Eric Hysteric wrote:
After removing the airfilterhousing i discovered two things, that irritate me.
1. connector without without a connected cable
2. some vacuum unit(?) without a hose
Do you know what it is?
After removing the airfilterhousing i discovered two things, that irritate me.
1. connector without without a connected cable
2. some vacuum unit(?) without a hose
Do you know what it is?
I wouldn't worry about the loose wire connector. It's common to find unused connections in OEM wiring harnesses. (The same concern/issue was discussed recently this thread.)
Manufacturers, including Dodge, use a single wiring harness for a variety of engine and vehicle configurations, to simplify manufacturing and reduce costs. Depending on the particular vehicle and engine equipment, some connectors are simply not used. (For example, on vehicles where the radio is an option, the radio power connector is left unused and loose in the dash if the buyer chose to forgo that option.)
Where your connector is located, close to the vacuum choke pull-off, I'd say it's probably for the electric choke heater used on some engine configurations. (Here is a general purpose article on carburetor choke systems.)
The canister with the missing hose is probably part of the smog equipment, disconnected at some point after the vehicle left the dealership. There's a part number partially visible in your picture. If you can provide that number, I (or others with an OEM parts catalog) may be able to identify what it is.)
Off the top of my head, without more information, I'd say it's probably part of a fuel vapor recovery system.
Both of these are a PITA in places that require OEM configurations to pass smog inspections. In the case of the loose wire connections, the inspector has to establish it wasn't part of the original OEM configuration for that engine/vehicle.
'Disconnected' smog equipment (if that's what the canister is) is even more difficult/annoying/frustrating to deal with because it often involves missing vacuum hoses. (Personally, I find bringing vacuum systems back to 'correct' OEM configuration more frustrating than dealing with electrical issues.)
You mentioned possibly converting your motorhome from gasoline to LPG (propane) fuel. This makes sense because LPG is a 'cleaner' fuel and the EU is big on that. As a result, LPG refueling facilities are more common in Europe than in North America.
Unfortunately, LPG conversion is illegal in some places in the U.S. because it's not an OEM configuration. Many places with stringent smog inspections do not allow anything other than OEM configuration, even if the alternatives are cleaner and produce less emissions.
Been there, done that. After I rebuilt, adjusted, and tuned the engine in my '80 Ford Bronco, it was tested on a emissions detection machine. For comparison, a new automobile, with only a few thousand miles on it, was also tested. Much to the surprise of the people conducting the tests, my carburetor engine was putting out less emissions than the computerized EFI engine in the new car.
(If the local government hadn't done away with vehicle emissions testing, I wouldn't have been able to register my Bronco because of some of the things I'd done to make it cleaner and more efficient.)
1970 Explorer Class A on a 1969 Dodge M300 chassis with 318 cu. in. (split year)
1972 Executive Class A on a Dodge M375 chassis with 413 cu. in.
1973 Explorer Class A on a Dodge RM350 (R4) chassis with 318 engine & tranny from 1970 Explorer Class A
Griff, your carburator engine had less emissions than a EFI engine in all speed range? Never heard about it. I think that it possible but it's a complicated adjustment and the EFI can do it better and cheaper, even when the engine is cold. I admire your talent to prove, that old technology can do it as good as high tech EFI.
I checked the another fotos in my telephone.
I think, the part number on the vacuumthing is 3738591 and thanks for the anserws about the oem wire and the smog equipment.
'79 Dodge Sportsman 5.9 LA 360 TEC Campmate
Eric Hysteric wrote:
Griff, your carburator engine had less emissions than a EFI engine in all speed range? Never heard about it. I think that it possible but it's a complicated adjustment and the EFI can do it better and cheaper, even when the engine is cold. I admire your talent to prove, that old technology can do it as good as high tech EFI.
Griff, your carburator engine had less emissions than a EFI engine in all speed range? Never heard about it. I think that it possible but it's a complicated adjustment and the EFI can do it better and cheaper, even when the engine is cold. I admire your talent to prove, that old technology can do it as good as high tech EFI.
Yes. The installation, adjustment, and tuning of the rebuilt engine was done in the Ft. Wainwright (U.S. Army) Auto Skills Center (aka auto hobby shop).
The carburetor was also rebuilt, adjusted, and tuned. Likewise, the ignition system had new or tested-good components.
We spent around six hours tweaking everything using a very expensive computerized diagnostic machine. (The shop staff got 'hooked' on the project and went 'above and beyond' ... because they had gotten unusually involved, they didn't charge me normal fees for using the machine.)
The next day we spent around four hours testing the Bronco and the nearly new car, running identical tests over and over ago. We considered a wide range of variables, in an effort to make the tests as equal as possible. The measurements were taken over a range of RPMS, from idle to almost redline, as well as cold and hot starts. (We even stalled the engines while measuring, to see if extreme load caused any changes in the test results we were getting.)
The staff actually took longer than I'd planned because they were determined to find a case where the EFI car was better than the Bronco. They finally gave up because the Bronco kept coming out ahead, each and every time. (Actually, I was surprised, because I was sure the EFI car would be better, at least in some cases.)
The guy who owned the car was so upset he challenged me to a mileage (MPG) test over the same course and speed, with independent observers in each vehicle. (Yes, things had started to get out-of-hand.) He finally threw up his hands in disgust ... the Bronco get 20 percent better fuel mileage than his car. (It also increased his annoyance because the Bronco's engine was around 40 percent larger than his engine.)
Bear in mind this was effectively a new vehicle 'under the hood.' Likewise, it was adjusted and tuned using a sophisticated analysis machine. (Things probably would have been different if we'd tuned it to published factory specifications.)
Furthermore, things would have been significantly different over time, if the Bronco was subjected to the typical maintenance neglect.
It's not so much the EFI as the on-the-fly, microsecond by microsecond adjustments made by the computer that makes newer vehicles, on average, come out ahead.
And, ALL comparisons go out the window when you add various driving styles into the mix. (The 'loose nut behind the wheel' is the biggest factor.)
Magnificent!
Eric Hysteric wrote:
I think, the part number on the vacuumthing is 3738591 and thanks for the anserws about the oem wire and the smog equipment.
I think, the part number on the vacuumthing is 3738591 and thanks for the anserws about the oem wire and the smog equipment.
I came up with EGR vacuum solenoid for that part number. (I'd double check, across multiple sources, because I'm not entirely confident of the answer I got ... or the source.)
If that's what it is, I'd definitely look into getting it reconnected properly. EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) is an early form of 'smog' reduction. That's precisely why people tend to disconnect or disable EGR systems, on the assumption it has an adverse impact on performance. (The notorious Lean Burn system, along with a few other 'innovations,' went a long ways towards establishing that assumption.)
The opposite is true. A disabled or malfunctioning EGR system will decrease engine performance, especially in terms of fuel economy. (There may be other factors involved but bringing the EGR back online does tend to improve fuel economy.)
All of this may go out the window if you do the LPG conversion. (LPG conversion is 'new ground' for me so I can't be certain.)
And ... you're more than welcome for the answers.
Eric Hysteric wrote:
I would bet 1.000 dollar, that it's impossible to get better emissions in all range with a carburator engine than a modern EFI engine with a "shitload" of sensors and mapings.
Magnificent!
I would bet 1.000 dollar, that it's impossible to get better emissions in all range with a carburator engine than a modern EFI engine with a "shitload" of sensors and mapings.
Magnificent!
Let's be perfectly clear -- reduced emissions is not within the scope of my motivations. Instead, my motivation is firmly rooted in economics.
1. Gasoline is expensive and I don't want to spend any more on it than absolutely necessary.
2. Motor vehicles are a major expense so I want mine to last as long as possible.
So, reduced emissions is merely an indicator of efficient operation and fuel consumption. (Arguably, reduced emissions equals better use of the fuel consumed.)
As a scientific evaluation, the competition between my Bronco and a 'new' car was flawed.
The engine in my Bronco was new, with completely refurbished ignition and fuel/air delivery systems. Likewise, we'd put extensive effort, bordering on NASCAR pre-race preparations, into adjusting and tuning the engine.
The car was 'straight off the streets' with several thousand miles on it. Furthermore, it had 'suffered' routine minimal maintenance, typical of most vehicles on the road.
So, the 'competition' wasn't really fair.
Subsequent to the competition, the car's owner did, or had done, many of the things I'd done to the Bronco. Some of the routine things were oil change, new oil and air filter, new sparkplugs with proper gap, and new distributor cap and rotor. He also had the injectors cleaned, using special solvent and equipment rather than the common gas tank injector cleaner additive. Finally, he had the engine adjusted and tuned on the same diagnostic machine we'd used on my Bronco.
The result was a notable reduction in emissions and improvement in fuel economy.
He actually tracked me down and proposed re-running the competition. I declined, telling him what he'd done would probably mean his car would beat my Bronco.
For example, I tend to advance the timing a few degree more than factory specifications, for better fuel economy. This tends to be ineffective in computerized vehicles because the computer typically readjusts the timing back to factory specifications.
Advancing the timing leads to earlier ignition during the compression stroke, resulting in a more complete 'burn' and 'squeezing' every bit of energy out of the fuel used. Advancing the timing means 'riding a razor edge.' There's more of a tendency to ping and knock under extreme loads and acceleration. (Going too far results in unacceptable pre-ignition and possible engine damage.)
Also worth noting is I stayed with stock configuration and OEM-type components when I rebuilt the Bronco. A large part of the improvements in emissions and economy was an effectively new engine. (The engine was a 'vanilla' rebuild, done by a machinist with a stellar reputation.) The remainder of the improvement was careful installation and a lot of small things I did, along with the use of a sophisticated diagnostics machine to 'dial in' the engine.
I expected, and did experience, some reduction in the improvements over time and use. Keeping it reasonably close to initial performance require regular careful maintenance.
I'm going 'all in' on MLP (My 'Little' Project). One of the goals of MLP is 20+ highway MPG in a Class A motorhome. (Other primary goals are reliability and durability.)
I have considered converting MLP to a throttle body injection (TBI) fuel system, with associated computer, sensors, and mechanisms. I not sure if that would be cost effective (and may be counter-productive), given I have the means and ability to squeeze maximum efficiency out of a non-computerized engine.
Important: My particular driving style, especially in large trucks, is a very significant contributor to better fuel economy.
Finally, I believe it's possible, but relatively expensive, to tweak computerized engines. There are tools and products available for reprogramming vehicle computers. These are marketed primary to people desiring higher performance, in terms of horsepower, acceleration, and so forth. It may be possible to use these to reprogram for better fuel economy.
Ignition coils have a distinct polarity, in terms of positive and negative circuit connections. I cannot count the numbers times I've traced the cause of ignition issues and poor performance to reversed connections on the coil.
Your coil should look like this:
![[image]](http://www.riffgan.com/misc/rv_net_stuff/0B1BACE-1.jpg)
The black plastic 'tower' in the top center is for the high tension lead (also called high voltage wire) between the coil and center of the distributor cap. The two metallic studs and nuts are the primary wire terminals.
One primary terminal is labelled plus (+) and the other is labelled minus (-), using black-on-black raised symbols molded onto the cap. These symbols can be difficult to see, due to dirt, grease, viewing angle, and amount of available light. The plus symbol is clearly visible next to the lower left primary terminal in the following picture. You can see the minus symbol, next to the upper right primary terminal, if you look carefully.
![[image]](http://www.riffgan.com/misc/rv_net_stuff/coil2.jpg)
Reversing coil primary connections will not affect the coil or ICM (or points if your engine's that old). It WILL affect spark plug operation and efficiency, leading to significantly reduced engine performance.
On Dodge OEM ignition systems, the wire from one end of the ballast resistor should be connected to the coil's positive (+) terminal. The coil's negative (-) terminal should be connected to the appropriate terminal on the ICM.
Refer to previously posted or linked-to wiring diagrams for which is the appropriate ICM terminal. I did not try to describe which terminal because of the potential for confusion. (A picture/diagram is better in any case.) I also did not specify wire color because there in no industry-wide standard for color-coding wires. Manufacturers tend to have internal color-coding systems but even those can very between different models and from year to year. Furthermore, a replacement ICM pigtail may not follow the original color coding.
BTW, I specifically mention exactly where the coil-to-distributor lead goes because I ran across a case where someone had connected one spark plug wire to the center tower in the distributor cap and connected the coil lead to the empty outer tower. (This was a definite 'put the tools down and back slowly away from the vehicle' individual ... he wound up giving the car to me after he had totally and hopelessly messed it up.)
TreeSeeker wrote:
Thanks Griff, good info and stories. We should all probably be carrying a spare coil too.
Thanks Griff, good info and stories. We should all probably be carrying a spare coil too.
You are also welcome.
You can carry a spare coil, if you want, but I don't think it's really necessary. Coils very rarely, if ever, fail. They're actually very simple devices electrically and have no mechanical components. Just about the only problems I've ever seen with them is switched primary terminal connections. (Okay, I did see one case involving an external short to ground ... caused by an extreme buildup of oily dirt/dust trapping enough moisture to create the short circuit.)
Inside a coil's 'can' is two concentric coils of wire, sealed in epoxy. Just about the only way to damage one is subject it to extreme heat, in the range of 400 or more degrees F.
A lot of my knowledge comes from observing other people's (self-induced) problems and difficulties. Those observations are the source of most of my stories. My own misadventures tend to be infrequent, which is fortunate because they also tend to be notably spectacular.