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

[wonkipop]

i'll be dropping the information we have gathered over Dec 2021 in with a set of posts.

the material was prompted by mr b ( @JeffBowlsby ) who observed that for the 74 MY there was an EC-A and an EC-B engine. mr b's thought was that the EC-A was a 49 states car and and EC-B was a californian car for emissions.

mr b's view was rational and reasoned. 73 EA engines are 49 states. 73 EB engines are california. 75 engines are documented in factory literature as EC-a (49 states) and EC-b (california). the logic should follow?

BUT

as per the mystery of the 914, the truth about 74 1.8s turns out stranger than fiction (or common sense?).

the material is not necessary to running a 1.8 or having fun with a 14. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

its for historical purposes and as information to 74 1.8 owners to assist with restoration if they want it.

[JeffBowlsby]

Wonk,

You deserve an award for this charcoal can research, it’s well documented and clearly presented.

Can’t speak for others but changing the airflow direction thru the can, especially knowing how the can is actually constructed without the long internal supply tube as depicted in the booklets basically creates a short circuit nearly eliminating the intent and actual functional efficiency of the system.

Don’t understand the factory logic for the change. What did they know that is not obvious to us? Did they not see the internal plumbing within the can? I’m inclined to keep with the early air hose routing scheme because it seems like the best technical solution.

[wonkipop]

Wonk,

You deserve an award for this charcoal can research, it’s well documented and clearly presented.

Can’t speak for others but changing the airflow direction thru the can, especially knowing how the can is actually constructed without the long internal supply tube as depicted in the booklets basically creates a short circuit nearly eliminating the intent and actual functional efficiency of the system.

Don’t understand the factory logic for the change. What did they know that is not obvious to us? Did they not see the internal plumbing within the can? I’m inclined to keep with the early air hose routing scheme because it seems like the best technical solution.

thanks mr b.

i'm not even going to attempt to explain the function of the cans.

only thing i can think of is- something to do with carbs when it comes to why porsche did it the way they did starting in 1970, using the exact same components as VW.
........don't ask me to explain why. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)
i'm just a disinterested historian with an interest in my 1.8 L jet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)