|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: TWL: Exhaust rubber or fiberglass
AlorMaria@XXX.XXX
Date: Fri Jan 04 2002 - 18:43:29 EST
In a message dated 1/3/02 2:29:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, cgrubb@XXX.XXX
writes:
<< Many thanks to
all who responded to this question. It appears the majority says
"Fiberglass!". I am somewhat concerned about the distance from the mixer to
pipe distance. Will be checking with the manufacturer about the 'minimum'
distance allowed. >>
Hi Chris,
Not everyone.
I replaced the entire 20' length of exhaust hose and the 4 foot length from
the riser to the muffer on my 34' Marine Trader. It took a morning, including
rowing out to the boat with the hose. I used marine exhaust hose that I
purchased from a local industrial hose supply company. It was around
$11.00/foot. It came in two 12' lengths. I connected it where necessary with
a fiberglass tube connector from BOATUS that was about $4.50.
Although I initially thought fiberglass tubing would be
better/cheaper/higher-tech than exhaust hose, I found it not to be true. It
would have been difficult to work in the boat in any lengths and/or would
require numerous rubber hose connections.
The hose went in like a dream. It has never given me a moment's concern. The
one fiberglass connector is hidden in a locker. The whole hose, with the
exception of the engine room, is hidden within lockers. I think the less
connections the better. I can't see them to check them.
If the boat were just being built, I would specify fiberglass tubing and only
use rubber for the engine connection. But the boat was built long ago in a
country far far away.
Which is how I was able to afford it in the first place.
Al Johnson
34' Marine Trader "Angelina"
|