1974 914 1.8, the mystery of the EC-A and EC-B Options

[Van B]

Was there any car in the US that got the AN or AT series engine? When rebuild time comes for my motor, my one change will be the higher compression pistons.

[wonkipop]

Was there any car in the US that got the AN or AT series engine? When rebuild time comes for my motor, my one change will be the higher compression pistons.

no. AN not sold in USA.

not a huge number of AN made.
seems 8,798 engines in 74 shared between euro 412s and 914s.
and 101 engines in 75 solely in euro 914s.

don't know about AT - will have to look it up. bus engine?

[Van B]

Well, really the point is to find high compression 1.8 pistons. If that few were made, I’m sure they’re NLA anyway.
I’ll just cross that bridge when I get there.

[wonkipop]

Well, really the point is to find high compression 1.8 pistons. If that few were made, I’m sure they’re NLA anyway.
I’ll just cross that bridge when I get there.

they even made magnesium engine cases for early 411s.
these are engine numbers beginning with VO.
not sure what they are like and its only early engines around 1968 as far as i can tell.
they switched to aluminium after that.
these were only european sold cars that had magnesium cases.
much lighter.
but maybe not as strong.

i'm sure you can get the domed european pistons.
maybe not NOS ones but maybe you can.
all the euro motors for 411 and 412s were high compression.
not just the 1800 twin carb version.
there was a high compression L jet 1800 in europe too.
maybe that is the one to find out about Van?
although it could have been set up to work with an auto box.
i can't find out enough info on those 412s.
very obscure and a lot of it is buried and lost to time.
the fan base for 412s is a very small group of enthusiasts and to some extent its a forgotten car. (though i do like the look of the 412 variants where they kind of got the shape and proportions right).
they sold a lot more 1800 twin carb 412s in europe than 914s with the same motor.

also there would be aftermarket domed pistions?

i'm wondering if the heads were different in europe on the 1800s.
but at present i can't work that out.

they ran on 98 RON high octane.

the 1800 twin carb had a fair bit of power. 85 hp. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)
not that far short of the last version of the smog-ed 2.0 in USA at 88 hp. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/hissyfit.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving-girl.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

[JeffBowlsby]

AN engine in a factory 1974 914 GT (European-market 914 CanAm car). Only car I have documentation of with this engine, and my only photo of it.

VIN 4742916340 on the 914 Can Am Car Registry.

[wonkipop]

^

wow.

original motor?

[wonkipop]

@StarBear

@JeffBowlsby

additional info of interest.

i might be very close to pinpointing date (production week/even day) the charcoal can switches over. has this been done and if so is info in agreement?

two cars.

1)
member Ferg has vin # 4742909104. Ferg states it had the can in the frunk on the evidence. his post is attached below.




2)
found a car advertised for sale in 2012. excellent original condition 1.8.
vin # 4742909096.
shows evidence of having originally had a front trunk cannister that has been removed.
clip and mounting point intact on tank.







https://www.early911sregistry.org/forums/sh...book-EUR-44-000

the cars are 8 vin numbers apart.
neither are listed with a karmann#.
however the register on this site lists vin # 09098 as k # 4729590 = tuesday 20 Nov. 73.




this puts the date for the changeover at week 47 of 1973.
mon nov 19 - friday nov 23.
both these cars above are likely commenced on the same day (tues 20 Nov).

-----
StarBears car is a week 48 car and has the engine bay can.
R Rietman's car is a week 46 car and has the frunk can.

----------

EDIT - JUNE 29 2022

additional data point found.
VIN 4742908765.
K plate production # unknown.
poor condition abandoned 74 1.8 with original engine bay charcoal can intact.




using 914world Vin data base - closest VIN with K # recorded =
VIN 4742908715 K # 4649581 = 81st car commenced thursday 15th Nov 1973.

4742908765 = 50 cars after. given average daily production was around 100 cars, likely this was commenced the day after on friday 16th Nov 1973.
this is earlier than the Tuesday 20 Nov cars above this supports conclusion there is some mixing of chassis numbers in chronological order at the introduction of the charcoal cannister update.

if karmann numbers were available for cars that have been pinpointed a more precise date could be determined.

update information indicates the change is occurring either side of the weekend 17/18 Nov 1973. with at least one car likely on the friday 16 Nov with engine bay can and two cars on Tuesday Nov 20 with a frunk can.

[StarBear]

Yep, I'm convinced. Probably (?) not a single date as you said, all cars weren't produced/finished in precise sequence. Wonder, though, why the change not at the MY beginning - parts supply availability? using up existing parts inventory (my bet)? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

[JeffBowlsby]

Nice detective work. I know of nothing in conflict with that.

[wonkipop]

Yep, I'm convinced. Probably (?) not a single date as you said, all cars weren't produced/finished in precise sequence. Wonder, though, why the change not at the MY beginning - parts supply availability? using up existing parts inventory (my bet)? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

yep. they would be using up inventory of pressed panels.
the engine bay rear firewall has a little pressed indentation with the drilled hole to mount the cannister and the front firewall area no longer has the holes for the hoses to a front mounted can. they would have been using up the panels they had before moving on.

an ideal date for factory purposes would have been a monday.
i assume they would have been counting stock and fine turning scheduling date to remaining stocks. given what i found above i'd call it as that fell on a tuesday.

i believe the change in position of the can is a deliberate move to alter the whole system and to ensure that previous practices on hose hook ups are relearnt afresh.
as you know i am sticking to my view that the can hook up is reversed with the charcoal can in the engine bay. all the evidence says so including our cars which were/are in original condition. also they changed the 911s in 74. a similar deliberate move was made and the cans were moved to the rear of 911s at that time as well as altering the hose connection hook up. as to why not the start of the model year, the answer is connected to the late commencement of production of 1.8s. its got something to do with coming under scrutiny of the EPA for cheat devices. you can bet your life that the EPA put VW under the microscope in mid 73 and examined all their emission devices. they would have went through everything with a fine tooth and comb.

all the evidence (all of it reputable factory literature) indicates VW plumbed up their evap system the way it is done on engine bay can 914s from nov 73. VW had been doing it that way on their cars since 1970. only the 914 (and the 911) were plumbed up the opposite way up to MY 74. you can bet your life the EPA would have picked up that discrepancy because the 914 was essentially a VW model with a VW engine. i think what happened is that VW and porsche at that point brought their emission systems into consistency across the range. (to note porsche were using VW evap system components on the 911 lock stock and barrel). it would have been a bit confusing argueing it worked either way? the 914 had the same set up as the 911 (a porsche design) until that moment in 1973 when it changed over.

be interesting to know the exact date when porsche changed it over on 911s.
my bet is on around about the same time, part way into MY 74.
and as a result of EPA negotiations.


a further clue to this would be original glove box manuals that came with the cars new.
i would expect all the early 74 MY 2.0L cars to have had a emissions warranty booklet that reflected the other plumbing set up of earlier cars.

i would expect all 1.8s after the change to have the emission warranty like the one i have which correctly shows the change in the plumbing.

i would expect all the 2.0s that come after feb 74 to also have that emission warranty booklet that would be like the one i have with my 1.8 (engine bay can).

the check would have to be done with emission warranties that were known to have come with the car new.

part of the problem with restored cars and reprint material or booklets purchased separately is that fine grain of detail gets lost.

[wonkipop]

@StarBear
production looks to go like this for 74MY cars.

commenced week 33 (aug 13 1973).

from week 33 to week 43 - exclusively 2.0L cars (at least for USA market).
(aug 73 to very late oct 73). it is possible that euro market 1,.8s were made in this period.

from end of week 43 - to at minimum week 04/05 74 (end of jan.start of feb 74) production is purely 1.8s.

after that production of 1.8s and 2.0s is more mixed in batches that are smaller in duration until end of model year.

refer members vin register here and other information affirming 1.8 production does not start until beginning of nov 73.

ideally the timing of the cannister would have been to match it to changing over to 1.8 production? but stocks of earlier panel pressings did not exactly co-incide?

nevertheless there will be two distinct batches of 74MY 2.0 L cars.
those made in 73 will have the can in the frunk.
those in 74 will have the can in the engine bay.
mr. b will know that stuff for sure.

and the 1.8s nearly all have the can in the engine bay and were intended to be so.
they are in between those two batches of 2.0 L cars.
the first 3-4 weeks of 1.8s have it in the frunk to use up the stocks of body panel pressings.
they would have been very keen to get those 1.8s rolling down the line as soon as the engines became available as these were the mass market car they shifted in the greatest numbers.


an interesting further check on this would be the 74 1.8 euro spec held in the porsche museum.need a vin # and a production date. see if it predates 1.8 USA spec cars and if so does it have a can in the frunk/or engine bay conforming to above dates switchover.
(though i do not think euro cars ever had evap system in those years?).
i know that japan cars had it and i know that because the australian design regulations required evap from 74 on (same as japan) that cut off private importation of 914s into australia. the last to come in via the uk were 73 models.

[L-Jet914]

What's interesting is when I replaced my ignition rotor, it had the standard rotor inside the distributor instead of the rpm limiting one. So I put the regular rotor in there as I thought it was what it came with.

[wonkipop]

What's interesting is when I replaced my ignition rotor, it had the standard rotor inside the distributor instead of the rpm limiting one. So I put the regular rotor in there as I thought it was what it came with.

hi L-JET914.

the reason for the rev limiting rotor in most of the cars was to protect from over-revving.
don't think there is anything else to them. its not to do with emissions.

they switched to a fuel cut off instead in 75 cal to protect the exhaust catalyser in 75 cal cars. it was not thought to be good to be dumping large amounts of unburnt fuel into the cat when the rotor cut ignition. bad for the cat. side benefit was that the fuel cut off did help with emissions. did not dump hydrocarbons. did not need the speed limited rotor.

neither really protect the engine on a missed shift or downshift.
it will still overspin.

i wouldn't worry about it.
i am not even sure you can buy a replacement rev limiting rotor anymore.
i haven't looked into it. i've still got one in mine. they are very large.

-----

i saw your other inquiry in the other thread. i think Dave P was trying to work out when they stopped stamping karmann numbers in the rear trunk of 914s and went to rivetted plates in front trunk. i knew from our survey that your car was in the vicinity he was looking at to pinpoint the change.

[Van B]

@wonkipop
Here’s another one for the records… this thing is a prize!
https://www.marshallgoldmanoh.com/used-vehi...sche-914-c-911/

[wonkipop]

@wonkipop
Here’s another one for the records… this thing is a prize!
https://www.marshallgoldmanoh.com/used-vehi...sche-914-c-911/

yep we got that one on our list already.
its the sister to your car mate.
built on a thursday and yours was the following monday.
same color?

its a dead split for mine spec wise.
except mine is phoenix red with a brown interior - the jaffa.
and i got drop out stripes instead of the positive side graphics.
but apart from that. same car.
i reckon they just churned them out to one spec for the USA pretty much.
like henry ford.
think that is why i like 914s. model t of sportscars.
and just as innovative as HF was with the T and every bit as sensible.

[Van B]

I wonder what it sold for? And do you know if the owner is a forum member?
For sure the underside of that car shows the benefit of the zeibart coating applied by the first owner of my car. I would say we’re it not for a low budget mechanic and painter, my car would rival the condition of that one.

Only a hunch, but I suspect you’re right that the 1.8 was meant to hit a price point in the US market. While we were entering the malaise era of cars in the US around this time, they were still making far more power than even the 2.0.

[wonkipop]

I would say we’re it not for a low budget mechanic and painter, my car would rival the condition of that one.

you got yourself a good car then if its up to that one.
an awful lot of 1.8s bit the dust along the way.
back in the late 80s when i was buying mine not a lot of folks were interested in them.
generally seen as troublesome injection/lowly model. lowest on lists of most desirable.
i figured it out doing my shopping in chicago. they all seemed to have anti roll bars and they all seemed to be in some kind of version of appearance group spec.

yellow one looked very very clean.
perhaps a little surface corrosion on the underside.
not sure when it was sold. possibly pre recent hikes in value.
someone probably got thenselves a real bargain.
fortunately at this point in time it will continue to be preserved?
rather than hopped up to a 2 or converted into a six.

mine is dealer undercoated.
that can be a good thing and a bad thing.
in my case it has been a good thing.
it only did 2 winters i was told by original owner.
the undercoating did its job and nothing got in behind it.


nice thing about yellow car - confirms there was a colored hose on the decel valve.
red brown color.
hoses i pulled off mine 2 years ago and renewed had the same brown red hose.

a red hose and a green vac retard line from the dist to t/b.
rest were grey/black color.
i have retained the green hose on the dist.





hoses i pulled off my car.

[wonkipop]

also that yellow car is one more confirmation that porsche did indeed change the plumbing to the charcoal can with the move to the engine bay.

got the same S curve hose from the fan to the single nozzle end of charcoal can as mine (and starbear). thare have been some inaccurate hose diagrams floating around for 1.8s for years that have had that wrong. not that it matters a huge amount i would think as the whole charcoal can is a bit of a joke when you look closely at it and how it works.
though mine has been working beautifully for at least a year now. it spent the first 12 months or so after i reactivated the car from its long sleep stinking up after a week or so.
but now. no stink. its been getting enough drives over a long enough distance to purge.
i guess the charcoal is still in good shape in mine?

[Racer]

What a rather well documented thread.

Question.. what engine code was given the Euro 1.8 Carbed engine? EC-A or EC-B? or were those motor pulled out of what ever production line there was and simply had carbs slapped on the top vs FI ? What kind of emmissions, if any, did Europe require for the carbed 1.8's?

[wonkipop]

What a rather well documented thread.

Question.. what engine code was given the Euro 1.8 Carbed engine? EC-A or EC-B? or were those motor pulled out of what ever production line there was and simply had carbs slapped on the top vs FI ? What kind of emmissions, if any, did Europe require for the carbed 1.8's?

different internals. higher compression pistons to run on higher octane leaded fuel.
internationally only the USA introduced unleaded fuel during the early 70s.
early unleaded fuel had lower octane levels than leaded.
lower compression ratios for the USA.

europe still had higher octane leaded fuel = compression ratio could be 8.6:1.
higher horsepower than USA EC engines - 85hp v 76 hp.

different crankcase vent system to USA 1.8s - appears to use a filler cap set up similar to earlier D Jet EFI. no charcoal can vapor emission as far as i can work out.
may have had different camshaft but don't know for sure.
in terms of emissions all they would have had was a crankcase vapor system that fed fumes into the aircleaner.

engine serial numbers begin with AN0 - engine code is AN.
unsure if it had a hyphen and letter to signify it was a sub type of AN.

paint stamp number on engine tin is different to USA EC engines.

carbies were used on euro 1.8s to keep cost of car down and to simplify servicing?
if it had been produced with EFI suspect it might have made even more horsepower than 85hp it had with carbs. the carbs were not anything special. usual VW solex carbs.