EVAP EMISSION SYSTEM LAYOUT - HISTORY INFO NEEDED, layouts through the years. Options

[wonkipop]

This beyond cool Wonk. You are really shredding this topic looking under every stone. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

thanks jeff, i'll take the compliment but i'm counting on you to keep me on my toes.
i'm just sniffing around the 1.8s.

if we get some members to post up a 73 emissions warranty and a 75 with the hose diagrams we might be in business getting a clearer picture.

what will help seal it will be an emissions warranty known to have come with a 74 2.0L built in calendar year 74. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[Van B]

Happy Easter Wonki. I just remembered you live in the future lol!

[wonkipop]

Happy Easter Wonki. I just remembered you live in the future lol!

thanks.
same to you guys.

.........i seem to be stuck in a time warp back in the past at the moment. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[StarBear]

what will help seal it will be an emissions warranty known to have come with a 74 2.0L built in calendar year 74. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

I’m pretty sure there are a few in our community that match those descriptions!

[wonkipop]

what will help seal it will be an emissions warranty known to have come with a 74 2.0L built in calendar year 74. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

I’m pretty sure there are a few in our community that match those descriptions!

have verified "2.0L only" emission warranty weirdness you noticed steve is tied to the first batch of 2.0L cars in august-oct 73. this is a 09/73 car.
from a well dcounented BAT ad of a good condition orig 2.0L.
so VIII (8) manual is certain to be a publication date marking on the warranty.

[wonkipop]

an aside from scanning BAT ads for above - noticed something.

since our EC A and B research last year strongly suggests that 1.8L cars were exclusively produced by the factory between end of oct 73 and end of feb 74, we have stumbled on a fast test for 2.0 L fakes?

think i spotted one from an old BAT ad. looking at vin i noticed it was in the 12000 range. an 01/74 car. thought = there goes my findings on 1.8 production.. took a close look at photos. thought again. clever range of shots. only one image of engine bay. interior photos that skill-fully cropped the lhs combo dial (basic 2..0 temp guage) out of view.

last years EC engine research has a bonus for prospective 2.0 L buyers.
anything with an 11/73 to 02/74 vin number date should be looked at closely. not saying the research is 100% certain on this - but its 99%.

not a problem if a car is being honestly presented as modified.
the advert i stumbled on wasn't quite like that.

[StarBear]

That is COOL sleuthing!!!!

[Van B]

That is COOL sleuthing!!!!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

Now how to make that info easy to find!?

[wonkipop]

That is COOL sleuthing!!!!

if there were more photos of the engine bay in the ad i found it might have been possible to spot another sure fire give away. signs of the air cleaner mounting plate for a 1.8.
but no photos. just the one shot of the engine bay. lot of pink hoses. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[wonkipop]

@JeffBowlsby

since its pouring rain here and ruining my easter.
i trawled back through the file i had of stuff when we first went over this a year or two back.

i had this on chevrolet vapor emission system - dates from early 70s.

whats interesting is the interval for replacing the cannister.
only 5,000-7,000 miles.

i looked up the 914 emission warranty.
the service interval for the VW/porsche cannister in our cars is 50,000 miles - and replace can! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

10 times as long.

just a thought, and usual wonki one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
wonder if vw/porsche were fan blowing the can to really supercharge it with oxygen to make sure it purged completely -----to help it last longer? trying to make it more resistant to saturation. not saying this idea worked in the long run for them but it might have been their crazy rocket scientist brainwave?

GM one is relying on induction pull from the intake manifold to draw air flow through the can after the valve opened. no extra assistance or "ve haff vayz of making you turbo charged".

i'm half german, but not much of a rocket scientist.

[wonkipop]

@Van B @StarBear @JeffBowlsby

i had a lot of stuff re 75 1.8 engines on file from last years 74 EC research.
readily at hand.

can location next to the battery in the 75.

95% of what i had on file conforms to canister plumbing in the XI/74 emission warranty we have for the 74s with hose hook ups same as the post jan 74 built 1.8s.

some of them are flipped around compared to others, but hose hooks up from whichever end of can to fan or aircleaner are still the same. fan hook up to flat end with single port. aircleaner and fume line hook up to pointed end of can. think some of the cans got disturbed over the years servicing the cars as the mounting location is in the way of getting to things (ECU plug and EFI relays). not hard to imagine the cans might have been put back flipped the other way around after being taken off but without hoses ever being undone (its not exactly an easy clip to get off on those can hoses). some even seem to be flipped vertically to get them out of the way a little more for access to stuff behind them. maybe even to fit the second heater blower hose that some 75 cars had?












note second from bottom image does have contrary hose hook up.
but it does not have original clips so possibly that one has been put back together by an owner and not the original way.

need a member with a 75 to get on here and post up that emissions warranty and diagram for 75s to see if it matches these hose hook ups.

i don't have anything on file for 75/76 2.0 L cars - was not researching them.
out of my league.

but if these 75s are to trusted, and some of them were very original cars, then the 75s follow the second (revised) type of hose hook up like the 74s after approx jan 74.

[Jim C]

Here are the EVAP connections from my 1976 owners manual.

[wonkipop]

@Jim C

thanks for posting that up Jim. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)
that will be a 2.0L? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[Van B]

@Jim C

thanks for posting that up Jim. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)
that will be a 2.0L? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

76 was only the 2.0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[wonkipop]

@Jim C

thanks for posting that up Jim. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)
that will be a 2.0L? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

76 was only the 2.0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

yes, thought i read that somewhere.

interesting detail of Jim's 76 is that the diagram looks like its in the main manual (see spiral ring binding). not off in a separate emissions warranty booklet.

the other thing i thought i read about 76 models is they were only sold in USA?
(i think the 924 was already in production for europe in 76 MY?).

if they were USA only they could integrate everything into one manual?

earlier MY cars really didn't have emissions gear required outside USA. except maybe japan. and sweden?
think japan and sweden(?) had the evap system. australia adopted it at the same time. think in 1974.
probably part of the reason the USA cars have that separate little booklet.

i comment on this because something prevented direct import of a 914 into australia in 1974. (the distributor here never officially took them up, no capacity for selling a lhd car and not viable to convert them). the 1973 models were the cut off. the two cars that came in back in the day were 2.0 L 73s. i wonder if it was as simple as the way those cars were sourced if you were an aussie. they had to be ordered through the english distributor and then sent to crayfords who did the conversion. you could not take your own car to crayfords. it had to be done through a single english dealer. you were basically converting a brand new english spec or english market 914. those cars did not have the evap system. without the system in 74 you would not have been able to get the car in? a smart enough buyer could have installed it fairly simply back in the day if they were in the know? just a speculation on my part.

anyway not relevant to this.

as an aside, a member here mr gulf908 sent me an email the other day.
he has tracked down the name of the man who last owned the missing white crayfords car.
mr gulf might crack the mystery down here with a bit of luck.
apparently it was somewhere in melbourne when last on the records of the defunct 914 register. so i'm not senile........yet.

[wonkipop]

and......jim's car has the revised schematic that goes with 1.8s after jan 74 (at least).
matches those 1.8s in 75 as well.

i did do a bit of a trawl through BAT ads for a quick look at 74 914 2.0
its amazing how less original the 2.0s are these days compared to the 1.8s.
most for sale have carb conversions.
and even the LEs i could find were entirely missing their evap systems.
so i did not have much luck.
i found one pretty rusty looking late 74 2.0 that was once advertised for sale in chicago.
still intact. but engine bay images were not from enough angles to work out what was going on with the engine bay cannister.

having done that research last year, what i now realise is, the most intact cars for sale these days half a century later look to be 1975 1.8s. so many of them still in unmolested original condition. have somehow made it to here intact.
guess no one wanted them, big bumpers, full on emissions gear etc and they just got left alone?

i'll see what i can turn up for 75 2.0L for sale when i get a bit of time to scan ads.

[Van B]

Having been introduced to the Porsche brand by way of the 914, I remember some of the culture and perspectives from when I was a kid in the 80’s. The 2.0 has always been the one people wanted just because it was bigger.
You mentioned somewhere recently about the malaise era, and that is spot on. No car was fast unless it had a big cubic inch engine with a single digit MPG gas funnel of a carb on it. The snobbery against the 914 was limited to Porsche-fiels. The average car enthusiast thought these things were something special. But, the paradigms of tuning were still applied, you need the biggest engine you can get + carbs to maximize air and fuel flow. Even at it’s worst MPG it would still put an American car of similar pace to shame.

My dad’s first 914 was a early 2.0 with twin webbers and he was so proud of it. Right up until he wrecked it. He then got a 75 1.8L with FI and he would often disparage that fact, but I always liked the 1.8 better. I thought it was a much more enjoyable car to drive.

So, bringing it all home, the 2.0 has a history of being the model to try and make faster, while the 1.8 in its brief life was the “just go out and drive” model.

Honestly, when I started shopping for a 914, I was surprised to see any 2.0’s with original FI!

[wonkipop]

Having been introduced to the Porsche brand by way of the 914, I remember some of the culture and perspectives from when I was a kid in the 80’s. The 2.0 has always been the one people wanted just because it was bigger.
You mentioned somewhere recently about the malaise era, and that is spot on. No car was fast unless it had a big cubic inch engine with a single digit MPG gas funnel of a carb on it. The snobbery against the 914 was limited to Porsche-fiels. The average car enthusiast thought these things were something special. But, the paradigms of tuning were still applied, you need the biggest engine you can get + carbs to maximize air and fuel flow. Even at it’s worst MPG it would still put an American car of similar pace to shame.

My dad’s first 914 was a early 2.0 with twin webbers and he was so proud of it. Right up until he wrecked it. He then got a 75 1.8L with FI and he would often disparage that fact, but I always liked the 1.8 better. I thought it was a much more enjoyable car to drive.

So, bringing it all home, the 2.0 has a history of being the model to try and make faster, while the 1.8 in its brief life was the “just go out and drive” model.

Honestly, when I started shopping for a 914, I was surprised to see any 2.0’s with original FI!

that makes sense.
complete sense.

i know with my car it was the lady of the couples car.
and she looked after it.
sadly she had died and he had rolled it into the garage and not driven it for 5 years.
probably could not bear to part with it. grieving? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)
when i got hold of it, he was remarrying. so he could let go of it at that point and move on. that was back in 89.

her name was dolores. still written in the manual.

[wonkipop]

this was the one and only second half of 74MY 2.0 i could find with a cannister set up still in it. original..........but rusty. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

28 june 74 build date.








all i can tell from it is that the aircleaner intake line appears to go around and plug into the pointy end of can with vapor line. consistent with XI 73 emissions warranty diagram we have from the 1.8 post jan 74.

can't see how the fan blower hose coupling works in these photos.

[wonkipop]

using the research so far i finally made sense of the parts catalogue over afternoon coffee.

the summary version is its a complete crock when it comes to the 74s.
a blank space of epic proportions.

completely accurate up to end of 73.

completely accurate for 75 post 74.

this may have caused confusion for folks trying to make sense of the parts catalogue as some kind of reliable document indicating how it all went.

a couple of things i picked up.

1

re up to end of 73 as shown in parts list.
for the carbon canister 113 201 801 A (metal/beetle part) there is no listed part that supersedes.
the reason is simple. the part that would - 171 201 801 - won't fit. its a cylinder and would foul on the trunk lid. so there is no replacement part - period.
the part listing has all the hoses for the can and all correct lengths.

2.
the part that is listed for 74 engine bay is not the part that is in the cars.
firstly it is drawn as if it is a metal canister.
secondly its listed as 171 201 801.
this is the part that would supersede and is off golf mk1 era cars and vanagons?
its a plastic cylinder (not a flattened cannister).
it would fit on the rear engine bay bulkhead if you adapted the fixing clip.
so there is no original part # listed in the catalogue for 74.
however the part on my car which is original is 113 201 823 A (as far as i can tell/again beetle part).
there are no hoses or lengths listed for the 74 engine bay can on rear firewall.
we now know that at least all 1.8s were fitted with plastic can even the frunk cars.
all the early 2.0s i could find on sales ads from 73 cal. year had the plastic can.
the illustration/listing in the parts list is baloney.

3.
the plastic can is drawn correctly in parts list, but is listed only for 75.
its part # 171 201 801.
this is the superseding part # and is for a cylindrical can.
it could probably be made to fit in that location with an adapted mounting clip.
i assume its correct part # for the original is as per the 74.
all the hoses are listed for mounting near the battery.
the hose that goes into the single port at the flat end is 430mm long.
that won't make it to the air cleaner - too short. only get you to the fan bleed port.
the other hose is listed at 930mm long and is indicated as going at pointed end of can next to fume line. that will make it to the air cleaner.

-------

the parts list catalogue makes it pretty clear how the 70-73 works.
what it is. but you can't work out the hose hooks up to fan or air cleaner off it.

the list makes it 100% clear how the 75 works.
it is plumbed up as per post jan 74 cars and the diagrams in the 74 calendar year emissions warranties and the 76 2.0 diagram.

the parts book/list leaves the 74 cars no wiser.
like someone in the factory had a complete brain fade on the cars.
no documentation of shift to plastic cans in frunk.
no documentation of shift of plastic cans to engine bays - just an esoteric drawing that shows a metal can in the correct orientation and does list the right clip to do the job.


-------

no wonder folks got confused trying to use the parts catalogue to trace this changeover in the 74 MY.

looks like the emissions warranties were the key documents that should be referred to track the revisions to the system.

even the factory workshop manual is a waste of time on this one.

maybe if you could get an original parts catalgue dating from 1976 you might find the correct part # for the original plastic canister shown. but you still wouldn't get the 74 engine bay hose length listings.