Members with 74 1.8, information needed for history of cars Options

[wonkipop]

@Big Len
First, your car looks incredible man, I'm jealous!

Second, where you were standing for that last photo, look just inside the engine bay there under the little section of grill. There should be emissions sticker everyone is talking about. It's tucked up in that corner pretty good. easier to spot really if you stand on the right side of the car and look across.

hey van - you yourself look like you got your hands on a very original car from the photos you posted. thats got to be getting real hard to do these days. it won't take much to clean it up. even the seat belt interlock was working - sort of. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/poke.gif)

[Van B]

It’s covered in overspray from a paint job that is one step above a rattle can paint job and my hoses are slowly becoming an auto parts store special. But yeah, when I’m driving it, I don’t care… so maybe I need to just stop working on it lol!

[StarBear]

@Big Len
First, your car looks incredible man, I'm jealous!

Second, where you were standing for that last photo, look just inside the engine bay there under the little section of grill. There should be emissions sticker everyone is talking about. It's tucked up in that corner pretty good. easier to spot really if you stand on the right side of the car and look across.

His is indeed incredible! Among the best of the best.

[Van B]

@StarBear
Got the paper, thanks bud!
How are you attaching them to the engine tin? I assume with some kind of temperature resistant over laminate?

[wonkipop]

just found another member here on the vin list through an older thread where he was asking about throttle body stuff. he has a 7/74 1.8 late in the production run.
from the photos posted in thread it was plumbed up EC-B style.

sent a PM.

-----

trawling some old archived sales ads on internet turned up a may 74 with EC-B.

but have not managed to come across an EC-B 49 states set up.
there is still just the sticker on mr. b's website.

[Van B]

Wait, EC-B is the 49 state setup. My car was never a California car. Bought new in New York and hase been up and down the east coast only it’s entire life.

[wonkipop]

Wait, EC-B is the 49 state setup. My car was never a California car. Bought new in New York and hase been up and down the east coast only it’s entire life.

yep, so is mine. its a maryland car bought a stone's throw from the white house.
but its California + EPA stickered. all the EC-Bs we have uncovered to date are California and EPA (ie 50 state cars).

if you wanted to do some more strategic carpet bombing of your emission sticker you might uncover the bit where it says EPA or alternatively it might say EPA + california.

always a chance you have a mythical 49 state EC-B?
the only evidence there is such a thing is a lone sticker on mr. b's website.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[wonkipop]

here is the sticker for the mythical car.

[Van B]

Well, ok, but not tonight. Do you know Mr. Researcher, when California regs changed? Is it possible that the sticker changed because California regs changed in 74 or 75 but the cars had not yet changed?

[wonkipop]

i am as dumb as all you guys when it comes to pollution regs.

but i got curious when mr. b told us there was a california and there was a 49 states car.
because that is not the history i knew commonly told re 1.8s.
the accepted version is all 1.8s were 50 state cars.

mr. b popped up his sticker.

his theory was that an EC-A was 49 state.
and an EC-B was california.

but thats not so. the stickers prove it.

the only thing i can find of any real substance is that california demanded significantly lower NOx emissions for 1974. and that would not show up in the standard smog tests of the time. they measured CO, CO2 and HC at the smog test. thats the smog test where you drove your car in and they stuck the probe in (this won't hurt a bit (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) )

but where NOx etc got properly analysed was in a much more serious test the manufacturers had to do. that test involved pulling a car off the production line at intervals and testing it against data already lodged with the EPA and CARB.
technically what EC-A and EC-B mean is not engine type but engine test - at least for the EPA etc.

so thats what i know.

i was once a geek. i am returning to my childhood. its probably a sign of senility.

but its kind of interesting since the 1.8 is the first serious smog engine.
and they did it without too much choke down stuff on it.

i've certainly made my self learn about double vac distributors and its given me a bit of a sense of what is different between an EC-A and an EC-B.

my theory is they are equal in emissions for the purposes of the 1974 tailpipe smog test and certification.
they both retard at idle to get NOx down.
so long as CO/CO2/HC etc measured fine at the smog test the california authorities would have said the car was in tune and passed.
even though they were not actually directly measuring NOx.

but they behave differently at cruise and when you go to stamp the power while you are already at cruise.

the ones with the vac advance should be advanced well beyond what the mechanical advance does on distributor. thats going to be great for fuel economy. but its not going to be so great for instant bright throttle response if you plant the foot while already at cruise?

someone with a better feel for how all the vacuum advance stuff worked might know better?

[wonkipop]

re 49 state cars.

theoretically given that only california had the higher demand on lower NOx levels at curb idle, a 49 state car would possibly not need retard at idle.

there are 1.8 throttle bodies out there without the retard port.

nihil44 has one. its not that his is capped, its actually not even opened up on the throttle body at all. whether its original or not i don't know, but its what is currently on his car when you look closely. no retard port on the forward facing side of throttle body.

-----

@StarBear is sceptical of my fuel economy versus bright throttle to explain the EC-A and EC-B scenarios (which have the full 50 state stickers). he is probably right.
but i can't think of anything else that goes with the set ups.
its not about emissions as far as i can tell.

but if i saw a 1.8 without retard for idle i would say straight away, yes that is about emissions and its not as clean as one with the retard port for idle.

[wonkipop]

[Van B]

Well, I guess I’ll get my lucky underseat quarter tomorrow when I get home and do some more scratching. We’ll see if my car adds another data point or not… honestly though, if my car has the word California on it, I’m gonna respray that sticker lol…

[wonkipop]

this is the only other thing i know about US smog tests.
you guys would know better than me? - i had to go back over old stuff in my file.

i did do one smog test for the car when i lived in chicago.
it had to only pass the low idle test.
i assume that meant the standard at the time the car was sold new was the standard for ever after - so this was the chicago smog test that applied in 1974?
i did find some stuff that said chicago was an early adopter of smog testing right behind LA.

(it looked like i passed the high idle test as well even though it was not necessary?
though i don't understand the CO/CO2% mix bit).

a bit more snooping seemed to show that initial california smog tests back when they started doing it were also only single speed tests at low idle.

all california was most interested in at the time = NOx at idle? (ie jammed in LA traffic at a standstill pumping out the main ingredient of smog?).

if you look at that emissions standards material i posted above, California was prepared to wear higher CO emissions as a pay off for lower NOx. (thats what happens if you lower combustion temps to reduce NOx, CO goes up so their higher CO than 49 states makes sense). they only have to wear higher CO for one year - in 75 they get cats which turn the CO into CO2 (at that time considered a relatively harmless gas in pollution terms).

thats all the material i've got on evil emissions regs Van.

[wonkipop]

van - USA emissions regs ran on MY for cars was the other bit of detail i found.
so calendar year does not play into it causing something to change half way though a model year say. its from start to finish of a model year.

[Van B]

I agree about the model year applicability, but that wouldn’t prevent a manufacturer choosing to meet compliance early… and since when has Porsche ever left a model alone? I’ve got a rare 996 with a cable throttle and no electronics out in the garage that reminds me every day how Porsche should’ve stopped fiddling at that moment lol!

[L-Jet914]

this is the only other thing i know about US smog tests.
you guys would know better than me? - i had to go back over old stuff in my file.

i did do one smog test for the car when i lived in chicago.
it had to only pass the low idle test.
i assume that meant the standard at the time the car was sold new was the standard for ever after - so this was the chicago smog test that applied in 1974?
i did find some stuff that said chicago was an early adopter of smog testing right behind LA.

(it looked like i passed the high idle test as well even though it was not necessary?
though i don't understand the CO/CO2% mix bit).

a bit more snooping seemed to show that initial california smog tests back when they started doing it were also only single speed tests at low idle.

all california was most interested in at the time = NOx at idle? (ie jammed in LA traffic at a standstill pumping out the main ingredient of smog?).

if you look at that emissions standards material i posted above, California was prepared to wear higher CO emissions as a pay off for lower NOx. (thats what happens if you lower combustion temps to reduce NOx, CO goes up so their higher CO than 49 states makes sense). they only have to wear higher CO for one year - in 75 they get cats which turn the CO into CO2 (at that time considered a relatively harmless gas in pollution terms).

thats all the material i've got on evil emissions regs Van.

Here is some Pass/Fail standards for a 1976 2.0L for California. I am also a smog tech where I work. So I will try and see if I can find any other information.

[L-Jet914]

CARB EO A-7-5 which has since been rescinded and A-7-5-A the updated Executive Order. I forgot I had this saved to my computer for classic data. Note 1974 California standards for EC-A engine. Shows Vacuum Retard with centrifugal advance which I guess means my advance shouldn't be connected to the rear facing port on the throttle body.

[wonkipop]

nice stuff @L-Jet914

there are all sorts of folks here. who would have thought we got a smog expert.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[wonkipop]

I agree about the model year applicability, but that wouldn’t prevent a manufacturer choosing to meet compliance early… and since when has Porsche ever left a model alone? I’ve got a rare 996 with a cable throttle and no electronics out in the garage that reminds me every day how Porsche should’ve stopped fiddling at that moment lol!

yeah.

they are fiddling the L jets.
couldn't agree more.

and they are fiddling with them for something other than smog?
cause after all they are porsche.

the funny bit is they are offering the fiddle as a simultaneous alternative.