Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Lawrence Mar 12 2004, 11:14 AM

Are the 73 and 74 2.0 engine vacuum lines the same layout and positions? (I've never owned a 73 2.0, but all the diagrams out there seem to be for 73 cars.)

-Rusty

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 12 2004, 12:46 PM

they should be the same unless a PO has changed something. there were subtle changes in the D-Jet configuration between '72 and '73, so '73 and '74 should be the same.

Andy

Posted by: anthony Mar 12 2004, 01:10 PM

The '74 only has one vacuum line coming off the distributor. When I redid my hoses I used the '73 hose diagram as a guide and I had no problems.

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 12 2004, 01:24 PM

oh, yes, the infamous second dizzy hose ...

the factory had it just lying under the air-filter, unconnected ...

Andy

Posted by: garyh Mar 12 2004, 01:26 PM

Actually, it's one line coming off the throttle body.

Both vacuum ports are still there on the dizzy, and most installations (IME) leave the hose on the dizzy and drape it over the top of the motor.

Sorry, can't give you better than a 99.9 on that one.

Posted by: garyh Mar 12 2004, 01:28 PM

We're talking 2.0l here. 1972 hose routing won't be real useful

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 12 2004, 01:31 PM

ah, this could be a classic

my 1.8 TB has 2 (two) connectors for both small vac-hoses from the dizzy.
however, there is NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever between hose #2 connected to the TB or just left unconnected.

what does that mean?
Andy

Posted by: garyh Mar 12 2004, 01:33 PM

It means that you're not testing exhaust emissions at idle.

That's the only thing the 2nd port was for; to sneak around some weird test.

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 12 2004, 01:34 PM

the basic D-Jet vac-hose setup is all the same for 1.7 or 2.0 ...

it think what i was trying to say is that there were some changes in the d-jet layout between '72 and '73 and from '73 onward it was the same, therefore the '73 and '74 2.0 should be the same.

makes sense?
Andy

Posted by: Chris H. Mar 12 2004, 01:46 PM

What, you found a '74 2.0L in the Fallujah area in need of new vacuum hoses?

Just kidding Rusty. Hope all is well over there.

Posted by: Demick Mar 12 2004, 02:44 PM

Don't forget, sometime in '74 they moved the charcoal canister from the fuel tank area to the engine compartment, so the hoses associated with that are slightly different.

Demick

Posted by: Dave_Darling Mar 12 2004, 03:43 PM

But does it have two connections on the throttle body? If not, then it does not have any way to get "ported vacuum", which is what runs the vacuum advance. So hooking up the vac advance would either do nothing, or advance the timing at the wrong time.

--DD

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 12 2004, 11:13 PM

like i said in my post (to quote myself) ...

"my 1.8 TB has 2 (two) connectors"

where TB stands for throttle body.

and yes, they're both hooked up right now.
it's just that it didn't seem to make any difference if #2 was hooked up or not ...

Andy

Posted by: Dave_Darling Mar 13 2004, 03:18 AM

Shoot, I mis-read it. I only saw "two connections to the dizzy"... Duuuuhhhh...

--DD (Why, yes--I am a blonde! Why do you ask??)

Posted by: Bleyseng Mar 13 2004, 09:47 AM

Here Rusty is the pic of the hose layout.

So what r u talking about Andy? On the 73 TB there is two ports and on later TB's one. If yours has two then one goes to the retard and one goes to the vacuum advance. Pulling the vacuum advance hose off does little, pulling the retard hose off does change the idle timing 5 degrees.

Geoff


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Lawrence Mar 13 2004, 10:22 AM

Wow, Geoff... great picture! Thanks!

-Rusty