X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:30:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.100.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.11) with ESMTP id 4671586 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:41:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.100.31; envelope-from=RWolf99@aol.com Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p0C1eexP012623 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:40:40 -0500 Received: from RWolf99@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.d55.79ad039e (37529) for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:40:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-dd01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-dd01.mx.aol.com [205.188.84.129]) by cia-mb01.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMB012-d3e84d2d069031c; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:40:35 -0500 Received: from webmail-d101 (webmail-d101.sim.aol.com [205.188.92.224]) by smtprly-dd01.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDD014-d3e84d2d069031c; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:40:32 -0500 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Hydraulic Hoses X-Original-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:40:32 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-AOL-IP: 97.115.226.220 X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 From: rwolf99@aol.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CD8010D5F3E5AA_1650_A2F89_webmail-d101.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33069-STANDARD Received: from 97.115.226.220 by webmail-d101.sysops.aol.com (205.188.92.224) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:40:32 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CD8010D5F1843D-1650-423B7@webmail-d101.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: RWolf99@aol.com ----------MB_8CD8010D5F3E5AA_1650_A2F89_webmail-d101.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" For George Shattuck -- Your new hoses look very good. I'm curious, though, as to why you would= use the hose material with a five-year life rather than the newer stuff= that is teflon lined and is supposed to have a much longer life. At leas= t, that's what it looked like in the pictures -- please correct me if I am= wrong. =20 This really is an honest question. No snideness is intended. The new hos= es look excellent. I just figured that teflon lined hoses would take the= same amount of time to make, cost about the same, but last much longer.= On the other hand, you sure got a heck of a lot more than five years out= of your last ones before they needed replacement... - Rob Wolf ----------MB_8CD8010D5F3E5AA_1650_A2F89_webmail-d101.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
For George Shattuck --
 
Your new hoses look very good.  I'm curious, though, as to why= you would use the hose material with a five-year life rather than the new= er stuff that is teflon lined and is supposed to have a much longer life.&= nbsp; At least, that's what it looked like in the pictures -- please corre= ct me if I am wrong. 
 
This really is an honest question.  No snideness is intended.&nb= sp; The new hoses look excellent.  I just figured that teflon lined= hoses would take the same amount of time to make, cost about the same, bu= t last much longer.  On the other hand, you sure got a heck of a lot= more than five years out of your last ones before they needed replacement= ...
 
- Rob Wolf
 
 
----------MB_8CD8010D5F3E5AA_1650_A2F89_webmail-d101.sysops.aol.com--