extended rear brake hose options?
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: extended rear brake hose options?
Thanks, Mike.
I did appreciate the bracket relocation idea which would have been more
quick and less expensive. Still, I did need to replace the rear hose
regardless of the length issue. :-)
Mike Romain wrote:
>
> Crap man, it took me about 10 minutes to lower my bracket and I was
> ready to wheel.
>
> Mike
>
> Harold Hoover wrote:
> >
> > I've had success with using a Wagner rear brake hose, part #BH78078
> > (formerly F78078), on an '84 CJ-7. The Wagner part number is,
> > apparently, from a 1968 Ford F250. Two adapters were required where the
> > 'T' end of the new hose mounts to the rear axle tube. These adapters
> > dropped the fitting size of the hose down from 1/4" to 3/16".
> >
> > The mounting hole in the 'T' end is larger than the stock CJ hose. The
> > replacement Ford hose has a 7/16" hole while the stock hose has a 5/16"
> > hole. Still, I was able to use the stock bolt to mount it. A washer,
> > though not necessary, was used to cover more of the 'T' end mounting
> > hole.
> >
> > FYI: Wagner's stock '84 CJ-7 rear brake hose part number is BH108296
> > (i.e. formerly F108296). It measures 17 7/8". The new part is 24". I
> > hope the 6 and 1/8" increase in length is sufficient. I'll find out
> > soon enough when I jack up the rear with the ZigZag bar pins
> > disconnected.
> >
> > Less tax, the new Wagner part cost me $49.47.
> >
> > The only difficulty with the hose swap was with the fittings on the
> > brake lines leading the the new hose. I ended up clamping them with a
> > Vise Grip in order to loosen and tighten them. The wrench was slipping
> > on the fittings.
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > I just lowered the top bracket on my stock line.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > >
> > > Harold Hoover wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have no interest in stainless steel brake hoses but DO need an
> > > > extended rear hose for my '84 CJ-7. Can you make a recommendation?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > I stopped into the local Auto Value parts store and looked up in a book
> > > > the stock rear hose (i.e. part # BH108296) which is 17 7/8" in length.
> > > > I'm not sure but this may be a Wagner part number. The part number to
> > > > catch my interest is BH78078, a 24" hose (i.e. 6.125" longer than
> > > > stock). There may be two differences between the two. The distal end
> > > > of the hose which slides over the post on the axle has a 7/16" hole
> > > > where as the stock part is 5/16". I don't see that as a problem. If it
> > > > is, I might be able to find a sleeve to take up the slack. The other
> > > > difference may be at the proximal end which attaches to the underside of
> > > > the body tub. Where the end of the hose slides into the holding bracket
> > > > on the body, the star pattern may be slightly different with five points
> > > > versus four. I may be able to find a matching bracket.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harold J. Hoover
> > > >
> > > > 1984 CJ-7
> > > > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > > > Sedona, AZ USA
> >
> > --
> > Harold J. Hoover
> >
> > 1984 CJ-7
> > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > Sedona, AZ USA
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
I did appreciate the bracket relocation idea which would have been more
quick and less expensive. Still, I did need to replace the rear hose
regardless of the length issue. :-)
Mike Romain wrote:
>
> Crap man, it took me about 10 minutes to lower my bracket and I was
> ready to wheel.
>
> Mike
>
> Harold Hoover wrote:
> >
> > I've had success with using a Wagner rear brake hose, part #BH78078
> > (formerly F78078), on an '84 CJ-7. The Wagner part number is,
> > apparently, from a 1968 Ford F250. Two adapters were required where the
> > 'T' end of the new hose mounts to the rear axle tube. These adapters
> > dropped the fitting size of the hose down from 1/4" to 3/16".
> >
> > The mounting hole in the 'T' end is larger than the stock CJ hose. The
> > replacement Ford hose has a 7/16" hole while the stock hose has a 5/16"
> > hole. Still, I was able to use the stock bolt to mount it. A washer,
> > though not necessary, was used to cover more of the 'T' end mounting
> > hole.
> >
> > FYI: Wagner's stock '84 CJ-7 rear brake hose part number is BH108296
> > (i.e. formerly F108296). It measures 17 7/8". The new part is 24". I
> > hope the 6 and 1/8" increase in length is sufficient. I'll find out
> > soon enough when I jack up the rear with the ZigZag bar pins
> > disconnected.
> >
> > Less tax, the new Wagner part cost me $49.47.
> >
> > The only difficulty with the hose swap was with the fittings on the
> > brake lines leading the the new hose. I ended up clamping them with a
> > Vise Grip in order to loosen and tighten them. The wrench was slipping
> > on the fittings.
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > I just lowered the top bracket on my stock line.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > >
> > > Harold Hoover wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have no interest in stainless steel brake hoses but DO need an
> > > > extended rear hose for my '84 CJ-7. Can you make a recommendation?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > I stopped into the local Auto Value parts store and looked up in a book
> > > > the stock rear hose (i.e. part # BH108296) which is 17 7/8" in length.
> > > > I'm not sure but this may be a Wagner part number. The part number to
> > > > catch my interest is BH78078, a 24" hose (i.e. 6.125" longer than
> > > > stock). There may be two differences between the two. The distal end
> > > > of the hose which slides over the post on the axle has a 7/16" hole
> > > > where as the stock part is 5/16". I don't see that as a problem. If it
> > > > is, I might be able to find a sleeve to take up the slack. The other
> > > > difference may be at the proximal end which attaches to the underside of
> > > > the body tub. Where the end of the hose slides into the holding bracket
> > > > on the body, the star pattern may be slightly different with five points
> > > > versus four. I may be able to find a matching bracket.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harold J. Hoover
> > > >
> > > > 1984 CJ-7
> > > > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > > > Sedona, AZ USA
> >
> > --
> > Harold J. Hoover
> >
> > 1984 CJ-7
> > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > Sedona, AZ USA
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: extended rear brake hose options?
Thanks, Mike.
I did appreciate the bracket relocation idea which would have been more
quick and less expensive. Still, I did need to replace the rear hose
regardless of the length issue. :-)
Mike Romain wrote:
>
> Crap man, it took me about 10 minutes to lower my bracket and I was
> ready to wheel.
>
> Mike
>
> Harold Hoover wrote:
> >
> > I've had success with using a Wagner rear brake hose, part #BH78078
> > (formerly F78078), on an '84 CJ-7. The Wagner part number is,
> > apparently, from a 1968 Ford F250. Two adapters were required where the
> > 'T' end of the new hose mounts to the rear axle tube. These adapters
> > dropped the fitting size of the hose down from 1/4" to 3/16".
> >
> > The mounting hole in the 'T' end is larger than the stock CJ hose. The
> > replacement Ford hose has a 7/16" hole while the stock hose has a 5/16"
> > hole. Still, I was able to use the stock bolt to mount it. A washer,
> > though not necessary, was used to cover more of the 'T' end mounting
> > hole.
> >
> > FYI: Wagner's stock '84 CJ-7 rear brake hose part number is BH108296
> > (i.e. formerly F108296). It measures 17 7/8". The new part is 24". I
> > hope the 6 and 1/8" increase in length is sufficient. I'll find out
> > soon enough when I jack up the rear with the ZigZag bar pins
> > disconnected.
> >
> > Less tax, the new Wagner part cost me $49.47.
> >
> > The only difficulty with the hose swap was with the fittings on the
> > brake lines leading the the new hose. I ended up clamping them with a
> > Vise Grip in order to loosen and tighten them. The wrench was slipping
> > on the fittings.
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > I just lowered the top bracket on my stock line.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > >
> > > Harold Hoover wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have no interest in stainless steel brake hoses but DO need an
> > > > extended rear hose for my '84 CJ-7. Can you make a recommendation?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > I stopped into the local Auto Value parts store and looked up in a book
> > > > the stock rear hose (i.e. part # BH108296) which is 17 7/8" in length.
> > > > I'm not sure but this may be a Wagner part number. The part number to
> > > > catch my interest is BH78078, a 24" hose (i.e. 6.125" longer than
> > > > stock). There may be two differences between the two. The distal end
> > > > of the hose which slides over the post on the axle has a 7/16" hole
> > > > where as the stock part is 5/16". I don't see that as a problem. If it
> > > > is, I might be able to find a sleeve to take up the slack. The other
> > > > difference may be at the proximal end which attaches to the underside of
> > > > the body tub. Where the end of the hose slides into the holding bracket
> > > > on the body, the star pattern may be slightly different with five points
> > > > versus four. I may be able to find a matching bracket.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harold J. Hoover
> > > >
> > > > 1984 CJ-7
> > > > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > > > Sedona, AZ USA
> >
> > --
> > Harold J. Hoover
> >
> > 1984 CJ-7
> > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > Sedona, AZ USA
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
I did appreciate the bracket relocation idea which would have been more
quick and less expensive. Still, I did need to replace the rear hose
regardless of the length issue. :-)
Mike Romain wrote:
>
> Crap man, it took me about 10 minutes to lower my bracket and I was
> ready to wheel.
>
> Mike
>
> Harold Hoover wrote:
> >
> > I've had success with using a Wagner rear brake hose, part #BH78078
> > (formerly F78078), on an '84 CJ-7. The Wagner part number is,
> > apparently, from a 1968 Ford F250. Two adapters were required where the
> > 'T' end of the new hose mounts to the rear axle tube. These adapters
> > dropped the fitting size of the hose down from 1/4" to 3/16".
> >
> > The mounting hole in the 'T' end is larger than the stock CJ hose. The
> > replacement Ford hose has a 7/16" hole while the stock hose has a 5/16"
> > hole. Still, I was able to use the stock bolt to mount it. A washer,
> > though not necessary, was used to cover more of the 'T' end mounting
> > hole.
> >
> > FYI: Wagner's stock '84 CJ-7 rear brake hose part number is BH108296
> > (i.e. formerly F108296). It measures 17 7/8". The new part is 24". I
> > hope the 6 and 1/8" increase in length is sufficient. I'll find out
> > soon enough when I jack up the rear with the ZigZag bar pins
> > disconnected.
> >
> > Less tax, the new Wagner part cost me $49.47.
> >
> > The only difficulty with the hose swap was with the fittings on the
> > brake lines leading the the new hose. I ended up clamping them with a
> > Vise Grip in order to loosen and tighten them. The wrench was slipping
> > on the fittings.
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > I just lowered the top bracket on my stock line.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > >
> > > Harold Hoover wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have no interest in stainless steel brake hoses but DO need an
> > > > extended rear hose for my '84 CJ-7. Can you make a recommendation?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > I stopped into the local Auto Value parts store and looked up in a book
> > > > the stock rear hose (i.e. part # BH108296) which is 17 7/8" in length.
> > > > I'm not sure but this may be a Wagner part number. The part number to
> > > > catch my interest is BH78078, a 24" hose (i.e. 6.125" longer than
> > > > stock). There may be two differences between the two. The distal end
> > > > of the hose which slides over the post on the axle has a 7/16" hole
> > > > where as the stock part is 5/16". I don't see that as a problem. If it
> > > > is, I might be able to find a sleeve to take up the slack. The other
> > > > difference may be at the proximal end which attaches to the underside of
> > > > the body tub. Where the end of the hose slides into the holding bracket
> > > > on the body, the star pattern may be slightly different with five points
> > > > versus four. I may be able to find a matching bracket.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harold J. Hoover
> > > >
> > > > 1984 CJ-7
> > > > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > > > Sedona, AZ USA
> >
> > --
> > Harold J. Hoover
> >
> > 1984 CJ-7
> > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > Sedona, AZ USA
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: extended rear brake hose options?
Thanks, Mike.
I did appreciate the bracket relocation idea which would have been more
quick and less expensive. Still, I did need to replace the rear hose
regardless of the length issue. :-)
Mike Romain wrote:
>
> Crap man, it took me about 10 minutes to lower my bracket and I was
> ready to wheel.
>
> Mike
>
> Harold Hoover wrote:
> >
> > I've had success with using a Wagner rear brake hose, part #BH78078
> > (formerly F78078), on an '84 CJ-7. The Wagner part number is,
> > apparently, from a 1968 Ford F250. Two adapters were required where the
> > 'T' end of the new hose mounts to the rear axle tube. These adapters
> > dropped the fitting size of the hose down from 1/4" to 3/16".
> >
> > The mounting hole in the 'T' end is larger than the stock CJ hose. The
> > replacement Ford hose has a 7/16" hole while the stock hose has a 5/16"
> > hole. Still, I was able to use the stock bolt to mount it. A washer,
> > though not necessary, was used to cover more of the 'T' end mounting
> > hole.
> >
> > FYI: Wagner's stock '84 CJ-7 rear brake hose part number is BH108296
> > (i.e. formerly F108296). It measures 17 7/8". The new part is 24". I
> > hope the 6 and 1/8" increase in length is sufficient. I'll find out
> > soon enough when I jack up the rear with the ZigZag bar pins
> > disconnected.
> >
> > Less tax, the new Wagner part cost me $49.47.
> >
> > The only difficulty with the hose swap was with the fittings on the
> > brake lines leading the the new hose. I ended up clamping them with a
> > Vise Grip in order to loosen and tighten them. The wrench was slipping
> > on the fittings.
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > I just lowered the top bracket on my stock line.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > >
> > > Harold Hoover wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have no interest in stainless steel brake hoses but DO need an
> > > > extended rear hose for my '84 CJ-7. Can you make a recommendation?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > I stopped into the local Auto Value parts store and looked up in a book
> > > > the stock rear hose (i.e. part # BH108296) which is 17 7/8" in length.
> > > > I'm not sure but this may be a Wagner part number. The part number to
> > > > catch my interest is BH78078, a 24" hose (i.e. 6.125" longer than
> > > > stock). There may be two differences between the two. The distal end
> > > > of the hose which slides over the post on the axle has a 7/16" hole
> > > > where as the stock part is 5/16". I don't see that as a problem. If it
> > > > is, I might be able to find a sleeve to take up the slack. The other
> > > > difference may be at the proximal end which attaches to the underside of
> > > > the body tub. Where the end of the hose slides into the holding bracket
> > > > on the body, the star pattern may be slightly different with five points
> > > > versus four. I may be able to find a matching bracket.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harold J. Hoover
> > > >
> > > > 1984 CJ-7
> > > > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > > > Sedona, AZ USA
> >
> > --
> > Harold J. Hoover
> >
> > 1984 CJ-7
> > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > Sedona, AZ USA
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
I did appreciate the bracket relocation idea which would have been more
quick and less expensive. Still, I did need to replace the rear hose
regardless of the length issue. :-)
Mike Romain wrote:
>
> Crap man, it took me about 10 minutes to lower my bracket and I was
> ready to wheel.
>
> Mike
>
> Harold Hoover wrote:
> >
> > I've had success with using a Wagner rear brake hose, part #BH78078
> > (formerly F78078), on an '84 CJ-7. The Wagner part number is,
> > apparently, from a 1968 Ford F250. Two adapters were required where the
> > 'T' end of the new hose mounts to the rear axle tube. These adapters
> > dropped the fitting size of the hose down from 1/4" to 3/16".
> >
> > The mounting hole in the 'T' end is larger than the stock CJ hose. The
> > replacement Ford hose has a 7/16" hole while the stock hose has a 5/16"
> > hole. Still, I was able to use the stock bolt to mount it. A washer,
> > though not necessary, was used to cover more of the 'T' end mounting
> > hole.
> >
> > FYI: Wagner's stock '84 CJ-7 rear brake hose part number is BH108296
> > (i.e. formerly F108296). It measures 17 7/8". The new part is 24". I
> > hope the 6 and 1/8" increase in length is sufficient. I'll find out
> > soon enough when I jack up the rear with the ZigZag bar pins
> > disconnected.
> >
> > Less tax, the new Wagner part cost me $49.47.
> >
> > The only difficulty with the hose swap was with the fittings on the
> > brake lines leading the the new hose. I ended up clamping them with a
> > Vise Grip in order to loosen and tighten them. The wrench was slipping
> > on the fittings.
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > I just lowered the top bracket on my stock line.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > >
> > > Harold Hoover wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have no interest in stainless steel brake hoses but DO need an
> > > > extended rear hose for my '84 CJ-7. Can you make a recommendation?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > I stopped into the local Auto Value parts store and looked up in a book
> > > > the stock rear hose (i.e. part # BH108296) which is 17 7/8" in length.
> > > > I'm not sure but this may be a Wagner part number. The part number to
> > > > catch my interest is BH78078, a 24" hose (i.e. 6.125" longer than
> > > > stock). There may be two differences between the two. The distal end
> > > > of the hose which slides over the post on the axle has a 7/16" hole
> > > > where as the stock part is 5/16". I don't see that as a problem. If it
> > > > is, I might be able to find a sleeve to take up the slack. The other
> > > > difference may be at the proximal end which attaches to the underside of
> > > > the body tub. Where the end of the hose slides into the holding bracket
> > > > on the body, the star pattern may be slightly different with five points
> > > > versus four. I may be able to find a matching bracket.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harold J. Hoover
> > > >
> > > > 1984 CJ-7
> > > > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > > > Sedona, AZ USA
> >
> > --
> > Harold J. Hoover
> >
> > 1984 CJ-7
> > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > Sedona, AZ USA
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: extended rear brake hose options?
"Harold Hoover" <guyloginin@earth*link.net> wrote in message
news:ff_Tb.12338$uM2.11795@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> I've had success with using a Wagner rear brake hose, part #BH78078
> (formerly F78078), on an '84 CJ-7. The Wagner part number is,
> apparently, from a 1968 Ford F250. Two adapters were required where the
> 'T' end of the new hose mounts to the rear axle tube. These adapters
> dropped the fitting size of the hose down from 1/4" to 3/16".
>
> The mounting hole in the 'T' end is larger than the stock CJ hose. The
> replacement Ford hose has a 7/16" hole while the stock hose has a 5/16"
> hole. Still, I was able to use the stock bolt to mount it. A washer,
> though not necessary, was used to cover more of the 'T' end mounting
> hole.
>
>
> FYI: Wagner's stock '84 CJ-7 rear brake hose part number is BH108296
> (i.e. formerly F108296). It measures 17 7/8". The new part is 24". I
> hope the 6 and 1/8" increase in length is sufficient. I'll find out
> soon enough when I jack up the rear with the ZigZag bar pins
> disconnected.
>
"ZigZag Bar?" You actually still have one of those? Why? That part was not
even offered as recently as '81, why do you think you need it?
> Less tax, the new Wagner part cost me $49.47.
>
> The only difficulty with the hose swap was with the fittings on the
> brake lines leading the the new hose. I ended up clamping them with a
> Vise Grip in order to loosen and tighten them. The wrench was slipping
> on the fittings.
>
>
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> >
> > I just lowered the top bracket on my stock line.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Harold Hoover wrote:
> > >
> > > I have no interest in stainless steel brake hoses but DO need an
> > > extended rear hose for my '84 CJ-7. Can you make a recommendation?
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > I stopped into the local Auto Value parts store and looked up in a
book
> > > the stock rear hose (i.e. part # BH108296) which is 17 7/8" in length.
> > > I'm not sure but this may be a Wagner part number. The part number to
> > > catch my interest is BH78078, a 24" hose (i.e. 6.125" longer than
> > > stock). There may be two differences between the two. The distal end
> > > of the hose which slides over the post on the axle has a 7/16" hole
> > > where as the stock part is 5/16". I don't see that as a problem. If
it
> > > is, I might be able to find a sleeve to take up the slack. The other
> > > difference may be at the proximal end which attaches to the underside
of
> > > the body tub. Where the end of the hose slides into the holding
bracket
> > > on the body, the star pattern may be slightly different with five
points
> > > versus four. I may be able to find a matching bracket.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Harold J. Hoover
> > >
> > > 1984 CJ-7
> > > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > > Sedona, AZ USA
>
> --
> Harold J. Hoover
>
> 1984 CJ-7
> guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> Sedona, AZ USA
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: extended rear brake hose options?
"Harold Hoover" <guyloginin@earth*link.net> wrote in message
news:ff_Tb.12338$uM2.11795@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> I've had success with using a Wagner rear brake hose, part #BH78078
> (formerly F78078), on an '84 CJ-7. The Wagner part number is,
> apparently, from a 1968 Ford F250. Two adapters were required where the
> 'T' end of the new hose mounts to the rear axle tube. These adapters
> dropped the fitting size of the hose down from 1/4" to 3/16".
>
> The mounting hole in the 'T' end is larger than the stock CJ hose. The
> replacement Ford hose has a 7/16" hole while the stock hose has a 5/16"
> hole. Still, I was able to use the stock bolt to mount it. A washer,
> though not necessary, was used to cover more of the 'T' end mounting
> hole.
>
>
> FYI: Wagner's stock '84 CJ-7 rear brake hose part number is BH108296
> (i.e. formerly F108296). It measures 17 7/8". The new part is 24". I
> hope the 6 and 1/8" increase in length is sufficient. I'll find out
> soon enough when I jack up the rear with the ZigZag bar pins
> disconnected.
>
"ZigZag Bar?" You actually still have one of those? Why? That part was not
even offered as recently as '81, why do you think you need it?
> Less tax, the new Wagner part cost me $49.47.
>
> The only difficulty with the hose swap was with the fittings on the
> brake lines leading the the new hose. I ended up clamping them with a
> Vise Grip in order to loosen and tighten them. The wrench was slipping
> on the fittings.
>
>
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> >
> > I just lowered the top bracket on my stock line.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Harold Hoover wrote:
> > >
> > > I have no interest in stainless steel brake hoses but DO need an
> > > extended rear hose for my '84 CJ-7. Can you make a recommendation?
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > I stopped into the local Auto Value parts store and looked up in a
book
> > > the stock rear hose (i.e. part # BH108296) which is 17 7/8" in length.
> > > I'm not sure but this may be a Wagner part number. The part number to
> > > catch my interest is BH78078, a 24" hose (i.e. 6.125" longer than
> > > stock). There may be two differences between the two. The distal end
> > > of the hose which slides over the post on the axle has a 7/16" hole
> > > where as the stock part is 5/16". I don't see that as a problem. If
it
> > > is, I might be able to find a sleeve to take up the slack. The other
> > > difference may be at the proximal end which attaches to the underside
of
> > > the body tub. Where the end of the hose slides into the holding
bracket
> > > on the body, the star pattern may be slightly different with five
points
> > > versus four. I may be able to find a matching bracket.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Harold J. Hoover
> > >
> > > 1984 CJ-7
> > > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > > Sedona, AZ USA
>
> --
> Harold J. Hoover
>
> 1984 CJ-7
> guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> Sedona, AZ USA
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: extended rear brake hose options?
"Harold Hoover" <guyloginin@earth*link.net> wrote in message
news:ff_Tb.12338$uM2.11795@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> I've had success with using a Wagner rear brake hose, part #BH78078
> (formerly F78078), on an '84 CJ-7. The Wagner part number is,
> apparently, from a 1968 Ford F250. Two adapters were required where the
> 'T' end of the new hose mounts to the rear axle tube. These adapters
> dropped the fitting size of the hose down from 1/4" to 3/16".
>
> The mounting hole in the 'T' end is larger than the stock CJ hose. The
> replacement Ford hose has a 7/16" hole while the stock hose has a 5/16"
> hole. Still, I was able to use the stock bolt to mount it. A washer,
> though not necessary, was used to cover more of the 'T' end mounting
> hole.
>
>
> FYI: Wagner's stock '84 CJ-7 rear brake hose part number is BH108296
> (i.e. formerly F108296). It measures 17 7/8". The new part is 24". I
> hope the 6 and 1/8" increase in length is sufficient. I'll find out
> soon enough when I jack up the rear with the ZigZag bar pins
> disconnected.
>
"ZigZag Bar?" You actually still have one of those? Why? That part was not
even offered as recently as '81, why do you think you need it?
> Less tax, the new Wagner part cost me $49.47.
>
> The only difficulty with the hose swap was with the fittings on the
> brake lines leading the the new hose. I ended up clamping them with a
> Vise Grip in order to loosen and tighten them. The wrench was slipping
> on the fittings.
>
>
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> >
> > I just lowered the top bracket on my stock line.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Harold Hoover wrote:
> > >
> > > I have no interest in stainless steel brake hoses but DO need an
> > > extended rear hose for my '84 CJ-7. Can you make a recommendation?
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > I stopped into the local Auto Value parts store and looked up in a
book
> > > the stock rear hose (i.e. part # BH108296) which is 17 7/8" in length.
> > > I'm not sure but this may be a Wagner part number. The part number to
> > > catch my interest is BH78078, a 24" hose (i.e. 6.125" longer than
> > > stock). There may be two differences between the two. The distal end
> > > of the hose which slides over the post on the axle has a 7/16" hole
> > > where as the stock part is 5/16". I don't see that as a problem. If
it
> > > is, I might be able to find a sleeve to take up the slack. The other
> > > difference may be at the proximal end which attaches to the underside
of
> > > the body tub. Where the end of the hose slides into the holding
bracket
> > > on the body, the star pattern may be slightly different with five
points
> > > versus four. I may be able to find a matching bracket.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Harold J. Hoover
> > >
> > > 1984 CJ-7
> > > guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> > > http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> > > Sedona, AZ USA
>
> --
> Harold J. Hoover
>
> 1984 CJ-7
> guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
> http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
> Sedona, AZ USA
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: extended rear brake hose options?
> "ZigZag Bar?" You actually still have one of those? Why? That part was not
> even offered as recently as '81, why do you think you need it?
This is a new product offerd by Nth Degree Mobility.
See... http://www.nthdegreemobility.com/products.htm
I use the kit for the same reason others use revolver shackles. The
ZigZag is a different approach. It serves to keep both rear tires on
the ground for better traction. I like the lock feature for highway
use. Two possible drawbacks of the product may be ground clearance, and
the manufacturer recommending locking of the bar for steep descents. I
haven't had the product installed long enough to fully test or
appreciate it.
Is this the product you are referring to or was it something else?
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
> even offered as recently as '81, why do you think you need it?
This is a new product offerd by Nth Degree Mobility.
See... http://www.nthdegreemobility.com/products.htm
I use the kit for the same reason others use revolver shackles. The
ZigZag is a different approach. It serves to keep both rear tires on
the ground for better traction. I like the lock feature for highway
use. Two possible drawbacks of the product may be ground clearance, and
the manufacturer recommending locking of the bar for steep descents. I
haven't had the product installed long enough to fully test or
appreciate it.
Is this the product you are referring to or was it something else?
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: extended rear brake hose options?
> "ZigZag Bar?" You actually still have one of those? Why? That part was not
> even offered as recently as '81, why do you think you need it?
This is a new product offerd by Nth Degree Mobility.
See... http://www.nthdegreemobility.com/products.htm
I use the kit for the same reason others use revolver shackles. The
ZigZag is a different approach. It serves to keep both rear tires on
the ground for better traction. I like the lock feature for highway
use. Two possible drawbacks of the product may be ground clearance, and
the manufacturer recommending locking of the bar for steep descents. I
haven't had the product installed long enough to fully test or
appreciate it.
Is this the product you are referring to or was it something else?
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
> even offered as recently as '81, why do you think you need it?
This is a new product offerd by Nth Degree Mobility.
See... http://www.nthdegreemobility.com/products.htm
I use the kit for the same reason others use revolver shackles. The
ZigZag is a different approach. It serves to keep both rear tires on
the ground for better traction. I like the lock feature for highway
use. Two possible drawbacks of the product may be ground clearance, and
the manufacturer recommending locking of the bar for steep descents. I
haven't had the product installed long enough to fully test or
appreciate it.
Is this the product you are referring to or was it something else?
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: extended rear brake hose options?
> "ZigZag Bar?" You actually still have one of those? Why? That part was not
> even offered as recently as '81, why do you think you need it?
This is a new product offerd by Nth Degree Mobility.
See... http://www.nthdegreemobility.com/products.htm
I use the kit for the same reason others use revolver shackles. The
ZigZag is a different approach. It serves to keep both rear tires on
the ground for better traction. I like the lock feature for highway
use. Two possible drawbacks of the product may be ground clearance, and
the manufacturer recommending locking of the bar for steep descents. I
haven't had the product installed long enough to fully test or
appreciate it.
Is this the product you are referring to or was it something else?
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
> even offered as recently as '81, why do you think you need it?
This is a new product offerd by Nth Degree Mobility.
See... http://www.nthdegreemobility.com/products.htm
I use the kit for the same reason others use revolver shackles. The
ZigZag is a different approach. It serves to keep both rear tires on
the ground for better traction. I like the lock feature for highway
use. Two possible drawbacks of the product may be ground clearance, and
the manufacturer recommending locking of the bar for steep descents. I
haven't had the product installed long enough to fully test or
appreciate it.
Is this the product you are referring to or was it something else?
--
Harold J. Hoover
1984 CJ-7
guyloginin@earth*link.net - (Remove * to reply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guyloginin/Jeep.html
Sedona, AZ USA
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: extended rear brake hose options?
"Harold Hoover" <guyloginin@earth*link.net> wrote in message
news:66CWb.829$WW3.657@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> > "ZigZag Bar?" You actually still have one of those? Why? That part was
not
> > even offered as recently as '81, why do you think you need it?
>
> This is a new product offerd by Nth Degree Mobility.
> See... http://www.nthdegreemobility.com/products.htm
>
> I use the kit for the same reason others use revolver shackles. The
> ZigZag is a different approach. It serves to keep both rear tires on
> the ground for better traction. I like the lock feature for highway
> use. Two possible drawbacks of the product may be ground clearance, and
> the manufacturer recommending locking of the bar for steep descents. I
> haven't had the product installed long enough to fully test or
> appreciate it.
>
> Is this the product you are referring to or was it something else?
>
I think I am confused. I thought the zigzag bar was the track bar that runs
diagonally from one of the frame rails to the axle.
Do you have a link to the thing you are talking about? I would like to look
it up.