Charvoal vapor cannister

[HWYCRZR]

I 'assume' there's a reason you want the canister to function? I began buying new MoPars in 1970, along with several friends and the first thing that happened when we got home from the dealer was the removal and disposal of that canister. Along with capping off the suction port that pulled from it and routing the Fuel Tank vent correctly.

Some of us have the disease of trying to put things back the way the engineers and manufacturing intended. (Not dissing anyone as this statement resembles me).
In my case it’s more about the challenge of factory intent vs basic functionality. Not saying the factory and engineers were always right as I work with a lot of engineers and know they are not perfect and need to be reminded of practicality from time to time.
I like the challenge of learning why they did something and then try to re create it.

 

[CBODY67]

The larger hoses are for the collection of the vapors from the carb float bowl, with the vent lines from the fuel tank (which came later on many models) going into the can for absorption/holding by the charcoal granules. The vapors are recycled by the smaller vac lines into the carb in a somewhat modulated fashion. No recycling at idle, but much more at cruise, by design. Which is where the vac bias comes into play. In the earlier-mid-1970s, there was also a coolant temp function introduced to keep recycling from happening until the coolant was above a certain temp.

I understand the orientations many had in those earlier times to remove all of that "power robbing emissions hardware", but the carbon can absorbed no horsepower or really caused the fuel mixtures to riched-up with their removal. Unlike the more-popular-to-remove AIR pumps and such.

Just some thoughts and observations,
CBODY67

 

[CBODY67]

The "engineers' challenge" was not only to successfully address the "problem", but to also do it at a price point that the Accountants will approve.

I read that in the earlier days of emission controls, Chrysler took the "engine modification" approach, which brought us their earlier Clean Air Package for CA. Leaner carb calibrations, some vac-controlled switching valves, higher base idle speeds, etc., all of which cost very little to do. GM allegedly tried that with poor results. Which also allegedly derw the ire of the GM accountants as GM adopted the exhaust air induction hardware (to continue the burn of exhast gasses into the exhaust manifolds) at a cost of about $50.00/engine. Reading that, I smiled and laughed. Reason for Chrysler being able to get by with "modifications"? This was doable for Chrysler because of their "better combustion chamber design", which made me smile even more . . . not really knowing how much the Chrysler direction could cause driveability issues as the systems aged. BTAIM

The other side of the Chrysler direction is that some well-placed BBs and a different OEM-spec carb could maintain the OEM look of things much better than pipe plugs in the exhaust manifold ports (plugging the removed AIR manifolds). in TX, we got the GM and Ford AIR systems, but no Chrysler CAP engines . . . unless somebody from those places moved here, back then.

CBODY67

 

[thethee]

Some of us have the disease of trying to put things back the way the engineers and manufacturing intended. (Not dissing anyone as this statement resembles me).
In my case it’s more about the challenge of factory intent vs basic functionality. Not saying the factory and engineers were always right as I work with a lot of engineers and know they are not perfect and need to be reminded of practicality from time to time.
I like the challenge of learning why they did something and then try to re create it.

^^ This!

There is little I enjoy more than taking apart something that's broken, trying to understand how it used to work, and getting it to work again.

Besides, the purge port on the cannister is connected to ported vacuum so I see no reason to remove it entirely.