When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Very strange. Mine is NS800438 C00 (version for Germany), built some months before probably? It has 2x vents on PS valve cover and only the front vent (with crossover tube) on DS.
I think I'll just leave it as is if there is no clear answer to how it was delivered. The engine is working fine, nice idle etc.
My friend with a 92 gts auto told ne that his vent hoses are the same as mine, when he go back home he'll tell me his vin, that should be about 8004xx....
Passenger Side vent hoses only. I have one more hose at the right base of filler neck, i think it run under intake msnifolds and go es to the throttle valve body, or maybe is the nearest hose to the airbox . But that hose plug on the filler neck is blind:it has a screw bolted inside and the hose is use less. Don't know of it is from factory or not.
My GTS is the same; VIN ends 101
Sold new in Canada it has many ROW options but looks of a US car.
Here's a nice picture, early GTS routing on the left, later version on the right. You have hose "3a" whereas the later version runs underneath the manifold to go into the MAF boot ...
Thanks Tom, very nice illustration. Still don't get why my 92 ***438 has the "late" setup. Can't believe anyone changed a setup like that just for fun on my car. Could still be a market, or auto/manual thing I guess.
Thanks Tom, very nice illustration. Still don't get why my 92 ***438 has the "late" setup. Can't believe anyone changed a setup like that just for fun on my car. Could still be a market, or auto/manual thing I guess.
It would seem someone has tried to modify your system to the later variant but did not really understand what they were doing. There is no logical to reason to have a difference between manual and automatic models and the WSM does not show such but then I have a feeling it does not show the earlier GTS breather version that is similar to the S4 version but not identical.
I seem to remember that the service buletin that was issued told dealers to change the breather system but only if customers complained of excessive oil consumption- as in they knew full well this was going to happen but were hiding behind their catch all in the owners manual that oil consumption could be up to 1000km per litre or whatever the silly number written down was. My S4 motor typically consumed that maount when it was nigh on new and dropped to about 500km per litre after I mistakenly changed over the breather system to the later GTS configuration.
It would seem someone has tried to modify your system to the later variant but did not really understand what they were doing. There is no logical to reason to have a difference between manual and automatic models and the WSM does not show such but then I have a feeling it does not show the earlier GTS breather version that is similar to the S4 version but not identical.
Agree.
Originally Posted by FredR
I seem to remember that the service buletin that was issued told dealers to change the breather system but only if customers complained of excessive oil consumption- as in they knew full well this was going to happen but were hiding behind their catch all in the owners manual that oil consumption could be up to 1000km per litre or whatever the silly number written down was. My S4 motor typically consumed that maount when it was nigh on new and dropped to about 500km per litre after I mistakenly changed over the breather system to the later GTS configuration.
That might explain what happened at one point.
Another detail is that the fuel rail covers on my engine have (what looks to be) original holes for the hose holder clips on both sides(both clips gone on mine). Does the "old" setup have the hole on drivers side? Hard to see from the previous pics.
If you look at the pic with the crossover hose in the original post, it seems to have one hose holder clip on each fuel rail, I suppose that's what these holes are for? It also looks factory from the underside of the cover through the insulation.
All new-from-Porsche fuel rail covers have the holes for the clips. The hole-less part was superseded.
Hose set-up is - IMO - likely result - during an intake repair/refresh - of a bumbled attempt to 'upgrade', possibly due to supersession or NLA of original parts.
My early 93, serial #0063, has the early style setup and no holes in the fuel rail covers for clips. I just picked up a later set of fuel rail covers with clips and will be adding the crossover hose.
04-16-2017 | 10:44 AM
