1968 original rear brake hose

[john302]

Does anyone have an original 1968 rear  brake   hose?I found a nos one and would like to compare to original one. thanks alot John     

[68Zproject]

These are all I have for now.  I can take more.   What do you need?

[68camaroz28]

John, pictures of our orig. off our 68 z/28 can be found on the Team Camaro link below (page 21). This link shows pics of our orig. with the red lettering. There is another picture on page 24 of that rear brake line sandwiched between the two NOS brake lines that I had added the same red lettering. If you need any additional pics let me know as the hose is currently still off the car.
http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=182584&page=21

[bertfam]

John, what's the build date of your car? Late (approx late April or early May, 1968) cars went to the 69 style of rear hose.

Ed

[68Zproject]

Ed, Mine is an 05D.  What did I have in my pics above?

[bertfam]

That's the 1st version, but there was an overlap period where both were used. My Van Nuys 05D (12 bolt) used the 69 version, but I've seen other late cars with the 1st version as well. Not sure why. Maybe 10 bolt -vs- 12 bolt?? Norwood -vs- LA? A case where the factory was using up what was left?? Maybe John could comment.

Ed

Here's a late 68 and all of 69 version (I think it's an aftermarket hose, but it looks basically the same as an original):

[john302]

My 68 z was built 12d. One other thing is the original front brake hoses are thicker than 69 hoses. The hoses have white lettering not the red . Also the are 3/16 hose not 1/8. For sure these are original front hoses.  Now for the rear nos hose.It is also 3/16 with white lettering. I do not have my original one to compare. Do the early cars take the thicker hose in the rear.  thanks John

[bertfam]

John, I'm not sure what you mean by thicker. I've never seen any brake hoses that are 1/8" thick or 3/16" thick.

The only description in the P&A (for 1968 rear) is "7/16-20 ext, 7/16-24 int, 12.75" OL"

Ed

[john302]

The hose it self is thicker. The o.d. of the rubber hose is bigger it is .490 and the normal hose is ..400 o.d. thanks John

[bertfam]

Okay, that makes a little more sense.

.490 is just under 31/64" (almost 1/2") and .400 is just over 25/64" (almost 3/8").

The picture I posted above measures .435 (just under 7/16"), but again, I don't believe it to be an original.

Ed

[68Zproject]

Mine is original.  In fact I had to search for the bolt going into the rear end cover that help the bracket on as mine broke inside the housing and it's a special bolt, different than the rest of the rear end cover bolts.  I believe it's as thick as Johns and I believe it had white lettering.  I can check on this later.  Also, mine's a Z if that makes any difference.

[john302]

Please check on the thickness of the rubber. I measured it with a mic. When was your car built? Another thing I have a pile of original hoses and some have red stripes with white letters. Some of the hoses are off 69 cars. thanks alot John   p.s.  this is a great web site.

[68camaroz28]

I'm sure you are correct concerning your rear hose as GM might have/probably had more than one supplier. Our what we believe to be our orig. rear hose had red stenciled information and dashes (Norwood 01B built). Car was taken off the road in 1979, has the early single crimp, and measues approximately .430" +/-.005 Would be interesting to know more for sure..... The other thing is did the hose have a date code as I have a code with a "7" but it does not make any sense to normal date coding.