LayItLow.com Lowrider Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Has Anyone tried using 2 checks per dump or one check off of the tee then 1 check per dump to save time from having to change checks when one fails. (There would be another to hold up the cylinder)

I would think that flow could be slowed down a little if the checks are the same size as the pressure ports or smaller but for a basic set up, would it be a good idea?
And I think that if the closest check to the dump failed the second one wouldn't because it would not have to deal with much pressure trying to get back through the pressure port as long as its a slow leak back to the pressure port......

Any comments? Anyone tried this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,407 Posts
Haven't tried this, but it sounds like a good idea.

I wonder how much the flow would be slowed by a second check, though...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
YOU WOULDNT KNOW WHICH ONE FAILED, BUT AT LEAST THE CYLINDER WOULD STAY IN PLACE, :biggrin: WHEN THE SECOND ONE GOES OUT, THEN U KNOW ;)
 

·
2GUNZ
Joined
·
28,221 Posts
Another Ideal, spend the money and buy Parkers then you won't have to worry as much. My hydros are complicated enough, just keep it simple, my homie has all these bends and shit with hardlines, and then has a sweet setup with ADEX dumps and shit, and because of his angles from his hardlines, my Buick with a regular set up gets higher. Keep it simple, when you nuke shit, that is when you have problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Originally posted by dirtywhiteboy66@Dec 13 2003, 11:11 PM
Another Ideal, spend the money and buy Parkers then you won't have to worry as much.  My hydros are complicated enough, just keep it simple, my homie has all these bends and shit with hardlines, and then has a sweet setup with ADEX dumps and shit, and because of his angles from his hardlines, my Buick with a regular set up gets higher.  Keep it simple, when you nuke shit, that is when you have problems.
Funny you said this cause a few months ago I spent about 4 bills on one of my pump's dump set up. Hardlined and got all Parker stuff including checks but I wouldn't mind spending money on 2 more Parker checks if it can save me from having to worry about a check going out. Supposedly Parkers won't fail especially on my basic set up but you never know...I like oil but not all that much. :biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,908 Posts
It would basically be pointless. If one of them went then you wouldn't know until the second one did and then you would have two to change. Basically you would be wasting money and add more work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Originally posted by S10lifted@Dec 14 2003, 08:04 AM
It would basically be pointless.  If one of them went then you wouldn't know until the second one did and then you would have two to change.  Basically you would be wasting money and add more work.
The whole point is to not have to change any checks until the secondary one went out which I'm hoping wouldn't ever go out because maybe it wo'nt ever be stressed by the same pressure as the one that is closest to the dump???

I'd probably put the checks inline so it wouldn't be too much trouble to take them out but the goal would be to prolong the time before having to take them out if ever.

This is good in theory as long as the check closest to the pump sees less stress than the one closest to the dump thus affording it longer life.

Anyone tried this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,665 Posts
the "traditional" useage of check valves also prevents fluid transfer from one cylinder into the other..

the way youre talking, if one of the "main" check failed, you would then have fluid transfer...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,612 Posts
The idea sounds good and makes some sense at first. But, Yes you would restrict flow. You would have more fittings on your pumps to look at. More moving parts to maintain. More possibilties of failures/clogs from debris in the oil. The list can go on. Personaly I want to know as soon as something fails so I t can be fixed. I would also run better quality parts from the start. Less likely to fail and if it does fail. A higher quality check can be repaired rather than tossed out and replaced. Remember K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) :biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,648 Posts
The fluid loss would be so minimal you would never know the difference.


But at the same time, you can buy a Parker, or an Adex check valve and do it right and keep it simple.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top