📄 Extracted Text (293 words)
To: Richard Kahn
Cc: ein eevacahon gmai .com
From:
Sent Thur 2/14/2013 5:56:38 PM
Subject Re: Re hydraulic hose
the answer to your question is no
we have Parker fittings therefore require Parker hose,
We have tried in the past to buy other hydraulic hose locally but the marriage between another
manufactures brand and Parker did not last
Even though you see many web sight advertising marrying different fittings to different hose,
though experience we know it does not work
Jack confirmed with me that this is the hose that we have always used in the past, for this size,
rating and manufacture
I have explained to jack your concern regarding pricing, he is going to contact his supplier to see
if there is any more room for a discount, will advise
I did check with a couple of companies in florida this morning, they provided verbal quotes but
did not follow spec requirements.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Richard Kahn wrote:
just spent 2 hours searching hydraulic hoses as i thought jacks pricing was aggressive
found 131 foot coil at 15.98 per foot vs jack 29.15 per foot = 1725 savings
http://www.hydraulicsdirect.com/SAE R13 Hydraulic hose p/r13.htm
also found at 18.78 per foot vs 29.15 per foot = 150 ft = 1555 savings
http:/lhoses.cutandcouple.com/viewitems/hydraulic-hose/sae-100r13-hydraulic-hose
jack is proving to be very expensive
can you please verify that i have sourced proper hydraulic hoses (I" 5000psi sac 100R16)
Richard Kahn
HBRK Associates Inc.
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: February
EFTA_R1_00332758
EFTA01902501
To: Rich Kahn
Cc:
Subject: Re hydraulic hose
Rich
Attached for approval, this is for replacement of worn hydraulic lines on heavy machinery.
any concerns let me know
USVI
Phone:
New Mexico
Phone:
•
USVI
Phone
New Mexic
Phone:
EFTA_R1_00332759
EFTA01902502
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
4854f39673d95bf5c15554d72f25ea17e27ebec7c21c16a9fd472fbfd87c297d
Bates Number
EFTA01902501
Dataset
DataSet-10
Document Type
document
Pages
2
Comments 0