carbon canister mount Options

[wonkipop]

its fascinating the way they kept moving that can closer and closer to the fan bleed port?
what was happening there. first the frunk.

i dug up some stuff recently that makes me think the EPA was taking a real close look at VW in mid 73. they got charged with the first emission cheat. it got hushed up at the time and settled real quick behind the scenes. but one particular VW model for 74 got delayed. can't find out which one. but i've got a fair idea. there is a fair chance the EPA started taking a real close look at VW model range for 74. all aspects thereof?
there is always a reason they suddenly change something they have been doing for 3-4 years and then start fidgeting with it.

My guess is it also may have been related to the production cost cutting that started occurring with the 74 cars as well. Moving the charcoal canister back to the engine bay reduced the materials used (and complexity) to run the 2 larger vacuum lines from the engine bay to the frunk along the driver side long. Coincidently (or possibly not) the changeover seems to align pretty close to when they transitioned from the glass faced gauges to the cheaper plastic face gauges.

yes, its more economical for sure.

but there is one more thing to it.
they alter the plumbing.
there is a whole thread over in originality section about this.
i had to take on mr. bowlsby.

i'm pretty sure i might/could be right. but i'm not being opinionated. because you could always be wrong.
i just dug up some stuff.

they messed with the can for a number of reasons?
including basically realising that the VW set up with the can closer to the engine was cheaper and it worked. whereas earlier 914s follow the 911 layout. which was expensive and didn't work?

for some reason both 911s and 914s had the can moved to the rear of the car in 73 for the 74 model year. but VW altered nothing on the rest of their range.

and the EPA had one particular 74 VW model under the microscope.

the can and what VW were "caught" out about were two separate things?, but i think once you get caught the "cops" start going through you. out come the drug dogs to sniff your car etc. you know the scenario. "get out of the car - stand over there". its a right, lets have a good look at this thing?

i know this much it involved thermo switches for cold starts. VW declared these switches in 73 for 74 models. the EPA ruled them a cheat. VW admitted to their use on 73 models. i think it was for type 3s with injection. EPA ruled unacceptable for 74.
.....but they weren't making type 3s for 74. they only had 412s and 914s running L jet.
so i think L jet got pinged early on in approval process. its a guess. or they might have picked up on 74MY 2.0s with Djet as per type 3s. except we know they were knocking out 2.0 L from the start of MY74. they didn't seem to have a hiccup/

the clue is that L jet gets delayed. its a late start. nov 73.
maybe technical difficulties with L jet made it late for other reasons?

i dunno know. but i think if someone had the time and the access to VW museum archives they could probably find out. all you can really find is a trace of it in other things like the EPA or CARB.

[JamesM]

ah no.
its way earlier than that.

we have 74 1.8s that are in nov 73, two weeks apart.
one had the frunk can.
one has the engine bay can.
and the engine bay can is 100% verifiable.
belongs to StarBear, he has had it since brand spanking new.
and the frunk can has almost similar status.

i have late jan car.
i'm the second owner since 89 and i bought a 35K one owner car back then.
unmolested.
i have never fu$ked with anything. engine bay can.

and we have a few more nov and dec cars.

dr 914 is close to right. but not 100%. there is at least one exception.
dr 914 was also close to right about another thing to do with distributor hook ups.
but again not 100%.
its more complicated. (thanks to a curved ball from mr. bowlsby we are still trying to get 100% to the bottom of).

its got something to do with the start up of making the 1.8 cars.
which i am pretty sure happens in nov 73.

i have always been interested in the 1.8s because i have one.
and the whole thing about L jet.
but only lately been a little more curious about it.

i'm not sure anyone has properly gotten to the bottom of what was happening in the second half of 1973 yet.

its got nothing to do with LEs.
or 2.0 litre cars.
its to do with the everyman base cars that no one really has ever been that much interested in. which i just can't really understand.
L jet is the birth of modern fuel injection. but ............. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Interesting.

What I am saying though is that it looks like the cutover on the canister placement may have been different on the 2.0 cars than the 1.8 cars but that is mainly based on Maltese Falcon's claim of his 2/74 production car with the front canister. No VIN provided though and even then, may have been an anomaly. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Mine was one of the earlier 74 cars (4742901909) and for sure a 73 production date.

In my 20+ years of playing with 914s I have come across far fewer 1.8 cars (especially 74 1.8s) than anything else, and even then when i have they have been completely trashed/parts cars. Always love seeing clean ones.

[wonkipop]

well

thats even more interesting. about the maltese falcon car.

whatever was going on - its a bit of a mess.

which is always the point of history.

and i'm not talking about this from the point of view of a concourse queen or you know this date this happens and thats a fake - stuff. i have run into those people. that never explains why something was the way it was. its just something about artefacts and value - almost art world BS.

i am just interested from the point of view of industrial archeology. technical. engineering.

and i love L jets. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

and mine is completely loved. i knew what i was getting hold of back in 89 and i listened to nobody else who told me it was a lesser thing. i was a geek. and i still have it and i have left it alone. mind you its gonna start failing soon. has to. its damn near half a century old.

[JamesM]

well

thats even more interesting. about the maltese falcon car.

whatever was going on - its a bit of a mess.

which is always the point of history.

and i'm not talking about this from the point of view of a concourse queen or you know this date this happens and thats a fake - stuff. i have run into those people. that never explains why something was the way it was. its just something about artefacts and value - almost art world BS.

i am just interested from the point of view of industrial archeology. technical. engineering.

and i love L jets. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

and mine is completely loved. i knew what i was getting hold of back in 89 and i listened to nobody else who told me it was a lesser thing. i was a geek. and i still have it and i have left it alone. mind you its gonna start failing soon. has to. its damn near half a century old.

I am in the same boat about just finding it all interesting from a technical/engineering/historical standpoint. I am way more familiar with the changes to d-jet cars and more specifically the 2.0s over the production life but some of the things you are saying about the 1.8/l-jet cars has me thinking about the multitude of changes they made to the 2.0s configuration between 73-75. Just about every component in the system incrementally changed over that 3 year period. Of particular curiosity to me now are the reasons behind the crankcase venting changes which completely altered the plumbing of the 2.0s between 74-75. L-jet cars couldnt have used the same crank case venting configuration as the 74 d-jet cars as it would have messed with the air metering so that change for the 1.8s makes sense, but then a year later in 75 they made the same change to the 2.0s which required they produce a totally different plenum and airbox among other things. Not seeing why they would have done that unless they were forced to for some reason. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Anyways, thats probably going way off topic for this thread though.

[wonkipop]

well

thats even more interesting. about the maltese falcon car.

whatever was going on - its a bit of a mess.

which is always the point of history.

and i'm not talking about this from the point of view of a concourse queen or you know this date this happens and thats a fake - stuff. i have run into those people. that never explains why something was the way it was. its just something about artefacts and value - almost art world BS.

i am just interested from the point of view of industrial archeology. technical. engineering.

and i love L jets. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

and mine is completely loved. i knew what i was getting hold of back in 89 and i listened to nobody else who told me it was a lesser thing. i was a geek. and i still have it and i have left it alone. mind you its gonna start failing soon. has to. its damn near half a century old.

I am in the same boat about just finding it all interesting from a technical/engineering/historical standpoint. I am way more familiar with the changes to d-jet cars and more specifically the 2.0s over the production life but some of the things you are saying about the 1.8/l-jet cars has me thinking about the multitude of changes they made to the 2.0s configuration between 73-75. Just about every component in the system incrementally changed over that 3 year period. Of particular curiosity to me now are the reasons behind the crankcase venting changes which completely altered the plumbing of the 2.0s between 74-75. L-jet cars couldnt have used the same crank case venting configuration as the 74 d-jet cars as it would have messed with the air metering so that change for the 1.8s makes sense, but then a year later in 75 they made the same change to the 2.0s which required they produce a totally different plenum and airbox among other things. Not seeing why they would have done that unless they were forced to for some reason. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Anyways, thats probably going way off topic for this thread though.

yes and no.
partwerk's problem is solved.
he needs to get a hook on his petrol tank.
he knows what he wants, a can in the frunk.

and if you don't freewheel in these threads, well you will never start to get to the bottom of it.

and there is some stuff going down from 74 on.
for sure.
and its all technical, its not aesthetic.
and its still a bit of a mystery.

germans are great, they try to impose ordnung on chaos.
and if the the EPA and CARB were not the forces of chaos i don't know what else was.

we can't even go into it here, but even the emission stickers on 1.8 914s are BS.
there was something going down.
its sort of esoteric but it isn't either.
its how they coped with it.
which does not necessarily conform to rational explanation.
ie evolution. "progress towards perfection". blah blah.
standard explanations of porsche worship.
i think it was kind of chaotic? for a couple of years there.

when you look back at some accounts of those particular years you wonder how porsche survived?

[wonkipop]

i'm digesting this.

its very interesting information about changes to crankcase venting for 2.0s.

i have to really think about this because it took me a bit to process what they were up to with distributor vacuum hook ups on 1.8s from 74 to 75.

.......how they coped with the pollution regs.

i should try and know more about d-jet.
i confess though i know narthing.

all i have is my own stoopid L jet which i have only just begun to understand properly sitting down here in bum fu$l australia just north of antarctica, 50 years after it all happened.

i do know this much, the tactic with L jet was to run it progressively more retarded.
first at idle.
and then at cruise.
which you could do if you were measuring air intake.

and i'm not sure how you could do that with d-jet.
but i note that d-jet cars in 75 or 76 had to have have an air pump.
L jet did not. they had EGR but no need for an air pump.

[AvalonFal]

My '74 2.0L (built 10/73) has the plastic can in the front trunk.

[friethmiller]

If this helps... my parts car was a '74 2.0L with a front canister and a vin of 4742901475. My restored '74 1.8L had a engine bay canister with a vin of 4742920229.

[wonkipop]

the switch from frunk to engine bay can is between these cars.

CAN IN FRUNK.

VIN 4742908482
11/73
K # 4629626

VIN 4742907716
11/73
K # 4629552

build commencement date 12th Nov 1973


CAN IN ENGINE BAY.

VIN 4742909760
11/73
K# 4839578

build commencement date 28th Nov 1973.


Above cars all 1,8 L cars.


in link to thread on previous page by JamesM, dr. 914 was after the date for 2.0L models getting the can in engine bay. i'm guessing dr. 914 knows about the above dates for 1.8L? or its already in latest ed of b johnsons book (restorers guide)? i don't have the latest book.

[wonkipop]

ah no.
its way earlier than that.

we have 74 1.8s that are in nov 73, two weeks apart.
one had the frunk can.
one has the engine bay can.
and the engine bay can is 100% verifiable.
belongs to StarBear, he has had it since brand spanking new.
and the frunk can has almost similar status.

i have late jan car.
i'm the second owner since 89 and i bought a 35K one owner car back then.
unmolested.
i have never fu$ked with anything. engine bay can.

and we have a few more nov and dec cars.

dr 914 is close to right. but not 100%. there is at least one exception.
dr 914 was also close to right about another thing to do with distributor hook ups.
but again not 100%.
its more complicated. (thanks to a curved ball from mr. bowlsby we are still trying to get 100% to the bottom of).

its got something to do with the start up of making the 1.8 cars.
which i am pretty sure happens in nov 73.

i have always been interested in the 1.8s because i have one.
and the whole thing about L jet.
but only lately been a little more curious about it.

i'm not sure anyone has properly gotten to the bottom of what was happening in the second half of 1973 yet.

its got nothing to do with LEs.
or 2.0 litre cars.
its to do with the everyman base cars that no one really has ever been that much interested in. which i just can't really understand.
L jet is the birth of modern fuel injection. but ............. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Interesting.

What I am saying though is that it looks like the cutover on the canister placement may have been different on the 2.0 cars than the 1.8 cars but that is mainly based on Maltese Falcon's claim of his 2/74 production car with the front canister. No VIN provided though and even then, may have been an anomaly. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Mine was one of the earlier 74 cars (4742901909) and for sure a 73 production date.

In my 20+ years of playing with 914s I have come across far fewer 1.8 cars (especially 74 1.8s) than anything else, and even then when i have they have been completely trashed/parts cars. Always love seeing clean ones.

yes that is interesting about the maltese falcon car of feb 74.

i can't be 100% sure about this, but it looks like from nov 73 to end of jan 74 they might have just been making 1.8s. i've had a look at the members vin list for 74MY.
it looks like only 2.0L cars get produced from start of production in aug.sept 73 to start of nov 73. then produced again from feb 74 on? i would need to scour through the jan VIN numbers more closely. i think vw catch up on base model (1.8) production from nov 73 to jan 74.

i'll have a look for the maltese falcon's car in the Vin listing on the site here.
k# and Vin number might have some clues.

the switch to when the can changes in 2.0L cars maybe has something to do with that stretch of 3 months where it looks like they just make 1,8s. might have been the info dr. 914 was looking for to pin down.

i'm sure the blokes that have been around the cars for years must have worked out the dates for production line mix of 74 MY cars?

[wonkipop]

@JamesM

found another clue in that linked thread.



member with VIN 4742909104 (converted to a 3.2L)
likely a 1.8 used for conversion? frunk can.

the VIN is 656 cars before StarBear's car.
SB's car is 28 nov 73 build inception date. engine bay can.

they were building just over 100 cars per day in nov based on two 1.8s i have info on with a same day build. vin -09104 therefor about 5-6 production days before SB.

the can goes into the engine bay sometime between 20 Nov and 28 Nov 73.


-----

from Vin data compiled here, the first 1.8s pop up around Vin 07184 & 07251.
07251 has K # 4439504 = wed 30th Oct 73. the earlier car is 67 cars before - makes it probably tuesday 29 oct 73.

might have started making 1.8s on a monday. who knows. but its around about 28 oct 73 that 1.8 production begins?

there was maybe around about 4 weeks of production of 1.8s with the can in the frunk.

[partwerks]

looks like its a hook more or less.

Does the canister just lay down flat on the tank?

[wonkipop]

photos of 1.8s with plastic frunk can.

@RRietman - randy has one - he could say for sure.

[RRietman]

its fascinating the way they kept moving that can closer and closer to the fan bleed port?
what was happening there. first the frunk.

i dug up some stuff recently that makes me think the EPA was taking a real close look at VW in mid 73. they got charged with the first emission cheat. it got hushed up at the time and settled real quick behind the scenes. but one particular VW model for 74 got delayed. can't find out which one. but i've got a fair idea. there is a fair chance the EPA started taking a real close look at VW model range for 74. all aspects thereof?
there is always a reason they suddenly change something they have been doing for 3-4 years and then start fidgeting with it.

My guess is it also may have been related to the production cost cutting that started occurring with the 74 cars as well. Moving the charcoal canister back to the engine bay reduced the materials used (and complexity) to run the 2 larger vacuum lines from the engine bay to the frunk along the driver side long. Coincidently (or possibly not) the changeover seems to align pretty close to when they transitioned from the glass faced gauges to the cheaper plastic face gauges.

More interesting stuff, the early strap was a 914 specific part number while the 74 strap was a repurposed VW part number. While you would think that would make it easier to source, in the VW application it was welded to the chassis (found this out the hard way in my attempts to source one). Guessing it was a quick fix for 74 using what they could easily get their hands on while they developed the 75 part.

here are some pics for partwerks. my 74 1.8 build date 11/73
thanks
Randy

[sixnotfour]

looks like its a hook more or less.

Does the canister just lay down flat on the tank?

Yes ,, I used some heavy duty velcro to hold mine in place.. not a concour car .. and I didnt want to weld on my new tank..

[bdstone914]

On the carbon canister mount on the tank, I'm wondering how that band that goes around the canister mounts to that bracket?

The canister I have is the plastic one, and the tank is out of a 74, FWIW.

@partwerks

74 is a split year on location on the charcoal canisters. If you have the vapor lines running along the drivers side long you can mount the canister on the tank. If not you need to mount it in the engine bay. If you have the late 74 it will have a 4 mm clear line that runs through the tunnel. It takes the gas vapor from the expansion tank and runs it into the canister in tbe engine bay.

[partwerks]

its fascinating the way they kept moving that can closer and closer to the fan bleed port?
what was happening there. first the frunk.

i dug up some stuff recently that makes me think the EPA was taking a real close look at VW in mid 73. they got charged with the first emission cheat. it got hushed up at the time and settled real quick behind the scenes. but one particular VW model for 74 got delayed. can't find out which one. but i've got a fair idea. there is a fair chance the EPA started taking a real close look at VW model range for 74. all aspects thereof?
there is always a reason they suddenly change something they have been doing for 3-4 years and then start fidgeting with it.

My guess is it also may have been related to the production cost cutting that started occurring with the 74 cars as well. Moving the charcoal canister back to the engine bay reduced the materials used (and complexity) to run the 2 larger vacuum lines from the engine bay to the frunk along the driver side long. Coincidently (or possibly not) the changeover seems to align pretty close to when they transitioned from the glass faced gauges to the cheaper plastic face gauges.

More interesting stuff, the early strap was a 914 specific part number while the 74 strap was a repurposed VW part number. While you would think that would make it easier to source, in the VW application it was welded to the chassis (found this out the hard way in my attempts to source one). Guessing it was a quick fix for 74 using what they could easily get their hands on while they developed the 75 part.

here are some pics for partwerks. my 74 1.8 build date 11/73
thanks
Randy

How much of a hook is it? Picture is too fuzzy to make out.
I'll probably just make a hook, but nice to get a idea ahead of time.