Why did the 1.8 engines have L-jet? Options

[ClayPerrine]

All the L-jet I am familiar with is batch in the same breakdowns.

L-jet touched OBD2 and maybe was sequential, but I'd expect the sequential shift with Motronic...

The L-Jet fires all the injectors together at the same time, but half the pulse width of a batch or sequential injection system.

VW and Porsche dropped electronic injection in favor of CIS until the 3.2 Carrera, so development of the L-Jet system was never present on any Porsche.

Motronic did not go to sequential until the 964. The 911 3.2 Carrera was just a more refined L-Jet system with ignition control.

L-Jet is a definite improvement over D-Jet. Adding a hot wire MAF instead of the Vane air meter was a substantial improvement. While VW and Porsche were building CIS cars, Volvo implemented the LH-Jetronic in the 80s on the turbo bricks.

VW, Audi, and Porsche went down the CIS rabbit hole and it was a dead end. So they lost a lot of ground on L-Jet/Motronic.

[wonkipop]

Djet is bank fire. 2 banks. For the 914, it’s 2 banks x 2 cyl. The 6cyl BMW E9 is 2banks x 3. MB V8 is 2 banks x 4. I can only guess what the jag is.

i knew there was something weird about it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
old f piech would have had trouble with his odd cylinder engines he liked so much. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer.gif)

got no clue as to the jags.
never even seen a jag V12 in the flesh from that time.

[wonkipop]

So if this was the case:

i suspect that no matter what D jet hit the wall emissions wise by 75.
the 76s never met 76 emissions standards and certification.
were sold as 76 model year but under the certification regime were classed as 75s if manufacture ceased by end of calendar year 1975 - which they did.

the way USEPA and CARB regs worked was that if a car was manufactured before Jan01 of the calendar year and no further manufacture occured after that date then it only had to meet the standards of the calendar year previous (year of manufacture). all USA legislation worked that way apparently. came into effect on Jan 01 (new years day).
but this was out of step with the other feature of USA car production, the concept of the model year. which starts after summer of year before and ends before summer holidays of year the car is classed as.

you guys invented the system!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)


Why are 76 914s subject to smog testing in CA? I mean, they should only have to meet the 1975 standards which is no smogging.

yes

this was gone over in another thread.
apparently some time back in the past (like 20 years ago?) some owners of 76s did manage to get their 76s exempted. on that very basis. i


you could probably do it now too, but its a fight with a dumb bureaucracy.
so good luck.
you would be fighting the technicality that though the 76 was certified on the basis that it complied with 75 emissions standards (legal under definition of when emissions standards apply per calendar year) they are also technically 76 MY cars. a classic grey area that bureaucrats can see one way or the other way.

i could try and dig up the topic and thread with a search when i get a bit of time.

its got the documents in it that define what standards were applied and when.

the 1970&1/2 ford mustang is another example of it.
rather than ford trying to make that mustang comply with 1970 epa standards that came in on the 1st of jan 1970 they stopped production on the last day of 1969. still sold it as a 1970 MY car and it was an update of the 1968 model year car.

-------

i'm guessing the way california looks at it is - the 76 is a 76 MY car and thats where they define the limit for smog test compliance on historic cars. and when it does it smog testing it must still comply with the standards it was built with. those standards are on the CARB certification on their records and files. which are 1975 standards. i have all the CARB docs for all the 914 MY years.

[brant]

By now
All the forms have changed likely
Ha…. I work in a state bureaucracy

[technicalninja]

Here's the REAL kicker...

High end aftermarket ECU like the Megasquirt Pro that Clay is employing on his Godzilla car can not only do sequential but timed sequential...

You can time it from start of pulse, end of pulse, or, most interesting to me, center of pulse.

I'll tie center of pulse to LCA intake (intake valve fully open) and end up with the pulse firing INTO an open intake valve during its highest airflow point.

If you use a large enough injector, you can have as near to "direct injection" as possible without having to re-design the injector through the cylinder head.

Sequential injection that only fires when the intake valve is open is my goal here.

This is possible today!

The Megasquirt is not stupid expensive either. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ninja.gif)

[wonkipop]

By now
All the forms have changed likely
Ha…. I work in a state bureaucracy

nope.
still on file with CARB (California Air Resources Board).
it is what you and they refer to in establishing what equipment cars are fitted with originally and C0 etc levels.
you and i can go get them if you ask @L-Jet914 nicely - (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer.gif)

its how they check a 76 complies.

ps
ii have a feeling that what might have hung up 76s for years might be lack of a cat and egr pipe exhaust system once the parts fell into unobtanium territory. but just say you had a 76 in intact condition with good internals, be no reason it would not sail through a smog check. everything on a 75 is exactly the same as a 76 and all same C0 levels etc.
so thats the parts pool. anything 75 cal spec.

different matter for a 912E. because they start producing it after jan01 76 its the world of 76 cal emissions standards. hence the L -Jet fitted and smog pump etc. but it does not have a CAT. instead it has the tin pot thermal reactor style exhausts that are supposed to do same thing as a CAT. again probably close to unobtanium.

[JeffBowlsby]

All things considered how is direct injection beneficial to our aircooled cars given how it cakes up the valves? I doubt our injectors could tolerate that piston chamber exposure either.

Not a fan of DI.

[wonkipop]

All things considered how is direct injection beneficial to our aircooled cars given how it cakes up the valves? I doubt our injectors could tolerate that exposure either.

Not a fan of DI.

neither am i. sh#t idea. i inherited a 2008 Audi A3 with a 1.8 turbo direct injection engine. fortunately one month before the dog engines with the dud oil rings.
i do double frequency oil changes on it to combat timing chain "stretch" syndrome.
its low mileage so i have kept it. 64.000 km total.

the direct injection was such a dud idea that VW put in two injectors in the third gen of these engines. one direct and one port, the port one being to clean the back of the intake valves. thats 8 injectors for a 4 cylinder engine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/screwy.gif)

we have given mine the subaru cocktail cleanser that you force down its throat and make it run for 30 minutes. known to work. and a whole lot cheaper than stripping off the intakes and walnut blasting as audi will do for you while shaking every last penny out of your bank account.

[technicalninja]

All things considered how is direct injection beneficial to our aircooled cars given how it cakes up the valves? I doubt our injectors could tolerate that piston chamber exposure either.

Not a fan of DI.

It's NOT economically possible to add true DI to a VW or Porsche engine that didn't come with it originally. (or ANY other manufacture)

The very best DI is now incorporating a secondary port injection system.
Mercedes is doing it with their 400hp 4 cylinder and Ford is doing it with the Coyote.
Mercedes and Ford are currently opposite as to when they fire the port system.

The "caking" up the valves problem is more excessive blow by reaching the intake over a direct problem with the injection. Having fuel washing over the intakes HELPS clean the valves better than anything else hence the addition of port. I think many will add some type of port injection to help with this problem.

A good catch-can can work wonders as well. I believe the most recent Eco-boost Fords come with a catch can like set up.

Now, IMO DI is a SHITLOAD better for one simple reason...

The fuel component of the air charge takes up approximately 9% of the total intake volume. If you remove the fuel from the intake track you get approximately 9% MORE air and an equivalent increase in power.
ALL ICE engines are oxygen starved. The number of oxygen molecules is the deciding factor regarding power, not fuel as many might think.
This is why when they change to DI it's ALWAYS a power bump.

They can do exotic crap with DI as well. Some system pulse the injection to make multiple squirts per combustion event. They have better control of the combustion event and run "lean-burn" strategies better.

I see the additional control that DI gives will allow 1 full point of compression to be added to the static compression ratio.

I'm a fan of DI.
It's forward progress for ICE.

I WOULD NOT try to install DI on something that didn't have it originally...

I'm going to cheat a port set up so I get SOME of the benefits of DI.

The biggest thing I'm going to change is the injectors spraying fuel into a closed intake. Just dumping fuel on the valve is NOT the way to make power.

[technicalninja]

Now, I wouldn't try to add it to an engine that didn't have it but...

I will, most likely, add an engine to a 914 that ALREADY has DI.

The engine in question makes 335 hp/285lbs.ft (stock with a restrictive intake and exhaust) and has a torque curve that makes over 250lbs ft over a 4K range.

It's a 3.6l 6 cylinder that weighs about what a 964 motor weighs.

It is 1/20 the cost however...

They are "dime a dozen" engines that have 11.5-1 compression ratios and can drink 85 octane fuel.

You can fuel it with mule piss in Mexico and it won't hurt it.

It gets good mileage in 4k lb cars. I'd bet it can equal the original mileage that a 4 cylinder 914 had in a 914 application.

The ONLY reason it can do this shit is the DI that it comes with...

Another engine I would LOVE to stick in the 914 is the late Cayman/Boxster 4 cylinders which are all DI.
A PDK would be a nice addition as well.

[wonkipop]

So if this was the case:

i suspect that no matter what D jet hit the wall emissions wise by 75.
the 76s never met 76 emissions standards and certification.
were sold as 76 model year but under the certification regime were classed as 75s if manufacture ceased by end of calendar year 1975 - which they did.


Why are 76 914s subject to smog testing in CA? I mean, they should only have to meet the 1975 standards which is no smogging.

ok mrholland and brant

here is the link to the topic where the CARB specification/certification is posted for the 75 and 76 2.0.

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?sho...64241&st=20

and here is the info on how model year cars were defined in terms of which calendar year standards were applied. don't get a headache reading. classic legal gobble de gook you have to read 5 times and think did i just understand that or....... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)




and this is the very strict limitation put on 76 914 CARB certification.
the certificates for all the other MY 914s do not have this limitation.



sh$t i stumbled across researching entirely unrelated matter of 1.8 L jets.
because 74 L jets have weird vague emissions stickers that we recently discovered the USEPA and CARB must have pulled them up on so they had to correct the emissions stickers for the last month of 74 49 state 1.8s.

its whacky stuff. classic regulation bureaucracy stuff. they are a slow chasing you but they never give up (has been my experience in life (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ) took em all year to catch up with VW on the 74 1.8 914 but they caught em right at the end and made them fix it.

since stumbling on this i have worked out at least three cars that sneaked through on this techicality.
the 1970 ford falcon.
the 1974 VW 412 fastback with manual transmission (49 states)
the 1976 914 2.0 (both california and 49 states).
although they did not really sneak through. these were end of the line models.
no more afterwards. so the USEPA ok'd it.
its actually why the falcon model name disappears in the USA.
its to satisfy the USEPA that its genuine termination and not a sneak around.

the point about a 76 914 is that it isn't the CARB waving around some abstract emissions limits in the air, they are pulling out the certification documents. and those are identical to the 75 model because though it is a 76 it qualified for 75 level emissions. it is not build in a time period that includes Jan 01 of its model year. hilarious.

it still obviously gets caught out for smogging exclusion cut off date because CARB are probably setting that trigger as a model year rather than a calendar year.

its one of those things that you guys invented for yourselfs.
the weird concept of a model year which is aug of the year before to july of year named.

we didn't have this down here. model years conformed to calendar years.
and i know why. our summer break was in january. natural time to shut down factory to gear up for new model changes.

[wonkipop]

here is another twist on it that happens when you cross the equator and live in north antarctica.

my 74 MY 1.8 is built jan 1974. rego authorities here don't give a sh$t sideways about vin stickers or anything else. they look at the manufacturers plate in the front trunk.
they are only interested in the date of manufacture. fortunately VW or porsche have not confused their tiny minds with the information.
yeah no worries mate, we are registering this as a 1974 porsche 914.

but if it had been say built in november 1973. that would have been fun if i got an average moron behind the desk. their tiny mind would go no further than the manufacture plate.

nah mate is a 1973 porsche 914, we don't care what you say and thats whats going on the rego details. get stuffed and get out of here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

fortunately the australian design rules pertaining to the 1970s are not that strict.
and if they were i would have been laughing because it would have been 73 regs not 74 regs. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) would have kept a straight face on and said "no worries - thanks for the plates - seeya".

[technicalninja]

One final note on DI reliability...

A good friend of mine wanted a Cadillac CT6 for his wife. He's a turbo guy like me and wanted the V6 twin turbo. 85K new

His wife is NOT a car enthusiast, probably wouldn't buy premium, and would NEVER use the 400+hp that it had.

I pointed him at the mid model with the NA 3.6l V6.
I even found the car they bought for them.
The turbos needed premium.
After much research I found GM calls for 85 octane for the NA.
Pearl white/titanium, 9 months old with 17K (40K).
Mona loves it and drives the crap out of it.

I am the ONLY guy who has ever worked on it. It's needed nothing engine related besides oil changes and now has 120K on it.

120K with NOTHING!

That engine has impressed me and I'm not fond of much American stuff.

The big fat CT6 will HAUL ASS pretty good as well.

Pretty reliable in my book!

[L-Jet914]

So if this was the case:

i suspect that no matter what D jet hit the wall emissions wise by 75.
the 76s never met 76 emissions standards and certification.
were sold as 76 model year but under the certification regime were classed as 75s if manufacture ceased by end of calendar year 1975 - which they did.


Why are 76 914s subject to smog testing in CA? I mean, they should only have to meet the 1975 standards which is no smogging.

ok mrholland and brant

here is the link to the topic where the CARB specification/certification is posted for the 75 and 76 2.0.

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?sho...64241&st=20

and here is the info on how model year cars were defined in terms of which calendar year standards were applied. don't get a headache reading. classic legal gobble de gook you have to read 5 times and think did i just understand that or....... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)




and this is the very strict limitation put on 76 914 CARB certification.
the certificates for all the other MY 914s do not have this limitation.



sh$t i stumbled across researching entirely unrelated matter of 1.8 L jets.
because 74 L jets have weird vague emissions stickers that we recently discovered the USEPA and CARB must have pulled them up on so they had to correct the emissions stickers for the last month of 74 49 state 1.8s.

its whacky stuff. classic regulation bureaucracy stuff. they are a slow chasing you but they never give up (has been my experience in life (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ) took em all year to catch up with VW on the 74 1.8 914 but they caught em right at the end and made them fix it.

since stumbling on this i have worked out at least three cars that sneaked through on this techicality.
the 1970 ford falcon.
the 1974 VW 412 fastback with manual transmission (49 states)
the 1976 914 2.0 (both california and 49 states).
although they did not really sneak through. these were end of the line models.
no more afterwards. so the USEPA ok'd it.
its actually why the falcon model name disappears in the USA.
its to satisfy the USEPA that its genuine termination and not a sneak around.

the point about a 76 914 is that it isn't the CARB waving around some abstract emissions limits in the air, they are pulling out the certification documents. and those are identical to the 75 model because though it is a 76 it qualified for 75 level emissions. it is not build in a time period that includes Jan 01 of its model year. hilarious.

it still obviously gets caught out for smogging exclusion cut off date because CARB are probably setting that trigger as a model year rather than a calendar year.

its one of those things that you guys invented for yourselfs.
the weird concept of a model year which is aug of the year before to july of year named.

we didn't have this down here. model years conformed to calendar years.
and i know why. our summer break was in january. natural time to shut down factory to gear up for new model changes.

Here in California as of current all 1976 and newer vehicles are subject to the smog check program. 1976-1999 get ASM (Acceleration Simulation Mode dyno) or TSI (Two Speed Idle) with the exhaust probe in the tail pipe. All 00 and newer MY vehicles get OIS testing (OBD II test, visual component inspection, visual smoke tests, no more tail pipe). The only reason why 1976 and newer vehicles are in the program is because of Arnold Schwarzenegger instead of allowing a rolling 25 year exemption like most states, put the smog exemption on vehicles produced before 1976 i.e. 1975 and older vehicles to answer @mrholland2 question. I know the last time I took an update course for my smog repair technician license that the CARB and BAR were in talks of exempting 1976-1995 vehicles at one point. I will ask about any new news when I go to my update course this weekend. I know if I stand on any street corner in my area I can count the number of pre-1996 vehicles going through the intersection on 1 or 2 hands. It's costing the state a significant amount of money to try and keep these 1976 to 1995 vehicle running clean, let alone trying to find emissions components for these vehicles that have since been discontinued many moons ago. Also to answer your inquiry about catalytic converters for Pre-OBD vehicles @wonkipop , the rules regarding aftermarket catalytic converters for these vehicle have changed to the point now as long as it meets the specific vehicle criteria PC-1 (passenger car with 1 cat), PC-2 (passenger car with 2 cats), T-1 (truck with 1 cat), T-2 (truck with 2 cats) the vehicle will pass smog without having to verify the CARB EO for the vehicle instead of verifying vehicle make, model, year, engine size. As long as the CARB EO number applies to the PC-1 etc it passes for that component. Now as for the other components that are now unobtainium that's a different story.

[wonkipop]

So if this was the case:

i suspect that no matter what D jet hit the wall emissions wise by 75.
the 76s never met 76 emissions standards and certification.
were sold as 76 model year but under the certification regime were classed as 75s if manufacture ceased by end of calendar year 1975 - which they did.


Why are 76 914s subject to smog testing in CA? I mean, they should only have to meet the 1975 standards which is no smogging.

ok mrholland and brant

here is the link to the topic where the CARB specification/certification is posted for the 75 and 76 2.0.

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?sho...64241&st=20

and here is the info on how model year cars were defined in terms of which calendar year standards were applied. don't get a headache reading. classic legal gobble de gook you have to read 5 times and think did i just understand that or....... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)




and this is the very strict limitation put on 76 914 CARB certification.
the certificates for all the other MY 914s do not have this limitation.



sh$t i stumbled across researching entirely unrelated matter of 1.8 L jets.
because 74 L jets have weird vague emissions stickers that we recently discovered the USEPA and CARB must have pulled them up on so they had to correct the emissions stickers for the last month of 74 49 state 1.8s.

its whacky stuff. classic regulation bureaucracy stuff. they are a slow chasing you but they never give up (has been my experience in life (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ) took em all year to catch up with VW on the 74 1.8 914 but they caught em right at the end and made them fix it.

since stumbling on this i have worked out at least three cars that sneaked through on this techicality.
the 1970 ford falcon.
the 1974 VW 412 fastback with manual transmission (49 states)
the 1976 914 2.0 (both california and 49 states).
although they did not really sneak through. these were end of the line models.
no more afterwards. so the USEPA ok'd it.
its actually why the falcon model name disappears in the USA.
its to satisfy the USEPA that its genuine termination and not a sneak around.

the point about a 76 914 is that it isn't the CARB waving around some abstract emissions limits in the air, they are pulling out the certification documents. and those are identical to the 75 model because though it is a 76 it qualified for 75 level emissions. it is not build in a time period that includes Jan 01 of its model year. hilarious.

it still obviously gets caught out for smogging exclusion cut off date because CARB are probably setting that trigger as a model year rather than a calendar year.

its one of those things that you guys invented for yourselfs.
the weird concept of a model year which is aug of the year before to july of year named.

we didn't have this down here. model years conformed to calendar years.
and i know why. our summer break was in january. natural time to shut down factory to gear up for new model changes.

Here in California as of current all 1976 and newer vehicles are subject to the smog check program. 1976-1999 get ASM (Acceleration Simulation Mode dyno) or TSI (Two Speed Idle) with the exhaust probe in the tail pipe. All 00 and newer MY vehicles get OIS testing (OBD II test, visual component inspection, visual smoke tests, no more tail pipe). The only reason why 1976 and newer vehicles are in the program is because of Arnold Schwarzenegger instead of allowing a rolling 25 year exemption like most states, put the smog exemption on vehicles produced before 1976 i.e. 1975 and older vehicles to answer @mrholland2 question. I know the last time I took an update course for my smog repair technician license that the CARB and BAR were in talks of exempting 1976-1995 vehicles at one point. I will ask about any new news when I go to my update course this weekend. I know if I stand on any street corner in my area I can count the number of pre-1996 vehicles going through the intersection on 1 or 2 hands. It's costing the state a significant amount of money to try and keep these 1976 to 1995 vehicle running clean, let alone trying to find emissions components for these vehicles that have since been discontinued many moons ago. Also to answer your inquiry about catalytic converters for Pre-OBD vehicles @wonkipop , the rules regarding aftermarket catalytic converters for these vehicle have changed to the point now as long as it meets the specific vehicle criteria PC-1 (passenger car with 1 cat), PC-2 (passenger car with 2 cats), T-1 (truck with 1 cat), T-2 (truck with 2 cats) the vehicle will pass smog without having to verify the CARB EO for the vehicle instead of verifying vehicle make, model, year, engine size. As long as the CARB EO number applies to the PC-1 etc it passes for that component. Now as for the other components that are now unobtainium that's a different story.

tight info. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

interesting use of words there @L-Jet914 .
"[u]cars produced before 1976"[/u].
is that the wording the excemption legislation uses?
if it is the 76 914 would fulfil the definition.

its not produced in 1976. its production period is not inclusive of jan 01 1976.
apart from stating what the emissions equipment is on it the CARB certification also makes it clear that it was certified on the basis it was not manufactured after dec 31 1975. the production period it is built in includes only Jan 01 1975 which defines its model year as calendar year 1975 under the statutes (federal law).

i believe if anyone could be bothered they could push this with the powers that be at your registration board whatever it is called in california. you would have to be patient. it is entirely dependant on the precise wording of the excemption definition.

[L-Jet914]

So if this was the case:

i suspect that no matter what D jet hit the wall emissions wise by 75.
the 76s never met 76 emissions standards and certification.
were sold as 76 model year but under the certification regime were classed as 75s if manufacture ceased by end of calendar year 1975 - which they did.


Why are 76 914s subject to smog testing in CA? I mean, they should only have to meet the 1975 standards which is no smogging.

ok mrholland and brant

here is the link to the topic where the CARB specification/certification is posted for the 75 and 76 2.0.

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?sho...64241&st=20

and here is the info on how model year cars were defined in terms of which calendar year standards were applied. don't get a headache reading. classic legal gobble de gook you have to read 5 times and think did i just understand that or....... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)




and this is the very strict limitation put on 76 914 CARB certification.
the certificates for all the other MY 914s do not have this limitation.



sh$t i stumbled across researching entirely unrelated matter of 1.8 L jets.
because 74 L jets have weird vague emissions stickers that we recently discovered the USEPA and CARB must have pulled them up on so they had to correct the emissions stickers for the last month of 74 49 state 1.8s.

its whacky stuff. classic regulation bureaucracy stuff. they are a slow chasing you but they never give up (has been my experience in life (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ) took em all year to catch up with VW on the 74 1.8 914 but they caught em right at the end and made them fix it.

since stumbling on this i have worked out at least three cars that sneaked through on this techicality.
the 1970 ford falcon.
the 1974 VW 412 fastback with manual transmission (49 states)
the 1976 914 2.0 (both california and 49 states).
although they did not really sneak through. these were end of the line models.
no more afterwards. so the USEPA ok'd it.
its actually why the falcon model name disappears in the USA.
its to satisfy the USEPA that its genuine termination and not a sneak around.

the point about a 76 914 is that it isn't the CARB waving around some abstract emissions limits in the air, they are pulling out the certification documents. and those are identical to the 75 model because though it is a 76 it qualified for 75 level emissions. it is not build in a time period that includes Jan 01 of its model year. hilarious.

it still obviously gets caught out for smogging exclusion cut off date because CARB are probably setting that trigger as a model year rather than a calendar year.

its one of those things that you guys invented for yourselfs.
the weird concept of a model year which is aug of the year before to july of year named.

we didn't have this down here. model years conformed to calendar years.
and i know why. our summer break was in january. natural time to shut down factory to gear up for new model changes.

Here in California as of current all 1976 and newer vehicles are subject to the smog check program. 1976-1999 get ASM (Acceleration Simulation Mode dyno) or TSI (Two Speed Idle) with the exhaust probe in the tail pipe. All 00 and newer MY vehicles get OIS testing (OBD II test, visual component inspection, visual smoke tests, no more tail pipe). The only reason why 1976 and newer vehicles are in the program is because of Arnold Schwarzenegger instead of allowing a rolling 25 year exemption like most states, put the smog exemption on vehicles produced before 1976 i.e. 1975 and older vehicles to answer @mrholland2 question. I know the last time I took an update course for my smog repair technician license that the CARB and BAR were in talks of exempting 1976-1995 vehicles at one point. I will ask about any new news when I go to my update course this weekend. I know if I stand on any street corner in my area I can count the number of pre-1996 vehicles going through the intersection on 1 or 2 hands. It's costing the state a significant amount of money to try and keep these 1976 to 1995 vehicle running clean, let alone trying to find emissions components for these vehicles that have since been discontinued many moons ago. Also to answer your inquiry about catalytic converters for Pre-OBD vehicles @wonkipop , the rules regarding aftermarket catalytic converters for these vehicle have changed to the point now as long as it meets the specific vehicle criteria PC-1 (passenger car with 1 cat), PC-2 (passenger car with 2 cats), T-1 (truck with 1 cat), T-2 (truck with 2 cats) the vehicle will pass smog without having to verify the CARB EO for the vehicle instead of verifying vehicle make, model, year, engine size. As long as the CARB EO number applies to the PC-1 etc it passes for that component. Now as for the other components that are now unobtainium that's a different story.

tight info. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

interesting use of words there @L-Jet914 .
"[u]cars produced before 1976"[/u].
is that the wording the excemption legislation uses?
if it is the 76 914 would fulfil the definition.

its not produced in 1976. its production period is not inclusive of jan 01 1976.
apart from stating what the emissions equipment is on it the CARB certification also makes it clear that it was certified on the basis it was not manufactured after dec 31 1975. the production period it is built in includes only Jan 01 1975 which defines its model year as calendar year 1975 under the statutes (federal law).

i believe if anyone could be bothered they could push this with the powers that be at your registration board whatever it is called in california. you would have to be patient. it is entirely dependant on the precise wording of the excemption definition.

@wonkipop I should have been more specific. MY1975 vehicles and older are exempt from the California smog check program currently. MY1976 to MY1999 are subject to tail pipe testing. MY2000 and newer get the OIS (OBD Inspection System) test.

[wonkipop]

@L-Jet914 yeah thats the grey area then the department of motor registration or whatever it is called in your part of the world is exploiting.

its very smudgy. the old 76 2.0 L is called a 76 MY on the CARB but the special sort that were classed by federal statute to be 75MY for emissions and other regulatory standards.

in effect the 75 was a 1.5 year car stretching from mid 74 to end of calendar year 75.
with only one Jan 01 in its "annual" period. and the last 6 months was called a 76 in the showrooms. but its just a 75 that keeps on going.

i reckon it could be argued but you would be having to get higher up a food chain than the front desk. and of course you probably need the assistance of a congress person.
i imagine they are all painted with a greenish brush in california. but surely there would be one somewhere in the state of california tarred with a different brush. might be out there in regional areas rather than urban?

the 912E is very definitely a 76 MY no grey areas. its production period includes Jan 01 1976 even if they don't physically start making them on that day.

and hence why it does not just have the 2.0L D jet as an ongoing engine. they had to strap on the L jet and a smog pump. its the only L jet of that time with the smog pump.
not sure if its got EGR. its telling you that they had to give up on D jet for 76.

someone in europe owns the original 912E prototype the factory ran around in late 1975 testing the system before production. not sure if that car retains its L jet engine. think they swapped it out before they sold it on in typical porsche fashion. they seemed to be into selling their test vehicles when they were finished with back in those days.
i remember reading about the car and its owner a few years back.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[wonkipop]

here is the emission specs on the two different 76 models for the same niche.
as recorded on CARB executive orders.


the 76 (75+) 914 2.0 D jet. (75 2.0 is identical in all respects - same sheet with 1975 on it).




the true 76 MY 912E with L jet.



pretty much the same - egr, airpump, but 912E runs thermal reactor exhausts instead of cat. (Although i have no idea what that all encompassing term - EM = engine modifications means for 914 2.0? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ) suspect reason for reactprs on 912 is porsche still had not developed an exhaust system with a cat that would fit in to limited space available with rear engine layout. 911s also had reactors. same problem?

the 912E version of the 2.0 L also got capacitive discharge ignition. don't believe the humble 914 L jets have got that. dunno about 2.0 L 914s

and as far as i can figure out the hp rating goes like this.
a 2.0L 76 914 had 87 bhp or 88PS (euro standard hp). 88 usually quoted.
a 912E had 86 bhp so maybe 87PS.
lost about 1hp over the 914.
suspect with D jet if they could have made it work even more hp loss.

unlike the 914s porsche did do the test work and development on the L jet 912E.
they ran the test car out of the factory from about mid 75 on. had about 6 months before it went into production to make sure it worked ok.

if they could have i am sure they would have kept going with D jet, for the sake of 6 months of cars. but something stopped them.

as a little side note you can see from the certificates that neither the EGR or the CAT could be warrantied for the full 50,000 miles required. hence the I for inspection condition and i guess the mileage counter that had to go in to the 914s of that time with the CATS. already knew they wouldn't make it through full warranty period........
and i am guessing but i could be wrong you would have got that replacement for free?
as part of having to warranty it for 50,000 miles. i imagine anyone who knows for sure and managed to get that service is probably dead these days. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[StarBear]

CD capacitive discharge - could that be the ignitor capacitors (4 ceramic tubes in aluminum case ) that’s on our L-Jets?

[technicalninja]

Those are resistors, not capacitors.

Capacitors are an "electron storage ballon" that can discharge the entire amount stored in a microsecond.

A CDI ignition does not charge the coil slowly and then drop is like the original inductance ignition. Coils will create the secondary charge when the magnetic field inside the coil "changes rapidly".
An inductance system charges slowly and drop to ground FAST creating the spark.

Capacitive discharge does the opposite. Nail the coil with a huge amount of voltage and generates the spark on the CREATION of the magnetic field.

An MSD "multi-spark discharge" hit the coil with cascading capacitors (multiple in series) and creates 3-6 individual sparks for each combustion event.

The number of strikes decreases as RPM goes up. Most are down to a single strike at redline.

I'm sure windforfun or Superhawk may have a better analogy/more info