Colored hoses, Are they still available? Or has anyone tried dying a hose? Options

[StarBear]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) Onward!

[wonkipop]

something not in discussion so far is the 914/6.

in 1970 theres two fuel systems in 914s.

EFI as per vw in the 4.

2 large 3 barrel carburettors with 6 float bowls, or is it two large float bowls one in each carb?, in the 6 (as with most 911s, a few ran k jet or MFI, but a lot ran carbs - even in USA?).

as an aside - by 73/74 the 911 had gone over completely to fuel injection in the usa?

6 bowls/2 large bowls is a very large vapour load on hot shutdown, (heat soak phase).
it would track back to the can through the suction line.

thinking if:

a) there were two systems plumbed in early cars from (69)70 to 72/73?
or
b) porsche plumbed 4s and 6s the same way but designed the system for the 6.

its the one thing that is a tangible difference between porsches and the vw porsches (4s).

porsche plumbing of the evap system in the opposite manner would make sense to me then. vapor load from the massive carb setup would be significant enough to plumb the can so that the full length of the carbon contents could absorb vapors after shutdown before full saturation and vapor leaked out the fan hose at the opposite end located near or adjacent to the tank vapor line (with still some carbon separating those two).

i found other material in my files from independent publisher shop manuals that indicates vw plumbing for 914s. cypress manual 1986 and carbooks manual 1972.
probably means nothing. could also be a tech research error.

one way you could verify it with early cars since the lines disappear into the sills and emerge at either end in the front boot (trunk) and engine bay would be to pull them off and do a blow test to see which is which?

its easy to track the lines in a 74-on car - all fully visible in engine bay.

with early cars its a little harder to know for sure which hose was what at either end - and were they the same in a 4 or a 6 when they popped out at either end.

has anyone ever done that - verified the plumbing on both an early 4 or 6 matches the pre 74 emissions warranty and porsche evap layout?

its all academic - the system will still work either way as SB says. the vapors are entering a can full of charcoal and coming out of it again. i think one set up purges more efficiently than the other. originality and preservation are another matter.

[wonkipop]

i took a look at the can in my 74 1.8 yesterday.
its got two part #s.

the body is 113 201 813 B and includes the vapor nipple and the bigger tube.

the clip on end is 113 201 823 A.

both are VW superbeetle parts (113 prefix).

lots of other part nos associated with cans are listed on old charts in that number range.
modular things that could be built up off varying bodies and end pieces?

the clip on end piece on mine has a nipple moulded in to that as well but its sealed nipple with a solid end. maybe for some applications they snipped the sealed end off and plugged a hose in.

[JeffBowlsby]

2 of the plastic cans in my inventory from 1974 2.0Ls have those same numbers and as pops describes.

Oddly, the factory parts book lists the metal can 73-earlier, as 113.201.801A and for the 74+ cars 171.201.801

Wonder what these cans look like and if they are different in any way from the ones documented.

[wonkipop]

its all pretty weird mr b.

apologies about all this.
i did not mean to download so much from my files.
but......you are responsible for this because when i was renewing my hoses last year i consulted your diagrams as i regard your website as a font of reliable info.

and i still do.

its just that i got very confused the further i went into it at the time until i worked it out for myself - as my lines to the can were the opposite of your diagram and i was 99% sure mine were unmolested to begin with.

this material is just a downloading of what i found out a year ago to satisfy myself i was correct to duplicate what i had.

if you really want to go further into this check out a 912E.
but i would advise against going too far down the rabbit hole.
the former 914 2.0 with L jet is plumbed up to the can the same as my car and SB's.

but i don't think all this should throw off the plumbing for 70-73 (and some way into 74?).
i reckon you are correct about that.

[wonkipop]

a couple of guys have pulled the earlier metal cans apart on the samba forum.

go here.

https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic...asc&start=0

however the guy admits his photo of interior parts may not be laid out in the order they go in on the inside.

it is kind of clear from another post, done by a guy who just drills a hole in one end of the can to empty it (the end with the two lines) that there is a stack of perforated metal screens hard against this end.

between the two sets of information you can infer there are three layers, two perf screens and a filter layer sandwiched between hard against the end with the vapor line. there is a small hole in each of these to let the vapor line pass through. the vapor line has a pinched end and is almost closed over, but it can admit fumes. i guess it is pinched to stop charcoal getting squeezed down it and blocking it?

unlike later plastic cans, the metal can vapor line extends into the interior of the can.
the bigger port for the larger hose at that end stops at the surface of the can behind the filter and perforated metal screens. (this matches how the can is drawn in most of the emission system schematics).

thats the opposite of the plastic ones. the vapor line stops at the surface of the can and has a filter in front of it and the larger port extends in to be surrounded by charcoal.

at the other end is metal mesh screen and two layers of filter material. one is a fine screen the other is a coarse screen - looks like it might be steel wool. this compresses down on the charcoal using two smaller springs and not a single bigger spring as per the later plastic ones. essentially though in design its the same as the plastic cans.

the metal can uses more components and material.

the plastic version has fewer internal components and is simplified = less cost.

both designs have a "plenum" chamber at one end created by the spring or springs and which also compresses the charcoal. that chamber only has one large port feed in both.

never seen a metal can in the flesh. maybe it just has the one part # because its not meant to be disassembled.

the plastic can theoretically is designed to be serviceable. the plastic securing tabs in the end piece can break when you take them apart. perhaps the separate part # on that is so that dealers servicing the can (refilling charcoal) could put a new replacement end on if they broke the tabs on the original disassembling. could also be just for variations on the theme using the standard body - the later kombi plastic can has an L shaped entry port to clip the hose on rather than the straight port thats on the 914.

----------

VW part # 171 201 801 is for a golf (or rabbit in usa?).

its closer to a cylinder rather than the flattened can in the 914s.
its got the three port arrangement. two at one end, one at the other.

this looks to me like a one piece unit again not intended to be serviced. cheaper to replace whole unit than labor costs of taking it apart?

[bbrock]

I pulled apart my metal canister and replaced the charcoal. DO NOT follow the procedure on Samba of the guy who drills the hole in. I did that. Did not work and just made more work for myself and a hole in the can that didn't need to be there. Here's everything you wanted to know about the guts of the metal canister and how to put it back together.

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?s=&...t&p=2807286

Edited to add pic of the guts so people don't have to click the link to see.

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-20845-1587609987_thumb.jpg)

[JeffBowlsby]

113.201.801A 69-73 (into early 1974) 914

[wonkipop]

this is interesting mr. b.
was in my files, a 2.0 L 4 engine that was for sale in aus a couple of years back.
i'd put the pics away in archive file.

you would be able to confirm hose layout - and other 2.0 4 owners.
the only 2.0 i ever saw was a euro spec without the evap emis. equipment.
but it looks original to me?

must be a late 74 given the can location next to battery?

seems to say a 2.0 L 4 is plumbed opposite to a 1.8 L 4 if its how a 2.0 is originally plumbed.
the aircleaner line comes off the end of the can in these pics opposite vapor line and fan bleed hose.

[wonkipop]

I pulled apart my metal canister and replaced the charcoal. DO NOT follow the procedure on Samba of the guy who drills the hole in. I did that. Did not work and just made more work for myself and a hole in the can that didn't need to be there. Here's everything you wanted to know about the guts of the metal canister and how to put it back together.

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?s=&...t&p=2807286

thanks bbrock. great photos. accurate layout of the guts. pretty much how i thought it went.

i'll be leaving mine alone i think. i have the plastic one. it was a bit smelly after 16 years of standing. had a 1/4 of a tank of gas infecting it that whole time. but its getting better more i use the car. initially i was getting gas smell after one day of not using. now i am out to 4 days.

a guy on the samba site had taken a very careful set of photos of the layout of the guts of the plastic can which i downloaded for reference.

[bbrock]

i'll be leaving mine alone i think. i have the plastic one. it was a bit smelly after 16 years of standing. had a 1/4 of a tank of gas infecting it that whole time. but its getting better more i use the car. initially i was getting gas smell after one day of not using. now i am out to 4 days.

a guy on the samba site had taken a very careful set of photos of the layout of the guts of the plastic can which i downloaded for reference.

Ian Karr made a nice video on how to replace charcoal in the plastic canister. You don't have to be a masochist to attempt it like you do with the metal can.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C06XJgLhIc

[StarBear]

i'll be leaving mine alone i think. i have the plastic one. it was a bit smelly after 16 years of standing. had a 1/4 of a tank of gas infecting it that whole time. but its getting better more i use the car. initially i was getting gas smell after one day of not using. now i am out to 4 days.

a guy on the samba site had taken a very careful set of photos of the layout of the guts of the plastic can which i downloaded for reference.

Ian Karr made a nice video on how to replace charcoal in the plastic canister. You don't have to be a masochist to attempt it like you do with the metal can.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C06XJgLhIc

yes, this is what I used to do mine a few months ago. Easy and fast - guess it needed it after 46 years. Got filler material from local fish aquatic store; more than enough for like $8 or so. Now driving fume-free! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

[Mark Henry]

Is the hose sizes correct in the pic below, are they measured OD or ID?
I'm trying to figure out what size and how much hose to buy for three '74 djet systems.

Thanks (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

edit dang I thought this was the Djet Diagram, but it's 1.8 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-10753-1611167954.jpg)

[StarBear]

Is the hose sizes correct in the pic below, are they measured OD or ID?
I'm trying to figure out what size and how much hose to buy for three '74 djet systems.

Thanks (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

edit dang I thought this was the Djet Diagram, but it's 1.8 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-10753-1611167954.jpg)

Yes, O.D. But somewhat approximate - the 4mm lines are actually 4.5mm OD. I’ve updated the figure (see above in thread). Can’t say these are definitive or factory - just what’s on mine.

[JeffBowlsby]

Here you go Mark, if you choose to use my hose diagram:

[Mark Henry]

Excellent!
Thank you Jeff I have four 2.0 builds to get hose for and two of them are LE's.

[StarBear]

@wonkipop - getting more info. Do you know the approx build date of yours (or last four vin numbers. The difference may be a mid- year change.

[wonkipop]

@wonkipop - getting more info. Do you know the approx build date of yours (or last four vin numbers. The difference may be a mid- year change.

VINs up on the record list here.

the karmann number is -
0459543 on stamp in the rear trunk
0459543 on the door plate.

think this is right, worked it out once before.
#43, Jan 25th, 74 (a friday car - hopefully wasn't a boozy lunch (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer.gif) ).

[StarBear]

Ok; here’s the best guesstimate. Counterflow hoses until mid year, then straight thru hoses after that. Or something else.... Still believe the counter flow arrangement would perform the desired capture/release function better, though with a bit more pressure drop.

[wonkipop]

here is my view.

the 914 is an argument between porsche and vw.
from the get go.

short version -
no one ever knew who had a big hand in styling it. until recently. why?
A. Piech had a big hand in engineering it (i think that is generally accepted and thank god because its brilliant in engineering terms --- BRILLIANT), and in family terms he was in a head butt with F A Porsche in the 1960s. A P had tickets on himself back then - and history has proved why he had those tickets on himself. he was up against the owners son. the son v the cousin. in the end you could say Piech won - but that was at the end of their lives.
On top of that the old dad got screwed in a deal with the incoming VW pres. etc.
all shrouded in mystery until recently because for many years the story could never be told because that would mean reciting a family business deal over the dinner table with Nordoff married to one of the sisters etc that went wrong when he died prematurely.
The poor old 914 is shrouded in family tangles right when its ready to come out.

in short its a car produced with a gentleman's agreement that gets launched over an argument.

the way you resolve an argument is you go.......
you do it your way with your cars and we do it our way with our cars.
and they just split it when it came to emissions set up?
amongst many other agreed compromises.......because its kind of semi-hostile.

VW did it their way in the 4s that came out of the karmann factory in osnabruck from the get go?
thats my "controversial" statement.
and porsche did it their way with the 6s, which were plumbed up at their factory in stuttgart.

even the owners manuals are interesting - they are printed by porsche and not by vw. how reliable is the information in them. are they transmitting info correctly. though we do know that it changes in the emissions warranty from 73 to 74.
and i would not be so quick to dismiss that as a misprint.
because porsche are always in charge of printing the owners manual.
so its going to have their version?
until about the time they change their version?

but the 2.0 L 4s might have been under porsche control. the engine was developed after all by porsche, even though it was a VW basis. i can see evidence they are plumbed the porsche way.

its easy to prove how the 74 1.8s were plumbed when the can was in the engine bay.
i have an original car and i know its right.
and it corresponds to other cars. including yours starbear. and the one sitting around in dr. 914s collection and numerous others.

what i would want to see is a rigorous proof of exactly how the earlier 1.7s and 1.8s are plumbed with the front can. my money is on the VW way. its a hunch. you have to follow the hoses through to the front of the car. and you need an original car to do it with.

history is interesting.

i'm going with the idea that porsche wanted it one way and vw the other.
the big hint is in how 911s were plumbed early on. opposite to VW.


who knows which version actually works the best.
but it is interesting that porsche give up on their version with the 911 and go VW.
whereas VW in all their cars never change their tune.
it could be scientific.
or it could just be german pig headeness?
or neither of them were actually right and the fan blown can was just not such a great idea anyway?