[s-cars] Adventures in S-car hoses

[Elijahallen92 at aol.com]

I had a parts car that had SFS hoses on it and other than being more thin 
they were just as nice and I don't think the thickness would make any difference 
at all. Look at the MTM hoses, they are very thin and I have never heard of a 
problem with them.

Elijah

In a message dated 9/10/2004 6:50:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tmullane at snet.net writes:


> Well call me a ricer if you will, but I would really like to go with Samco
> to match my other Samcos.  However, if it shortens the wait considerably,
> I'd vote SFS.
> 
> Tom
> (Please do NOT send me emails calling me a ricer)
> 
> 
> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:03:36 -0400
> From: Joe Pizzimenti <joe.pizzimenti at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [s-cars] Adventures in S-car travels
> To: Emre Washburn <yumyjager at gmail.com>
> Cc: Scar <s-car-list at audifans.com>
> Message-ID: <521f4dda04091012033afd9af0 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Emre, et al:
> That MAF to airbox hose isn't pressurized, so you don't really need 1"
> thick carbon kevlar stainless unobtanium piping.
> 
> Porta-Pizzo
> 
> 
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:02:05 -0400, Emre Washburn <yumyjager at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Personally I would want Samco, as a few of the people who have gotten 
> > the SFS's had commente on how it was thinner then Samco. I don't mind 
> > droping the extra $20 for a more quality product.
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Emre
> > 92 //S4
> > 90 Cq
> > 40 valves to many!
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> S-CAR-List mailing list
> S-CAR-List at audifans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
>