Hose v DOT Judging?

Originals are "ribbed" and as you say carry a stripe along the length. Fronts particularly use a fairly unique configuration in terms of how long the "pipe" is foreward of the crimp. As you say, there is no written rule, but IF all the other configuration issues are correct many would give you a pass on the crimp. Note the caps on the "IF" as most replacements have other difficulties beyond the crimp.

[John C.]

Re: C2 Brake Hose v DOT Judging?

Alan

I think the rumor you talk about with judging brake hoses comes from the fact the the judging guides for the various years are not consistent.

The 68-69 guide gives a description of what the hoses should look like, and then specifically states that they are not to be judged do to the fact they are a safety item subject to deterioration.

The mid year guides I have seen do not have the safety exception language.

John

[Joe L.]

Re: C2 Brake Hose v DOT Judging?

Rumor has it that brake hose lines can be replaced with the double crimp DOT hoses and not get a deduction due to safety reasons! (C2)
Unable to find just where that exception is. Is it a written someplace?

Really do not want to go back to the non DOT hoses however if it means picking up a Point I will.

Also note the original hoses have double yellow lines which run the entire length and as shown sometimes puddles at end.

Alan------


Unless this car is a "trailer queen" type car, I would ABSOLUTELY NOT re-use those original brake hoses for the sake of gaining a point or two.