1992 Olds 88 Royale 3.8L FPR hose
#1
1992 Olds 88 Royale 3.8L FPR hose
I need to replace the short section of hose (correct ID (?) and fuel resistance) that hooks up to the FPR ? Mine is fatigued and showing exterior cracking but hasn't gone completely south yet. I don't dare remove it until I have a replacement for it. You can still find the original GM part but they're more than $50 delivered. Has anyone replaced this with aftermarket hose with good long-term results ? Thank you.
The following users liked this post:
Tech II (07-09-2018)
#3
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Since we're here: Has your FPR been replaced recently? If it'* old, it'* probably a good idea to replace. Some of these let gasoline through to the vacuum side then bad things happen.
The following users liked this post:
Tech II (07-09-2018)
#5
Senior Member
True Car Nut
And if you are having issues with that piece, it would be good to look through all of the vacuum lines to make sure there are none others that need replacement.
#6
Thanks to all. I had read that when the FPR fails the line can accumulate a little gas and wasn't sure whether standard vacuum hose would be ok. Then of course one wonders why these vintage parts sellers would demand such a high price. I thought there was something special about its composition. Good to know, appreciate it.
#7
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Gas should never be in that line. If it is, the fuel pressure regulator should be immediately replaced, because it'* dumping unmetered fuel straight in to the air path.
Just clarifying
It'* probably stupid expensive because it'* stupid rare because it'* a silly part anyway specific only to the assembly line.
Just clarifying
It'* probably stupid expensive because it'* stupid rare because it'* a silly part anyway specific only to the assembly line.
#8
Senior Member
True Car Nut
. . . which could ignite in the intake tract (where it isn't supposed to) then burn the car to the ground.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
brminder
Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning
2
12-23-2002 05:03 AM