Is this the Auto decel valve for a '73 412?

MGVWfan · Post by **MGVWfan** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:41 pm

Ray's been writing on and off about deceleration valves on T4's, I've seen references to a manual trans version (vacuum controlled), and an AT version (solenoid operated, switch on AT operated by main AT pressure)...is this the AT version?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... egory=6763

albert · Post by **albert** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:59 pm

allo mg , i d,t have the diagram on me for now , but this valve is only for 412-1974 at. ??? and if she play on and of for short périod , i have same model on my dailay job at the dozen but for to make certain at 100% i need more information ,,,

raygreenwood · Post by **raygreenwood** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:15 pm

Albert is correct. That is for L-jet with automatic in 1974. That is the valve itself amd the solenoid. There were several other parts incolved depedning if you had EGR I think. There was another small adjustable vacume dashpot that was actually a vacuume switch that turned that solenoid offand on. So...you could either run that valve by vacuum switch...or from tranny switch. You can also simply use the decel valve from the manual. It will have to carefully plumbed and adjusted...but its no big deal. hen they changed from the round style of auxiliary air reg....the connection for the manual decel valve was no longer there. But it is easy to add.
Likewise, the elctric decel valve can be used on an early manual engine when the vacuum switch is used. Ray

MGVWfan · Post by **MGVWfan** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:35 pm

You guys are reading my mind. My '73 (originally) 1.7L 412 wagon (Auto, Federal, not California)) has nothing now, no form of decel valve, and I think it should have had one. It does have the throttle positioning diaphragm (the thing that hooks to vacuum and does...? Slows the rate of throttle closure on overrun? I can't really tell), but no EGR (that's as it should be I think), and no decel valve.

I think for the auto, the easiest retrofit is the AT switch and solenoid valve, if you can get the valve and switch.

Comments?

albert · Post by **albert** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:44 pm

if you need one for cheep price make look on the audi 5 cilinder in the year 80 to 90 on the air flow distributor

raygreenwood · Post by **raygreenwood** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:29 pm

Yes...there are even a few rabbits that used the manual decel valve. Ray

MGVWfan · Post by **MGVWfan** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:14 am

Ah! That's good info. Those I can find in my favorite junkyard, too, for cheep!

albert · Post by **albert** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 5:10 am

allo m.g. on my 412 -73 wagon m.t. (not califor.) i have only mécanic controle not électric , but électric is the best , look on rabit or golf or audi you have the swith and valve for that , on the golf it is hautside swith on the air controle (gaz cable or rod) and on audi it is vaccum micro-swith on fuile distributor with v.w. car you have différent parts for différent contry (ex. vw usa or vw call.) or vw cdn ,or europe or austr. same thing for the option (big mixing pot )

MGVWfan · Post by **MGVWfan** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:50 am

Merci Albert! I'll check next time I'm in the junkyard (not today, it's drizzling here in Clear Lake so no junkyard

).

BTW, we're going to test drive a Passat TDI wagon today. The old Voyager's going to need replacement soon, and my wife likes the Passat. Any good/bad words on the Passat or the 2.0 TDI?

raygreenwood · Post by **raygreenwood** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:12 am

All of the TDI systems are excellent. In general, I believe that European car and several others, listed the acceleration 0-60 at only 1 second slower than the gasoline Jetta 2.0L. It dumps in all of its power and torque before 1800 rpm. Thats great. No ugly diesel smell, no smoke, no clattering noise. Lots of TDI's around my area. Thy get awesome gas milage and drive about like the gasoline versions of the 4 cylinder. But...I have not driven the TDI passat. Things to think about. Its a bit larger car with TDI. That may make no difference. The passat itself...is a great vehicle. I talked my mom and dad into a totally loaded, black, GLI four motion passat in 2000. It has acres of leather, sports suspension, all wheel drive, every bell and whistle, awesome stereo, sun roof, driving lights, heated seats...list goes on. The car is great. If it drives well with the TDI...buy one. Those who have this interesting belief that fuel prices are going to come down again.....and are perusing their next SUV......I am am laughing at

Ray

MGVWfan · Post by **MGVWfan** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 am

Thanks for the info Ray.

Fuel costs (in real dollars) are lower now than in the early 80's...but the trend is up, and, over time, can go nowhere but up here in the US. I figured, for a family car to replace a minivan, sports-car-like acceleration was not really required (the 3.3L V6 Voyager had quite a bit of get-up-and-go, more than really required, and 20 mpg, less than required), so the same acceleration than the Voyager, or a bit less would be OK with us. And the space of the Passat wagon is still required, and excellent handling is, too. We'll see if it's got the get-up-and-go we need.

Too bad I can't get a 2005 412

raygreenwood · Post by **raygreenwood** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:17 pm

Yep, I realize the real dollar potential. If looked at from that direction...it does not look so bad. But the ugly realities are this....the corporate average fuel economy (cafe)...had dropped to an all time low. Like mpg less than 10 years ago. The average American made SUV owner will spend $80 to completely fill the tank. If they drive standard Dallas miles like I do (roughly 75 miles per day on a slow day....125 on high average)....thats a fill-up every 5.8 days on the low end and every 3.2 on the high end. Thats with an average fuel economy of around 11 mpg. At best...most get 16-20 on the highway. In my area alone, about 65-70% of all passenger vehicles are now SUV's. Those who tout that they have relatively economical SuV's...ie: midsize, lexus, etc....have the same rate of impact on the fuel costs for this country. Let me explain.
Eight years ago...and this is just for Dallas and around here, SUV's were a smaller portion of the average vehicles on the road. So on an average mile of cars at rush hour....disregarding actual space between vehicles, the average car length was about 16 feet. Add 7 feet between each car (I'm being nice here),,,,and the average car length is about 30 feet. Thats available space for 176 cars per mile on average. The road volumes without population increase were already barely adequate for the cars on them, to keep a 60 mph average speed. Now enter the SUV craze. the average car length of an SUV is about 21 feet. Add the 7 feet per....and you get 35 feet. Six of ten now being 4 feet longer ...and you get an average of 160 cars per mile at anytime. Couple that by 5 lanes each direction and its about 80 cars per mile...constant... you no longer have the capability of fitting on the roadway. This is not counting trucks, and odd spacing and the old lady crusing at 20. Like I said...I'm being nice. That causes traffic speedsto drop . And...they have been dropping noticably. That means all cars...no just the relatively useless SuV...have now dropped into speed zones like 45-55 mph max.....and they now have to spend longer times doing it, as commute time as inccreased. That means everything is now burning about 50% more fuel than it should be...economical or not.
There are also studies going on, to show that teh greatly increased traffic of noticably heavier vehicles in previouslt "truck" exempt areas....is rapidly dteriorating pavement. Thats more money...and most asphalt is petroleum based. More oil usage.
Lastly, I power study, that listed the total amount of petroleum neededto produce all of the metal, glass, and plastics needed for the average vehicle. Its lots of megawatts...and lots of barrels of oil. But teh average SUV...is roughly 2.5 times that of the average passenger car. More oil...

So the message of this rant....is that next time you hop in your six thousand pound SUV...to zip up to starbucks....to chew the fat, and the conversation rolls around to " I think we are in Iraq just for the oil" ...(which I happen to NOT believe...considering little of it is reaching here)....just remember that your government is doing YOUR bidding...to allow you to drive huge piles of oil wasting scrap iron.

End of rant.
Course if you haul things for business...have 4-5 kids, really do pull a boat every weekend, or regularly take the cub scouts out for a weekend....nevermind!....Carry on!....and please...by all means, use teh HOV lane to keep your economy level up. Ray

MGVWfan · Post by **MGVWfan** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 2:53 pm

BTW...did you know the Passat is a longitudinal engine design (like old time Audis), not transverse? Interesting.

We just test-drove one, and I'm really impressed. The turning circle is not to be believed, handling amazing, etc. etc.. At first I thought it's a bit slow, but then I looked at the speedometer

...it was the calibration on my butt's G-meter that was off! We were doing 70-80 mph, and my calibrated tuchas was telling me 50!

This Passat Wagon TDI is a worthy great-grandson to the 412 Variant. IMHO, VW's done good. I just wish the TD was in the rear.

albert · Post by **albert** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 5:37 pm

oh yes m.g. the vw tdi 5 cylinder is very nice , and the m.tr. is very smooth , same thing on my audi today m.t.5 very cool,but for the price ,,,ouf

albert · Post by **albert** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 5:45 pm

and in the same time go to see 411 recall ,, in 1973 ,,,you see recall on the aut.trs. for the 411-412 , if my mémory is good the recall is good for the life of the car ,, the question is ,,wath is the life of the car ,,,10-20-30 years ,,big question ?????

Shoptalkforums.com

Is this the Auto decel valve for a '73 412?

Is this the Auto decel valve for a '73 412?

decel valve

decel valve

decel valve

auto decel valve

decel valve