![]() |
|
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 743
|
Help - Eliminate fuel going to the throttle body
Hello,
Anyone have any info regarding this? I searched but could not find an existing thread. I have a 74' 911 with the stock CIS. I upgraded the warm-up reg and now I need to eliminate the fuel going to the throttle body. I have been told that you can re-route the hose to connect with the return hose. I need to hear this from an experienced person who can explain or diagram this for me. Thanks in advance, Paul
__________________
If you aint breakin' it, you aint racing it hard enough! 1974 911 3.0 Euro Sahara Beige/Black |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 743
|
http://www.pelicanparts.com/911/911_Parts/1974-75/2-3-1.JPG
Here is the STOCK diagram from the parts diagram. Anyone know about this or have I heard wrong. There is some kind of upgrade or mod done and I may not be asking the right thing. Paul
__________________
If you aint breakin' it, you aint racing it hard enough! 1974 911 3.0 Euro Sahara Beige/Black |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Richmond, VA USA
Posts: 1,058
|
I guess your request was "what to do with hose #60? That hose is already connected directly to the return line, so I am quessing that your real intent is to take #20 out of the control loop. But that may not be wise.
To "remove the line", looks like you need to:: Remove #60, cap the end that connects to #54. Remove #20 Replace #53 with an appropriate fitting (since #20's banjo has been removed) That will leave you with the WUR as the sole controller of the CIS control fuel pressure. OK on the surface, but wait ... there's more! The next question is: does your WUR have a vacuum port, and have you hooked it up to the appropriate port on the throttle body? That vacuum provides the throttle compensation for the control fuel pressure that is provided by #20. This compensation provides throttle response, and CIS cars already have precious little of that. Of course, I may have assumed too much -- facts not in evidence, as they say -- and confused the issue. |
||
![]() |
|