Gates Barricade - practical test

After all that blabbing regarding Gates Barricade fuel hoses - the time has come to measure permeability of those by direct comparrison. Got something smelly in the boot since last fuel system remake, wasn’t expecting that bad results… So the system was depressurised 3 hours prior to testing. First image - Gates Barricade:

Left hand side: replacement hose with compression ferrule from reputable British store:


It would be easier to buy the new hose, strip this crap and redo with Barricade rather than doing double-job now… Who tha hell is selling piece of sht like this? “Aftermarket Replacement Part”. Feel yourself officially warned…


Oh boy this sucks….but thank you for the heads up. I’m in the process of deciding what hoses to put in the back of mine. :grimacing:

Is this an indication of the permeability of the hose wall itself, or an indication of how well the hose seals to the barb?

Ha, well-spotted Kirbert - checked along the length, same result.
Unfortunately my third hand wasn’t up enough to hold the camera/take photo when the other two were fiddling with hose sleeve and detector…

Another funny thing, however unrelated to the topic is a “new” simple rubber seal used after inspection of the fuel tank. These seals are made from rubbish, unsuitable rubber I guess… It will be compared to Viton (FKM) self made seal shortly:

…aaand yes Kirbert, I’ve checked round seals of the sender’s terminals first :wink:


I’ve had happy results with marine fuel hose, specifically “SAE J1527 Barrier Hose”. This standard has several rating levels. I went with A1-15 and A1-10 hose. It is “Ultra Low” permeability (the “10” and “15”) and high fire resistance (the “A1”). It is rated for a working pressure of 100 psi and burst pressure of 400 psi. The idea is to keep the boat bilge as vapor-free as possible. You can Google for more technical info. I can’t speak to the type/spec of the rubber itself but, visually, it has thicker walls than the typical automotive ‘fuel injection’ hose.

Anyhow, using this hose removed about 95% of the fuel odor in my trunk, versus the automotive grade hose that I had installed just a couple years prior


1 Like

Throughout the car hobby there is, and has been, mounting dissatisfaction with the quality of replacement parts. It’s really hard to know what you’re buying these days. Even in those cases where you buy from Jaguar there’s no assurance that the part will fit right or be of the same quality…as they’re obviously not being made by the same manufacturers used by Jaguar 20-30-40 years ago.



Did you apply any gasket dressing or sealant to this seal when installing, or did you just install it dry?

Conclusion: Don’t buy any hose assemblies unless you can read the specs on the hoses they were made from. Buy only “barrier” low permeability hose and assemble your own hoses.

I purchased the two hoses that connect to fuel tank from SNG, I got the SS braided ones. Two years later, they seem to be ok. I ‘think’ they make them themselves in UK, so better quality?

Any simple hose that just use clamps, definitely Gates Barricade.

Obviously, SS braiding does nothing for permeability. What it does do is prevent you from seeing the permeability rating on the hose itself. Apparently SNG used good hose, but going forward we all need to be more careful.

A number of years ago, when I did the vented Outboard rear brake conversion to my wife’s '89 XJS, I offered the following suggestion:

" Suggestion – before you get into the brake line and bracket exercise, check those rubber sections of the fuel supply and return lines at the top left and right of the cavity (does not apply to facelift). Now is your best chance to replace the aged rubber hoses which are known to seep, weep, and contribute to the gassy smell in the boot. Do it now while you have easy access, and you can think about how to resolve the brake line issues while you are doing this. Use good fuel injection hose that will last for as long as you might care about not having to do it again."

Never had a gas weep, seep, or smell after that.


When my car stank, these hoses were dripping fuel. But I think there’s a fundamental difference in stinkiness between hoses under the car and hoses inside the boot. Any hose that doesn’t outright leak would probably work under the car well enough that you’d never smell them. But in the enclosed boot, any hoses used had better be as close to zero permeability as you can get, because any odors are going to collect in there.

1 Like

I had done the boot hoses, fuel pump, filter, and fuel tank filler pipes a couple of years before I did the rear cage change-out. But I still had some fuel fumes until I did the sections over the rear wheel arches. FYI, this was a garage kept car, and I could smell those over the wheel arch leaks and seeps when the car was in the garage.

I was able to do the over axle fuel hoses on my 88 with everything still there. Not too bad.

40 seriously, seriously, seriously evil laughed characters.

Where did you get that rubber gasket for the sending unit? I need to pick up a couple of them (my sump tank didn’t even have one) and now you’ve got me scared of buying garbage.

I’ve purchased the rubber ones and they are OK, but only one time use. I installed one 2 years ago, removed/replaced the sending unit and could not get the 2 year old one to seal. The new one is fine right now, but if I ever pull sending unit again, will have to replace yet again.

I too would like to know where to get viton seals this size.

The Jaguar part no for the rubber gasket is C 22054, if that helps.

This was a word of a warning as you will find an absolute crap across the spare parts. Better buy two sheet of Viton (FKM) rubber 4mm thick and do your own ones. Proce per 100x100mm sheet is approx. £5. That’s enough to replace sender and sump tank seals.
Making your own isn’t difficult 50.5x66x4mm. You can always use 3d printed template to cut it out if your hands are flimsy:

1 Like

You might consider making the ID a bit larger than OEM, narrowing the cross section. That should make it seal more reliably.