Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Vapor cannister surprise!
| Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258877] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 07:33  |
thorndike
Messages: 406
Registered: January 2011
Location: Conifer, Colorado
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
A week or two ago I posted a picture of my vapor cannister. I knew it had to be replaced because there was a hole in the top where the vapor line connection to the carb used to be. So yesterday I crawled under the coach and attempted to loosen the clamp holding the cannister in. Unfortunately, it was so rusted and I was in an uncomfortable position that I was not making any headway. So I decided to remove the wheel well liner to allow me to access things from above. Imagine my surprise when I saw this:
 http://i.imgur.com/UIQ4Dnb.jpg
Yep, unless I am mistaken, that is another vapor cannister ready to go. It was dusty, but appears to never have had hoses connected to it. I am wondering if a PO had it installed, but the installer forgot to run the hoses.
Looks like I can return the one I bought from JimK!
Bob
Robert Peesel
1976 Royale 26'
Side Dry Bath
Conifer, Colorado
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258881 is a reply to message #258877] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 08:08  |
midlf
Messages: 2212
Registered: July 2007
Location: SE Wisc. (Palmyra)
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That is the California emissions package. It includes two carbon canisters. The hole in your lower canister is where there should be a nipple that was plugged. The bottom canister has the air filter in the bottom. The upper canister has a nipple on the bottom that connected to the center nipple on the lower canister.
It appears the hose in front of the frame in you photo is the line that goes to the carb.
If you are subject to California emissions you may have to restore the system to normal and installing JimK's canister and correctly connecting the lines would take care of that. I don't feel the lack of an air filter is a problem. If this was mine I would connect the line from the rear to the center nipple and the line from the carb to the other nipple on the top and you should be good to go.
Steve Southworth
1974 Glacier TZE064V100150 (for workin on)
1975 Transmode TZE365V100394 (parts & spares)
Palmyra WI
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258882 is a reply to message #258877] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 08:12 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
thorndike wrote on Fri, 15 August 2014 08:33A week or two ago I posted a picture of my vapor cannister. I knew it had to be replaced because there was a hole in the top where the vapor line connection to the carb used to be. So yesterday I crawled under the coach and attempted to loosen the clamp holding the cannister in. Unfortunately, it was so rusted and I was in an uncomfortable position that I was not making any headway. So I decided to remove the wheel well liner to allow me to access things from above. Imagine my surprise when I saw this:
<picture deleted to save bandwidth>
Yep, unless I am mistaken, that is another vapor cannister ready to go. It was dusty, but appears to never have had hoses connected to it. I am wondering if a PO had it installed, but the installer forgot to run the hoses.
Looks like I can return the one I bought from JimK!
Bob
Bob.
California had a rule for vapor canisters and fuel tank volumes. So, all builds for CARB area had to have two. They were installed so one vented into the other and the tail end guy was hooked to the purge line on the intake.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258883 is a reply to message #258881] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 08:20 |
thorndike
Messages: 406
Registered: January 2011
Location: Conifer, Colorado
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, lucky me!
Yes, the hose in the front of the picture goes to the carb. I've run the hoses to the unused cannister and will continue that way unless there is an issue with that. I am not in California, so I can't imagine what issues I could have.
Bob
midlf wrote on Fri, 15 August 2014 09:08That is the California emissions package. It includes two carbon canisters. The hole in your lower canister is where there should be a nipple that was plugged. The bottom canister has the air filter in the bottom. The upper canister has a nipple on the bottom that connected to the center nipple on the lower canister.
It appears the hose in front of the frame in you photo is the line that goes to the carb.
If you are subject to California emissions you may have to restore the system to normal and installing JimK's canister and correctly connecting the lines would take care of that. I don't feel the lack of an air filter is a problem. If this was mine I would connect the line from the rear to the center nipple and the line from the carb to the other nipple on the top and you should be good to go.
Robert Peesel
1976 Royale 26'
Side Dry Bath
Conifer, Colorado
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258886 is a reply to message #258883] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 08:42 |
Mr ERFisher
Messages: 7117
Registered: August 2005
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
what the "old timers" have done (but they will not tell you) is, to
- replace the liquid separator (so it works) and remove the line to the
canister, and put on a filter as high as possible in the wheel well...
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/gas-tank-hard-lines/p45975-tank-vents1-pdf-file.html
erf
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Robert Peesel wrote:
> Well, lucky me!
>
> Yes, the hose in the front of the picture goes to the carb. I've run the
> hoses to the unused cannister and will continue that way unless there is an
> issue with that. I am not in California, so I can't imagine what issues I
> could have.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> midlf wrote on Fri, 15 August 2014 09:08
>> That is the California emissions package. It includes two carbon
> canisters. The hole in your lower canister is where there should be a
> nipple
>> that was plugged. The bottom canister has the air filter in the
> bottom. The upper canister has a nipple on the bottom that connected to
> the center
>> nipple on the lower canister.
>>
>> It appears the hose in front of the frame in you photo is the line that
> goes to the carb.
>>
>> If you are subject to California emissions you may have to restore the
> system to normal and installing JimK's canister and correctly connecting
>> the lines would take care of that. I don't feel the lack of an air
> filter is a problem. If this was mine I would connect the line from the
> rear to
>> the center nipple and the line from the carb to the other nipple on the
> top and you should be good to go.
>
>
> --
> Robert Peesel
>
> 1976 Royale 26'
>
> Side Dry Bath
>
> Sterling, Va
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258892 is a reply to message #258883] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 10:21 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Robert, those dual canisters are a bit different from one another. In the
original condition, one of the canisters takes the vapor from the fuel
tank. The other one is supposed to take the vapor from the carb float bowl
vent. They also have vacuum operated valves that previous canisters did not
have. Typical California C.A.R.B. system for the late 70's. Overly complex,
poorly executed by today's standard, no computer control, pure mechanical
system. Principle sort of reminds me of the A.I.R. pump with injector lines
into the exhaust manifolds and an E.G.R. valve that introduces exhaust
gasses into the incoming fresh fuel/air mixture as a means of controlling
emissions out the tailpipe. Buncha' junk. But that was all that was
available in that era. Emission controls have come a long way since then.
They start with careful metering of fuel, and control spark timing and
meter O2 content in the exhaust constantly. Simpler, much more effective,
and does not hurt performance anywhere as much as the early stuff did. Once
our old brains come up to speed with it, it is easier to service, and does
not wear out before the engine does. Those old belt driven air pumps used
to start making noise in 5 to 10 thousand miles, the air lines in the
manifolds burned off, the egr valves stuck and burned off as well as all
the vacuum hoses split. Hate that crap. But now we can all breathe easier
today because of the effort.
Jim Hupy
Salem,Or
78 GMC ROYALE 403
On Aug 15, 2014 6:21 AM, "Robert Peesel" wrote:
> Well, lucky me!
>
> Yes, the hose in the front of the picture goes to the carb. I've run the
> hoses to the unused cannister and will continue that way unless there is an
> issue with that. I am not in California, so I can't imagine what issues I
> could have.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> midlf wrote on Fri, 15 August 2014 09:08
>> That is the California emissions package. It includes two carbon
> canisters. The hole in your lower canister is where there should be a
> nipple
>> that was plugged. The bottom canister has the air filter in the
> bottom. The upper canister has a nipple on the bottom that connected to
> the center
>> nipple on the lower canister.
>>
>> It appears the hose in front of the frame in you photo is the line that
> goes to the carb.
>>
>> If you are subject to California emissions you may have to restore the
> system to normal and installing JimK's canister and correctly connecting
>> the lines would take care of that. I don't feel the lack of an air
> filter is a problem. If this was mine I would connect the line from the
> rear to
>> the center nipple and the line from the carb to the other nipple on the
> top and you should be good to go.
>
>
> --
> Robert Peesel
>
> 1976 Royale 26'
>
> Side Dry Bath
>
> Sterling, Va
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258903 is a reply to message #258892] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 11:07 |
midlf
Messages: 2212
Registered: July 2007
Location: SE Wisc. (Palmyra)
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob - the California system I described is what is installed on my early '74. JimH has a '78 and that may be what he is describing. I suggest you check the manuals for your year to determine what it had. However I also believe the way you say you have connected it will work just fine.
Steve Southworth
1974 Glacier TZE064V100150 (for workin on)
1975 Transmode TZE365V100394 (parts & spares)
Palmyra WI
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258906 is a reply to message #258883] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 11:12 |
Rob
Messages: 651
Registered: November 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My system was the California one - but it had been re-plumbed at some point in the last 38 years and one of ports that was supposed to go to the second canister was open and very smelly/leaky.
I re-plumbed this time for non-California and I'm sure it's has less fuel smell now... There is a diagram in the service manual that shows both connection methods (page 8-2 in X7525).
Rob
Victoria, BC
76 Royale - Rear Twins/Dry Bath
On 2014-08-15, at 6:21 AM, Robert Peesel wrote:
> Well, lucky me!
>
> Yes, the hose in the front of the picture goes to the carb. I've run the hoses to the unused cannister and will continue that way unless there is an
> issue with that. I am not in California, so I can't imagine what issues I could have.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> midlf wrote on Fri, 15 August 2014 09:08
>> That is the California emissions package. It includes two carbon canisters. The hole in your lower canister is where there should be a nipple
>> that was plugged. The bottom canister has the air filter in the bottom. The upper canister has a nipple on the bottom that connected to the center
>> nipple on the lower canister.
>>
>> It appears the hose in front of the frame in you photo is the line that goes to the carb.
>>
>> If you are subject to California emissions you may have to restore the system to normal and installing JimK's canister and correctly connecting
>> the lines would take care of that. I don't feel the lack of an air filter is a problem. If this was mine I would connect the line from the rear to
>> the center nipple and the line from the carb to the other nipple on the top and you should be good to go.
>
>
> --
> Robert Peesel
>
> 1976 Royale 26'
>
> Side Dry Bath
>
> Sterling, Va
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Rob -
Victoria, BC -
76 Royale - Rear Twins/Dry Bath
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258969 is a reply to message #258877] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 20:40 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob,
It's off your intended subject, but I can't help suggesting that you have a
careful look at your frame. With the amount of rust I see in your photo, I
think you should examine the frame rails just above the #2 (main)
crossmember. There's a moisture trap there (someone may know where there
are photos) which leads to rust-through. At the very least, considering
the appearance of your frame, I'd want to spray ATF or another
rust-inhibiting liquid into the boxed sections hoping to prevent further
deterioration.
JWID,
Ken H.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Robert Peesel wrote:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/UIQ4Dnb.jpg
>
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258981 is a reply to message #258969] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 22:00 |
thorndike
Messages: 406
Registered: January 2011
Location: Conifer, Colorado
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ken,
I am concerned about the rust as well. I have been looking at the best way to protect the entire frame. If you have any suggestions, I am open to all ideas.
Bob
Ken Henderson wrote on Fri, 15 August 2014 21:40Bob,
It's off your intended subject, but I can't help suggesting that you have a
careful look at your frame. With the amount of rust I see in your photo, I
think you should examine the frame rails just above the #2 (main)
crossmember. There's a moisture trap there (someone may know where there
are photos) which leads to rust-through. At the very least, considering
the appearance of your frame, I'd want to spray ATF or another
rust-inhibiting liquid into the boxed sections hoping to prevent further
deterioration.
JWID,
Ken H.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Robert Peesel wrote:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/UIQ4Dnb.jpg
>
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Robert Peesel
1976 Royale 26'
Side Dry Bath
Conifer, Colorado
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Vapor cannister surprise! [message #258985 is a reply to message #258981] |
Fri, 15 August 2014 22:33 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob,
That's a problem I haven't yet had to contend with: My original frame
lived its life in Texas before I brought it here. The front clip I
installed a few years back had been thoroughly prepped and powder coated.
I've always heard good things about Por-15 (Google it). Or, as a cheap,
quick, easy, and reportedly effective treatment, spray it with ATF (I DO
have some of that treatment, along with 10W40, on many of the rear portions
of my frame). :-)
Others with more experience will chime in, I'm sure.
Ken H.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Robert Peesel wrote:
> Ken,
>
> I am concerned about the rust as well. I have been looking at the best
> way to protect the entire frame. If you have any suggestions, I am open to
> all ideas.
>
> Bob
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Sep 28 04:29:55 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00944 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
