[Gator67]

I’m using nicopp for fuel and brake lines on my Firebird pro-touring project…mostly because I want to bend and flare all the lines myself. I practiced with other materials and found nicopp to be the easiest to work with.

[Tom Vaught]

If I saw it approved in a recent SCCA manual, I would change/amend my post above.

Tom V.

This is from some years ago. 4/10/2011

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...d.php?t=662999

Quoted from Post #5

"

DOT APPROVED
FOR BRAKE AND GENERAL
AUTOMOTIVE APPLICATIONS

NiCopp® is a nickel-copper alloy brake tubing that meets SAE Standard J1047 and ISO 4038, meeting all international and U.S. requirements for brake tubing. This alloy is approximately 9.2% nickel, 1.4% iron, 0.8% manganese, and 88.6% copper. Under the UNS system, this alloy is designated as UNS C70600. NiCopp® therefore has the strength and structural integrity of steel lines, but with the added benefit of being much more corrosion resistant. NiCopp® is also easier to bend and form than steel tubing. Nickel-copper, commonly referred to as '90-10 copper', has been used on several European vehicle brake systems since the 1970's, including: Volvo, Audi, Porsche, and Aston Martin.

NiCopp® has been used on hydraulic/fluid transfer systems on vehicles where steel lines and tubing are commonly used. This includes brake, fuel and transmission systems. NiCopp® is considered the super-premium brand in brake lines and should be considered where the underbody of the vehicle is subjected to the harshest environments, where the longest life-span for lines is required, and/or where direct OEM replacement is desired.

* • NiCopp® Does Not Rust or Corrode
• DOT Approved for Hydraulic Brake Systems
• Bends 58% Easier than Steel Tubing
• Available in Coils of 25' and 100'
• Finished Lines Available for Domestic & Import
• Black Oxide Fittings 2X Corrosion Resistance

NiCopp® lines and tubing meet the following specifications:
SAEJ1047
ISO 4038
SAEJ1650
DIN 74234
BS2871

Tom Vaught

ps If it will pass the "Gorilla Stomp" test by the Scrutineer/Inspector from the SCCA you are good to go. Have seen many "copper brake lines" fail that test. NiCopp MAY pass that test. "

"Gorilla Stomp" test is both feet on the brake pedal (as in a panic stop with lots of force to the pedal and lines generated). Street driving and never in a panic stop might last for years and years.
Would you want your wife and kids in the car if you had to do a panic stop and the line failed?????

[LKLusza]

One other option might be one of Holley's in-tank pump /regulator combos. Here's the listing for your Firebird: https://www.holley.com/products/fuel...s/parts/12-304

The neat thing is that you retain your stock tank. The pump and regulator are mounted on the pickup, so there is no return plumbing to worry about. The regulator is pre-set to 58psi. So all you need is the stock steel fuel line forward, but remember to replace any rubber line with EFI rated hose and clamps. On the FiTech throttle body, cap off the return port and the possibly the vacuum port to the built-in regulator. Something to think about anyway.

fwiw, I did this "dead head" style setup previously on my '38 Chevy street rod FiTech setup. But as these new Holley products weren't available at that time, I used an in-tank pump with an LS-style Corvette fuel filter/regulator unit instead which shortened the return as much as possible. I wish something like this was available back then.

[Scarebird]

Another thought is to run Camaro lines - they route on the pass. side IIRC and may be much easier to go to a FI unit.

[78w72]

thats one thing i dint like about the earlier 70-73 cars is the passenger side fuel line & the line going across the front of the oil pan... the later years & the OP's 78 are a much better design, routing on the driver side & not crossing over the cross member or oil pan.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by 78w72

thats one thing i dint like about the earlier 70-73 cars is the passenger side fuel line & the line going across the front of the oil pan... the later years & the OP's 78 are a much better design, routing on the driver side & not crossing over the cross member or oil pan.

I actually like this design on the 72 where it crosses in the front under the oil pan. It gets plenty of air flow up there and basically comes along the side frame rail where it isn't all that close to the engine.

I don't like my 70 though, it's a little different. It crosses behind the cross member under the engine between the cross member and oil pan sump, then runs up and over the cross member along the oil pan rail to the fuel pump so it's packed with a lot of heat and doesn't get nearly as much air flow as the front version.

[78w72]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

I actually like this design on the 72 where it crosses in the front under the oil pan. It gets plenty of air flow up there and basically comes along the side frame rail where it isn't all that close to the engine.

I don't like my 70 though, it's a little different. It crosses behind the cross member under the engine between the cross member and oil pan sump, then runs up and over the cross member along the oil pan rail to the fuel pump so it's packed with a lot of heat and doesn't get nearly as much air flow as the front version.

i suppose theres pros & cons to both ways depending on what youre doing. i just like the 78 routing on the driver side for stock mech pumps better since the line doesnt need to make a right angle turn all the way across the front of the engine to reach the pump like on 72's... even with air flow the line is actually clamped to & touching the oil pan which transfers a lot of heat in stop & go driving or sitting in the staging lanes at the track.

where it runs on top the frame next to the engine its very close to the headers if you have bigger pipes, my line is all of about 2" from the big 2" tube super comps i run, way to close for comfort, i had to use some heat wrap on the line in that area its so close. you can kid of see it in this pic, runs very close, would be much cleaner & away from major heat sources on the driver side. they make the later year driver side run in 1/2" too & would be much easier than trying to convert a later year car to passenger side routing.

[Formulajones]

That doesn't look too bad for clearance. I think even with the RA manifolds on the 72 I did it was still just a couple inches. I'm okay with that. As long as I can get a hand between fuel lines and heat sources I've never had an issue, and being where it is with plenty of air flow tends to mitigate any would be issues.

On my 70 the factory didn't come up and over the frame rail like that. It's all hidden behind the engine cross member and runs under the oil pan sump. What's worse is it makes a turn to come up and over the cross member on the driver side, still running under the engine between the block and the RA exhaust manifold where there is a ton of heat and very little air flow. I've just never like fuel lines running "under" engines like that.

I'd much rather have that come up the top of the frame rail by the upper control arm. It seems to be the lesser of 2 evils I think. Honestly though I don't think there is a real good way to do it on these 2nd gens.

Coming up the passenger side is fine, but I'd like that better if the car didn't have power steering, and the front mounted steering box. Which I think is why initially on the 70 models like mine when they crossed under the back of the engine, they didn't come up and over the top of the frame there, and ran it under the engine along the block instead. Of course the starter is there too.
baaaaa lol Always something

[Formula8]

Originally Posted by 78w72

thats one thing i dint like about the earlier 70-73 cars is the passenger side fuel line & the line going across the front of the oil pan... the later years & the OP's 78 are a much better design, routing on the driver side & not crossing over the cross member or oil pan.

Depends on what you are going to do. For me, running the line up the passenger side of the car and engine ended up with a cleaner install. I had an almost a straight shot from the rear frame rail where I have the LS regulator installed, along the SFC to the front frame rail and up into the engine compartment along the upper control arm mount and terminating after clearing the control arm. I had to put two 45 degree bends in the entire line.

[Scarebird]

Originally Posted by Formula8

Depends on what you are going to do. For me, running the line up the passenger side of the car and engine ended up with a cleaner install...

Or run it up the passenger rear of the engine and over.

This was run drivers side - had I thought about it a bit more I would have run it passenger side, avoiding the clutch linkage and throttle assembly. Only this to avoid is the oil filter and heater hoses.

[78w72]

that pic is kinda deceiving since the close area is hidden by the A-arm mount part of the frame. the heat wrap does its job & ive never had any type of vapor lock or hot fuel issues, just closer than id prefer.

[ZeGermanHam]

I cannot overstate how much I love working with copper-nickle tubing. Makes plumbing a car so much easier.

[Formulajones]

I don't have a problem plumbing regular steel lines. Easy enough to work with