Full Version: Members with 74 1.8
QUOTE(L-Jet914 @ Nov 28 2021, 09:04 PM) 
QUOTE(wonkipop @ Nov 28 2021, 01:33 PM)
@L-Jet914
i think i have figured out what the modification on yours does and why it might have been done.
its someone's idea of how to cancel retard at standing idle.
the basic idea would be the advance on the dist is being pulled at idle and counteracts the pull in opposite direction from retard.
retard at idle was an emissions thing.
it made combustion cooler for lower NOx emission.
the plumbing in the modification possibly also changes the way the distributor comes off advance as you deaccelerate. someone has done it because they believe it makes it drive a bit sweeter is my guess. it probably does, you are driving it. the only way to know what its doing would be to drive another 914 with the original set up and compare alongside.
stuff gets done to these cars.
esp. these ones with the first real smog engines.
EDIT
actually i might have that the wrong way around, re-reading your original description.
it seems they have gone for a different source of vacuum for the retard than the throttle body?
and maybe took the factory cap off the advance port and put it on the retard port.
and connected up advance when it was never connected. could be as simple as that.
some-one familiar with the EC-B engines looked at this one and decided it was "wrong" so they made an EC-B style set up?
So what you're saying is that according to my tune up sticker, the vac advance side of the distributor was not supposed to be hooked up to the rear port facing the trunk of the throttle body (I've checked no vacuum until off idle at the rear port and manifold vacuum at the forward facing port)? I've only driven the car as you see pictured in the engine bay. I never drove the car prior to any engine work etc. I would love to see a EC-A setup L-Jet engine in bone stock configuration to see if I should remove the added vacuum t and route the retard side of the distributor to the manifold vacuum side of the throttle body. This thread is becoming more and more interesting as I've read through this.
yes, thats what i understand the tune up sticker to mean.
our EC-B cars have a tune up sticker with both hoses shown and shown disconnected for timing at idle.
its interesting when you look at something like a 2.0L they have i believe both hoses shown connected for the timing.
it would in fact be easy to make yours an EC-B. you just plug the retard line directly into the retard port on the throttle body and take the cap off. thats what i think.
but you have a form of manifold vacuum on the retard so why upset the apple cart.
in a way you already have an EC-B set up.
we would also love to see a bone stock EC-A setup. we are guessing what it is off the tune up sticker and description by @ClayPerrine . his description of how he believes L jet ought to be set up seems to accord with EC-A.
---
the weird thing is the texas twin car probably came off the line the same day as mine.
given its 30 numbers on in the VIN and mine is about the middle of a day's production.
i forget the exact number. mine is around 45th car for the day. so the texas twin is probably right at the end of the day. so they are building EC-A and EC-B on the same day. and the funny thing is the dealers could easily have made an EC-B into an EC-A by just unplugging the advance and capping it and vise versa.
as far as i can tell. maybe there is more to it. i don't know.
Here's a few pics of my 1.8. I don't see a 3 digit number anywhere.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
@Big Len
First, your car looks incredible man, I'm jealous!
Second, where you were standing for that last photo, look just inside the engine bay there under the little section of grill. There should be emissions sticker everyone is talking about. It's tucked up in that corner pretty good. easier to spot really if you stand on the right side of the car and look across.
First, your car looks incredible man, I'm jealous!
Second, where you were standing for that last photo, look just inside the engine bay there under the little section of grill. There should be emissions sticker everyone is talking about. It's tucked up in that corner pretty good. easier to spot really if you stand on the right side of the car and look across.
QUOTE(Van B @ Nov 29 2021, 02:14 PM)
@Big Len
First, your car looks incredible man, I'm jealous!
Second, where you were standing for that last photo, look just inside the engine bay there under the little section of grill. There should be emissions sticker everyone is talking about. It's tucked up in that corner pretty good. easier to spot really if you stand on the right side of the car and look across.
Thanks for the compliment......Ok Van, I'll check.
thanks for posting up @Big Len
very nice looking car.
1st of Feb 74? its about 600 after mine.
the plumbing looks the same as what is on my engine.
likely its an EC-B?
very nice looking car.
1st of Feb 74? its about 600 after mine.
the plumbing looks the same as what is on my engine.
likely its an EC-B?
QUOTE(Van B @ Nov 29 2021, 01:14 PM)
@Big Len
First, your car looks incredible man, I'm jealous!
Second, where you were standing for that last photo, look just inside the engine bay there under the little section of grill. There should be emissions sticker everyone is talking about. It's tucked up in that corner pretty good. easier to spot really if you stand on the right side of the car and look across.
hey van - you yourself look like you got your hands on a very original car from the photos you posted. thats got to be getting real hard to do these days. it won't take much to clean it up. even the seat belt interlock was working - sort of.
It’s covered in overspray from a paint job that is one step above a rattle can paint job and my hoses are slowly becoming an auto parts store special. But yeah, when I’m driving it, I don’t care… so maybe I need to just stop working on it lol!
QUOTE(Van B @ Nov 29 2021, 02:14 PM)
@Big Len
First, your car looks incredible man, I'm jealous!
Second, where you were standing for that last photo, look just inside the engine bay there under the little section of grill. There should be emissions sticker everyone is talking about. It's tucked up in that corner pretty good. easier to spot really if you stand on the right side of the car and look across.
His is indeed incredible! Among the best of the best.
@StarBear
Got the paper, thanks bud!
How are you attaching them to the engine tin? I assume with some kind of temperature resistant over laminate?
Got the paper, thanks bud!
How are you attaching them to the engine tin? I assume with some kind of temperature resistant over laminate?
just found another member here on the vin list through an older thread where he was asking about throttle body stuff. he has a 7/74 1.8 late in the production run.
from the photos posted in thread it was plumbed up EC-B style.
sent a PM.
-----
trawling some old archived sales ads on internet turned up a may 74 with EC-B.
but have not managed to come across an EC-B 49 states set up.
there is still just the sticker on mr. b's website.
from the photos posted in thread it was plumbed up EC-B style.
sent a PM.
-----
trawling some old archived sales ads on internet turned up a may 74 with EC-B.
but have not managed to come across an EC-B 49 states set up.
there is still just the sticker on mr. b's website.
Wait, EC-B is the 49 state setup. My car was never a California car. Bought new in New York and hase been up and down the east coast only it’s entire life.
QUOTE(Van B @ Nov 29 2021, 09:59 PM)
Wait, EC-B is the 49 state setup. My car was never a California car. Bought new in New York and hase been up and down the east coast only it’s entire life.
yep, so is mine. its a maryland car bought a stone's throw from the white house.
but its California + EPA stickered. all the EC-Bs we have uncovered to date are California and EPA (ie 50 state cars).
if you wanted to do some more strategic carpet bombing of your emission sticker you might uncover the bit where it says EPA or alternatively it might say EPA + california.
always a chance you have a mythical 49 state EC-B?
the only evidence there is such a thing is a lone sticker on mr. b's website.
Well, ok, but not tonight. Do you know Mr. Researcher, when California regs changed? Is it possible that the sticker changed because California regs changed in 74 or 75 but the cars had not yet changed?
i am as dumb as all you guys when it comes to pollution regs.
but i got curious when mr. b told us there was a california and there was a 49 states car.
because that is not the history i knew commonly told re 1.8s.
the accepted version is all 1.8s were 50 state cars.
mr. b popped up his sticker.
his theory was that an EC-A was 49 state.
and an EC-B was california.
but thats not so. the stickers prove it.
the only thing i can find of any real substance is that california demanded significantly lower NOx emissions for 1974. and that would not show up in the standard smog tests of the time. they measured CO, CO2 and HC at the smog test. thats the smog test where you drove your car in and they stuck the probe in (this won't hurt a bit
)
but where NOx etc got properly analysed was in a much more serious test the manufacturers had to do. that test involved pulling a car off the production line at intervals and testing it against data already lodged with the EPA and CARB.
technically what EC-A and EC-B mean is not engine type but engine test - at least for the EPA etc.
so thats what i know.
i was once a geek. i am returning to my childhood. its probably a sign of senility.
but its kind of interesting since the 1.8 is the first serious smog engine.
and they did it without too much choke down stuff on it.
i've certainly made my self learn about double vac distributors and its given me a bit of a sense of what is different between an EC-A and an EC-B.
my theory is they are equal in emissions for the purposes of the 1974 tailpipe smog test and certification.
they both retard at idle to get NOx down.
so long as CO/CO2/HC etc measured fine at the smog test the california authorities would have said the car was in tune and passed.
even though they were not actually directly measuring NOx.
but they behave differently at cruise and when you go to stamp the power while you are already at cruise.
the ones with the vac advance should be advanced well beyond what the mechanical advance does on distributor. thats going to be great for fuel economy. but its not going to be so great for instant bright throttle response if you plant the foot while already at cruise?
someone with a better feel for how all the vacuum advance stuff worked might know better?
but i got curious when mr. b told us there was a california and there was a 49 states car.
because that is not the history i knew commonly told re 1.8s.
the accepted version is all 1.8s were 50 state cars.
mr. b popped up his sticker.
his theory was that an EC-A was 49 state.
and an EC-B was california.
but thats not so. the stickers prove it.
the only thing i can find of any real substance is that california demanded significantly lower NOx emissions for 1974. and that would not show up in the standard smog tests of the time. they measured CO, CO2 and HC at the smog test. thats the smog test where you drove your car in and they stuck the probe in (this won't hurt a bit
)but where NOx etc got properly analysed was in a much more serious test the manufacturers had to do. that test involved pulling a car off the production line at intervals and testing it against data already lodged with the EPA and CARB.
technically what EC-A and EC-B mean is not engine type but engine test - at least for the EPA etc.
so thats what i know.
i was once a geek. i am returning to my childhood. its probably a sign of senility.
but its kind of interesting since the 1.8 is the first serious smog engine.
and they did it without too much choke down stuff on it.
i've certainly made my self learn about double vac distributors and its given me a bit of a sense of what is different between an EC-A and an EC-B.
my theory is they are equal in emissions for the purposes of the 1974 tailpipe smog test and certification.
they both retard at idle to get NOx down.
so long as CO/CO2/HC etc measured fine at the smog test the california authorities would have said the car was in tune and passed.
even though they were not actually directly measuring NOx.
but they behave differently at cruise and when you go to stamp the power while you are already at cruise.
the ones with the vac advance should be advanced well beyond what the mechanical advance does on distributor. thats going to be great for fuel economy. but its not going to be so great for instant bright throttle response if you plant the foot while already at cruise?
someone with a better feel for how all the vacuum advance stuff worked might know better?
re 49 state cars.
theoretically given that only california had the higher demand on lower NOx levels at curb idle, a 49 state car would possibly not need retard at idle.
there are 1.8 throttle bodies out there without the retard port.
nihil44 has one. its not that his is capped, its actually not even opened up on the throttle body at all. whether its original or not i don't know, but its what is currently on his car when you look closely. no retard port on the forward facing side of throttle body.
-----
@StarBear is sceptical of my fuel economy versus bright throttle to explain the EC-A and EC-B scenarios (which have the full 50 state stickers). he is probably right.
but i can't think of anything else that goes with the set ups.
its not about emissions as far as i can tell.
but if i saw a 1.8 without retard for idle i would say straight away, yes that is about emissions and its not as clean as one with the retard port for idle.
theoretically given that only california had the higher demand on lower NOx levels at curb idle, a 49 state car would possibly not need retard at idle.
there are 1.8 throttle bodies out there without the retard port.
nihil44 has one. its not that his is capped, its actually not even opened up on the throttle body at all. whether its original or not i don't know, but its what is currently on his car when you look closely. no retard port on the forward facing side of throttle body.
-----
@StarBear is sceptical of my fuel economy versus bright throttle to explain the EC-A and EC-B scenarios (which have the full 50 state stickers). he is probably right.
but i can't think of anything else that goes with the set ups.
its not about emissions as far as i can tell.
but if i saw a 1.8 without retard for idle i would say straight away, yes that is about emissions and its not as clean as one with the retard port for idle.
Well, I guess I’ll get my lucky underseat quarter tomorrow when I get home and do some more scratching. We’ll see if my car adds another data point or not… honestly though, if my car has the word California on it, I’m gonna respray that sticker lol…
this is the only other thing i know about US smog tests.
you guys would know better than me? - i had to go back over old stuff in my file.
i did do one smog test for the car when i lived in chicago.
it had to only pass the low idle test.
i assume that meant the standard at the time the car was sold new was the standard for ever after - so this was the chicago smog test that applied in 1974?
i did find some stuff that said chicago was an early adopter of smog testing right behind LA.
(it looked like i passed the high idle test as well even though it was not necessary?
though i don't understand the CO/CO2% mix bit).
a bit more snooping seemed to show that initial california smog tests back when they started doing it were also only single speed tests at low idle.
all california was most interested in at the time = NOx at idle? (ie jammed in LA traffic at a standstill pumping out the main ingredient of smog?).
if you look at that emissions standards material i posted above, California was prepared to wear higher CO emissions as a pay off for lower NOx. (thats what happens if you lower combustion temps to reduce NOx, CO goes up so their higher CO than 49 states makes sense). they only have to wear higher CO for one year - in 75 they get cats which turn the CO into CO2 (at that time considered a relatively harmless gas in pollution terms).
thats all the material i've got on evil emissions regs Van.
Click to view attachment
you guys would know better than me? - i had to go back over old stuff in my file.
i did do one smog test for the car when i lived in chicago.
it had to only pass the low idle test.
i assume that meant the standard at the time the car was sold new was the standard for ever after - so this was the chicago smog test that applied in 1974?
i did find some stuff that said chicago was an early adopter of smog testing right behind LA.
(it looked like i passed the high idle test as well even though it was not necessary?
though i don't understand the CO/CO2% mix bit).
a bit more snooping seemed to show that initial california smog tests back when they started doing it were also only single speed tests at low idle.
all california was most interested in at the time = NOx at idle? (ie jammed in LA traffic at a standstill pumping out the main ingredient of smog?).
if you look at that emissions standards material i posted above, California was prepared to wear higher CO emissions as a pay off for lower NOx. (thats what happens if you lower combustion temps to reduce NOx, CO goes up so their higher CO than 49 states makes sense). they only have to wear higher CO for one year - in 75 they get cats which turn the CO into CO2 (at that time considered a relatively harmless gas in pollution terms).
thats all the material i've got on evil emissions regs Van.
Click to view attachment
van - USA emissions regs ran on MY for cars was the other bit of detail i found.
so calendar year does not play into it causing something to change half way though a model year say. its from start to finish of a model year.
so calendar year does not play into it causing something to change half way though a model year say. its from start to finish of a model year.
I agree about the model year applicability, but that wouldn’t prevent a manufacturer choosing to meet compliance early… and since when has Porsche ever left a model alone? I’ve got a rare 996 with a cable throttle and no electronics out in the garage that reminds me every day how Porsche should’ve stopped fiddling at that moment lol!
QUOTE(wonkipop @ Nov 29 2021, 09:26 PM)
this is the only other thing i know about US smog tests.
you guys would know better than me? - i had to go back over old stuff in my file.
i did do one smog test for the car when i lived in chicago.
it had to only pass the low idle test.
i assume that meant the standard at the time the car was sold new was the standard for ever after - so this was the chicago smog test that applied in 1974?
i did find some stuff that said chicago was an early adopter of smog testing right behind LA.
(it looked like i passed the high idle test as well even though it was not necessary?
though i don't understand the CO/CO2% mix bit).
a bit more snooping seemed to show that initial california smog tests back when they started doing it were also only single speed tests at low idle.
all california was most interested in at the time = NOx at idle? (ie jammed in LA traffic at a standstill pumping out the main ingredient of smog?).
if you look at that emissions standards material i posted above, California was prepared to wear higher CO emissions as a pay off for lower NOx. (thats what happens if you lower combustion temps to reduce NOx, CO goes up so their higher CO than 49 states makes sense). they only have to wear higher CO for one year - in 75 they get cats which turn the CO into CO2 (at that time considered a relatively harmless gas in pollution terms).
thats all the material i've got on evil emissions regs Van.
Click to view attachment
Here is some Pass/Fail standards for a 1976 2.0L for California. I am also a smog tech where I work. So I will try and see if I can find any other information.
CARB EO A-7-5 which has since been rescinded and A-7-5-A the updated Executive Order. I forgot I had this saved to my computer for classic data. Note 1974 California standards for EC-A engine. Shows Vacuum Retard with centrifugal advance which I guess means my advance shouldn't be connected to the rear facing port on the throttle body.
nice stuff @L-Jet914
there are all sorts of folks here. who would have thought we got a smog expert.
there are all sorts of folks here. who would have thought we got a smog expert.
QUOTE(Van B @ Nov 30 2021, 12:09 AM)
I agree about the model year applicability, but that wouldn’t prevent a manufacturer choosing to meet compliance early… and since when has Porsche ever left a model alone? I’ve got a rare 996 with a cable throttle and no electronics out in the garage that reminds me every day how Porsche should’ve stopped fiddling at that moment lol!
yeah.
they are fiddling the L jets.
couldn't agree more.
and they are fiddling with them for something other than smog?
cause after all they are porsche.
the funny bit is they are offering the fiddle as a simultaneous alternative.
@L-Jet914
that really is the japanese gold of beer that info.
its 412 stuff there. EC-d!!! so its definitely 1974.
no 412s in 1975 MY.
mr. b will be beside himself.
platinum.
that really is the japanese gold of beer that info.
its 412 stuff there. EC-d!!! so its definitely 1974.
no 412s in 1975 MY.
mr. b will be beside himself.
platinum.
those EC-d or is it EC-D (whatever) - they had EGR in 1974 on those VW 412s.
i found a pic of an original 412 variant with the full original gear on it.
and the EGR isn't even like the EGR on the 75 914s.
lot of mucking about going on at VW hq in 74?
i am not familiar with 412s. or 411s we never got them in australia.
there were a handful running around here 30 years ago that came in from south africa,
but they were all twin carb jobs.
i'll bet there is an EC-c (EC-C) and its a 412 without the EGR?
i found a pic of an original 412 variant with the full original gear on it.
and the EGR isn't even like the EGR on the 75 914s.
lot of mucking about going on at VW hq in 74?
i am not familiar with 412s. or 411s we never got them in australia.
there were a handful running around here 30 years ago that came in from south africa,
but they were all twin carb jobs.
i'll bet there is an EC-c (EC-C) and its a 412 without the EGR?
I'm curious if the signature dates on those forms start to reveal something as we build more data
there is something going on - thats for sure.
QUOTE(wonkipop @ Nov 29 2021, 10:44 PM)
nice stuff @L-Jet914
there are all sorts of folks here. who would have thought we got a smog expert.
I wouldn't call myself a smog expert haha. I just happen to know where to look up information when smogging a vehicle, if the vehicle emission control label is missing. I was shown these websites one day taking a update course to renew my smog license.
QUOTE(L-Jet914 @ Nov 30 2021, 01:44 AM)
QUOTE(wonkipop @ Nov 29 2021, 10:44 PM)
nice stuff @L-Jet914
there are all sorts of folks here. who would have thought we got a smog expert.
I wouldn't call myself a smog expert haha. I just happen to know where to look up information when smogging a vehicle, if the vehicle emission control label is missing. I was shown these websites one day taking a update course to renew my smog license.
that stuff you posted is fantastic mate.
ok @L-Jet914
i have scanned through your stuff you posted.
its all there --- exactly what i have found in the parts manual.
the ECU is the same from the VW vans (kombis) and 412s.
the AFM is the same.
both do not change. universal.
all that is different is the 914s run a different distributor.
only the 914s run VR. vacuum retard distributors.
but the vans and the 412s run EGR.
you set them up different at idle in terms of idle revs.
they all have the same CO. 4.5% max.
its all in the distributor!?
and of course how that must connect to the throttle body.
and this is somehow being submitted in the first quarter of 1974 calendar year.
,,,,,,
except i think we did find an EC-A that was built before calendar year 1974.
have to trawl back through the info in this thread.
i think its yours actually. 11/74?
(EDIT - its nihil44's EC-A).
but seems to imply an A comes after a B.
they could have been making them in anticipation knowing they were ok and ready to go? if that is the reason they were knocking them out of germany in 11/73.
be great if there were similar CARB/EPA documents out there covering the EC-B version.
i bet they date from earlier than these documents?
incredible find you have in your files.
i have scanned through your stuff you posted.
its all there --- exactly what i have found in the parts manual.
the ECU is the same from the VW vans (kombis) and 412s.
the AFM is the same.
both do not change. universal.
all that is different is the 914s run a different distributor.
only the 914s run VR. vacuum retard distributors.
but the vans and the 412s run EGR.
you set them up different at idle in terms of idle revs.
they all have the same CO. 4.5% max.
its all in the distributor!?
and of course how that must connect to the throttle body.
and this is somehow being submitted in the first quarter of 1974 calendar year.
,,,,,,
except i think we did find an EC-A that was built before calendar year 1974.
have to trawl back through the info in this thread.
i think its yours actually. 11/74?
(EDIT - its nihil44's EC-A).
but seems to imply an A comes after a B.
they could have been making them in anticipation knowing they were ok and ready to go? if that is the reason they were knocking them out of germany in 11/73.
be great if there were similar CARB/EPA documents out there covering the EC-B version.
i bet they date from earlier than these documents?
incredible find you have in your files.
QUOTE(Van B @ Nov 29 2021, 09:59 PM)
@StarBear
Got the paper, thanks bud!
How are you attaching them to the engine tin? I assume with some kind of temperature resistant over laminate?
@Van B Yay! Just peel off the backing. Make sure the old sticker is off completely and the tin is clean. Seems to hold up so far.
found where LJet914 got the California Air Resources Board documents from.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/new-vehicle-and-engi...duty-trucks-and
nothing in there for EC-b.
however CARB does note the records may be incomplete.
looking around at other manufacturers documents and even some of VWs the business with rescinding the order is unusual. they also do it for the documents covering the 914 2.0 for model year 74. i can't quite understand what the document LJet914 posted means as they seem to rescind the original order (jan 74) and then replace it with the same thing (march 74)? Also the orders are quite late in date, comparable orders for other VWs and other makes of cars, including porsche for the 911 are dated sept or oct of the calendar year the model year starts. so there is some funny stuff going on where the EC-a is gettng approval in jan74 instead of sept/oct 73 where you expect it to be dated.
----
i had a good look either side in 73 and 75.
found this.
slightly off topic but worth posting.
@JeffBowlsby probably interested.
looks like Volkswagen of America was calling the 73 914 2.0 a 914S at the stage they wre submitting for CARB approval in Oct. 1972.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/new-vehicle-and-engi...duty-trucks-and
nothing in there for EC-b.
however CARB does note the records may be incomplete.
looking around at other manufacturers documents and even some of VWs the business with rescinding the order is unusual. they also do it for the documents covering the 914 2.0 for model year 74. i can't quite understand what the document LJet914 posted means as they seem to rescind the original order (jan 74) and then replace it with the same thing (march 74)? Also the orders are quite late in date, comparable orders for other VWs and other makes of cars, including porsche for the 911 are dated sept or oct of the calendar year the model year starts. so there is some funny stuff going on where the EC-a is gettng approval in jan74 instead of sept/oct 73 where you expect it to be dated.
----
i had a good look either side in 73 and 75.
found this.
slightly off topic but worth posting.
@JeffBowlsby probably interested.
looks like Volkswagen of America was calling the 73 914 2.0 a 914S at the stage they wre submitting for CARB approval in Oct. 1972.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
shouldn't you be asleep?!
The CA-only decal for the side windows was probably the clear label placed on the windshield like these below. I have several on my website on the Plates, Labels, Markings page. If you have an image of the labels I am missing, or have a better quality image, please send them to me or post it here in this thread.
QUOTE(Van B @ Nov 30 2021, 12:57 PM)
shouldn't you be asleep?!
yeah, should have been. woken up by a commotion in the lane.
couldn't get back to sleep.
think its a side effect of the dicktator's vid lock up, gotten used to the quiet.
its getting noisy around here again at random hours now that the lunatics have been released from the asylum.
-------
the executive order numbering system is simple.
each manufacturer gets a number after the A
VW gets A-7
then each submitted engine family gets a number in chronological order they were submitted. its starts in 73 for VAG.
1973
A-7 thru A-7-2 covers 914S, 914 1.7 and other ac vws.
1973
A-7-3(covers 914.2 from oct 73 and other ac vws)
A-7-3-A (covers 914.2 from mar 73 and other ac vws)
A-7-4 water cooled dashers.
A-7-5 (covers 914 1.8 from jan 74, and from mar 74)
A-7-6 twin carb kombi.
1974
A-7-7 thru A-7-10 covers the 75 914s and other VWs.
if its to be taken at face value there is nothing missing on CARB file unless there is an A-7-5-A revision that is missing.
seems to say only EC-A (or as its written EC-a) 1.8 have exhaust emission approval and only from from jan 74 on.
914 mystery continues.
but its safe to say there was such a thing as an EC-d and it was in 412s.
as well as the EC-a that is in 914s.
as far as california goes.
and we know there is an EC-b, its in some of our 914s.
and there probably was an EC-c. maybe in 412s.
@JeffBowlsby .
thanks for those windscreen decels jeff.
they are interesting.
strictly speaking those 1974 914s are not meeting california emissions standards.
HC and CO exceed the standard.
NOx does meet the standard.
i did come across something looking for the cal emis standards 1974.
the big three in detroit lobbied for averaging across their entire fleet of models for sale.
that way they could slide in some only half denuded muscle cars by offsetting against small economy cars that were well under the emis. limits. they were successful in their lobbying and so a fleet average applied to californian sales (and national sales).
i think VAG must have been doing the same - given those windscreen decals.
offsetting the 914s against the bigger numbers of sedans and commercials sold?
thanks for those windscreen decels jeff.
they are interesting.
strictly speaking those 1974 914s are not meeting california emissions standards.
HC and CO exceed the standard.
NOx does meet the standard.
i did come across something looking for the cal emis standards 1974.
the big three in detroit lobbied for averaging across their entire fleet of models for sale.
that way they could slide in some only half denuded muscle cars by offsetting against small economy cars that were well under the emis. limits. they were successful in their lobbying and so a fleet average applied to californian sales (and national sales).
i think VAG must have been doing the same - given those windscreen decals.
offsetting the 914s against the bigger numbers of sedans and commercials sold?
@wonkipop You are correct the A-7-5-A is the revision to the rescinded A-7-5. My 914 was built 4/74. All the ARB EO's on the page you found are only for CA certified vehicles. If the vehicle is US E.P.A 49 state certified their engine families etc do not appear within the site as they do not comply to CA emission standards.
QUOTE(L-Jet914 @ Nov 30 2021, 10:37 PM)
@wonkipop You are correct the A-7-5-A is the revision to the rescinded A-7-5. My 914 was built 4/74. All the ARB EO's on the page you found are only for CA certified vehicles. If the vehicle is US E.P.A 49 state certified their engine families etc do not appear within the site as they do not comply to CA emission standards.
yes, its interesting.
but we have EC-B stickers which use the same wording as the EC-A stickers.
"conforms to California + USEPA regulations".
so.....it kind of doesn't clear up the mystery.
but it does point toward something called the EC-a getting firm approval either from jan 74 on or mar 74 on.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
and to complicate things there is an EC-B sticker that is only USEPA conforming.
Click to view attachment
i cracked the Executive Order open a little bit more.
i found a specfication description for a retard and advance function distributor included in the Executive Order A-7-6 covering the 74 Kombi Van fitted with the dual carb version of the 1.8.
the dist is described as C-V-VR. = centrifugal + vacuum + vacuum retard.
Click to view attachment
compare it to the A-7-5 covering the EC-a engine 914 1.8.
the dist is described as C-VR = centrigugal + vacuum retard.
Click to view attachment
if they were talking about our cars with the EC-B sticker it would say C-V-VR.
our cars have the vacuum advance and vacuum retard.
(vacuum = vacuum advance function).
also our tune up sticker matches that dual functioning distributor hooked up.
in this E O they are talking about your cars (L-Jet 914).
the EC-A cars with only the distributor retard hooked up as supported by your original tune up sticker.
so the EC-A cars are approved in california from Jan 29th 1974 on for 3 months and a further 30 days and from March 25th on for 3 months and a further 30 days. which gets them to the end of production for 74 MY.
the EC-B cars are still missing in this documentation from CARB.
we know they conform to California and EPA. (or at least their sticker claims that).
i think it would be reasonable to conclude that EC-A cars kick in for sale in california after end of jan 74. (they might be making them in production a little earlier but they hit the showrooms for legit sale after that date).
which begs the question, what were porsche selling in their cali showrooms as a base model before jan 74 for MY 74. they must have had something to offer?
i found a specfication description for a retard and advance function distributor included in the Executive Order A-7-6 covering the 74 Kombi Van fitted with the dual carb version of the 1.8.
the dist is described as C-V-VR. = centrifugal + vacuum + vacuum retard.
Click to view attachment
compare it to the A-7-5 covering the EC-a engine 914 1.8.
the dist is described as C-VR = centrigugal + vacuum retard.
Click to view attachment
if they were talking about our cars with the EC-B sticker it would say C-V-VR.
our cars have the vacuum advance and vacuum retard.
(vacuum = vacuum advance function).
also our tune up sticker matches that dual functioning distributor hooked up.
in this E O they are talking about your cars (L-Jet 914).
the EC-A cars with only the distributor retard hooked up as supported by your original tune up sticker.
so the EC-A cars are approved in california from Jan 29th 1974 on for 3 months and a further 30 days and from March 25th on for 3 months and a further 30 days. which gets them to the end of production for 74 MY.
the EC-B cars are still missing in this documentation from CARB.
we know they conform to California and EPA. (or at least their sticker claims that).
i think it would be reasonable to conclude that EC-A cars kick in for sale in california after end of jan 74. (they might be making them in production a little earlier but they hit the showrooms for legit sale after that date).
which begs the question, what were porsche selling in their cali showrooms as a base model before jan 74 for MY 74. they must have had something to offer?
QUOTE(Van B @ Nov 28 2021, 12:15 AM)
Based on my trials, I would wager that the ECU is different, or at least the program. My car simply would not start in that configuration.
i doubled checked to be sure. no change. but..............
this is in the factory manual.
Click to view attachment
i'd missed inception date of 74 1.8.
its well after 74 MY production starts - which was august 73.
compare inception date of 75. aug 74.
had a quick scout of members Vin in the big list on this site.
sure enough - couldn't turn up a 1.8 with a vin before nov 73.
its all 2.0 cars early on.
the list is not exhaustive by any means, but you would think there would be one there.
so - looks like 1.8 L Jet is late coming to the party.
don't start building them until nov 73.
anyone with a 11/73 Vin has the first month of production of L jet on the first engine to ever have it.
@nihil44 @RRietman @StarBear all have 11/73.
randy takes the prize. he has the earliest L jet closest to the beginning.
i don't know what they were selling in USA showrooms for the last quarter of 73.
but it wasn't 74MY 1.8s going on what i can find.
by the time they are made - nov 73, put on a ship and distributed in the USA it would be jan/early 1974.
this makes a bit more sense with the CARB EO? starting california approval jan 74.
i think i have worked out this emission sticker thing.
even though most (all so far) EC-B say conforms to california, they do not appear to send the EC-B to california.
all the EC-B i can find on internet in good condition with extensive documentation show they were sold new in states other than california.
this agrees with wonki, @Van B and @StarBear EC-B cars. known sold new on east coast.
EC-B have the vac advance hooked up.
EC-A are sent to california and have the vac advance disconnected and port plugged on throttle body. EO-7-5 proves that. stipulated in description of distributor.
tune stickers show it too. (thanks to L-JET914 for that priceless CARB document).
BUT.
brand new 74 MY base 914s are late to the showrooms and in short supply?
it appears all a dealer would have to do is disconnect the vac advance on a EC-B car and plug the port and they have an EC-A CARB approved car.
it might have been handy for stocks of 914 available in the USA at that time if they were short on cars to sell in california. just send them down there if they had to.
how they handled the sticker in legal terms i don't know.
-----
i'm beginning to think that the mythical 49 state car is one without vacuum retard.
a member here Pete000 has one with a TB that has no vac idle port. nihil44's is the same. i got a hunch that is the EC-B without cal conforming parts. you have to have vac retard for CARB. it can't be sent there for sale under any circumstances. not without swapping out the throttle body. so the stickers make it clear, its to be moved around in stock for the 49 states only.
even though most (all so far) EC-B say conforms to california, they do not appear to send the EC-B to california.
all the EC-B i can find on internet in good condition with extensive documentation show they were sold new in states other than california.
this agrees with wonki, @Van B and @StarBear EC-B cars. known sold new on east coast.
EC-B have the vac advance hooked up.
EC-A are sent to california and have the vac advance disconnected and port plugged on throttle body. EO-7-5 proves that. stipulated in description of distributor.
tune stickers show it too. (thanks to L-JET914 for that priceless CARB document).
BUT.
brand new 74 MY base 914s are late to the showrooms and in short supply?
it appears all a dealer would have to do is disconnect the vac advance on a EC-B car and plug the port and they have an EC-A CARB approved car.
it might have been handy for stocks of 914 available in the USA at that time if they were short on cars to sell in california. just send them down there if they had to.
how they handled the sticker in legal terms i don't know.
-----
i'm beginning to think that the mythical 49 state car is one without vacuum retard.
a member here Pete000 has one with a TB that has no vac idle port. nihil44's is the same. i got a hunch that is the EC-B without cal conforming parts. you have to have vac retard for CARB. it can't be sent there for sale under any circumstances. not without swapping out the throttle body. so the stickers make it clear, its to be moved around in stock for the 49 states only.
Ok, so I’m following everything but the fact that my car simply would not start with the vacuum retard attached. INSTANTLY floods! I’ve tried it twice and the second time I really made sure timing and idle speed were on the money.
QUOTE(Van B @ Dec 1 2021, 05:53 PM)
Ok, so I’m following everything but the fact that my car simply would not start with the vacuum retard attached. INSTANTLY floods! I’ve tried it twice and the second time I really made sure timing and idle speed were on the money.
attached or not attached?
the photos you posted show all the vac lines attached van.
retard and advance. thats how the car came to you right?
way i see it with vac retard attached its going to start easier from cold.
but once its warm its going to idle hotter (esp out in traffic). it stays retarded.
a car without vac retard attached is going to be a little harder to start from cold.
but once its warm will idle at 7.5 BTDC.
EDIT - and idle cooler too out in traffic.
------
i've never thought too hard about this before.
i never had to do anything to the car back 30 years ago.
it ran sweet-as for 15 years.
and its kind of running sweet-as again (except for the cold start being not up to what it used to be).
the thing about having no vac retard line, which i'm speculating for a 49 state car,
(and those throttle bodies are out there, with the right part # on them) is maybe the enrichment mix is tweaked on the ECU. its another area i have to go in and teach myself about. i've never had to touch the car in those areas, nor do i necessarily want to,
but i have to read the factory manual and get my head around how you can tweak the ECU. or even the AFM. other members here who have been fooling around actively with their 1.8s would really know this stuff.
i guess what i am saying is, cold the ECU definitely does adjust the fuel enrichment.
and that would be tuned or in synch with the vac retard scenario.
if you don't have vac retard (as maybe a true 49 state car is), maybe they tweaked an adjustment on the ECU from the factory. but i don't know. thats my next bit of reading.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.