AFM to TB boot no port

[Captain Obvious]

I always thought that spring was to prevent kinking.

Why not just put on a ported boot and plug the hole. That's what I did. The OCD simply won't let you have that unused nipple sticking up in plain view?

[Zed Head]

It could be your starter fluid access port.

[gwri8]

The ported boots are still available new from various places.  If you are looking for a used ported one,  I have a couple.  PM me if you are interested.

Edited August 29, 2016 by gwri8

[Dave WM]

10 hours ago, Captain Obvious said:

I always thought that spring was to prevent kinking.

Why not just put on a ported boot and plug the hole. That's what I did. The OCD simply won't let you have that unused nipple sticking up in plain view?

no I was ready to give in on the ported boot with a plug until I found out it was a safety thing (I currently do NOT have the flame arrester). so then I figured if I can only get new ported boots may as well go all in and do the mod to use it.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Dave WM

[Dave WM]

9 hours ago, gwri8 said:

The ported boots are still available new from various places.  If you are looking for a used ported one,  I have a couple.  PM me if you are interested.

yep, I am thinking about it, but my old unported boot with the spring inside is really very good. It was just the kink that was bothering me.

I will prob end up buying a new ported eventually to make use of my later model plumbing I was able to get. For now I will be looking for that flame arrester.

[Captain Obvious]

I haven't read the TSB for the 78 reroute, but I thought the ported boot was a "car won't idle correctly" thing, not a fire safety thing.

If the AAR gunks up with condensation from impurity carrying blow-by gasses it might stick get sticky and not operate properly resulting in improper idling conditions. The 78 style reroute of the hoses allows the AAR to pull from further upstream than the PCV line so the air that it pulls from should be cleaner.

Both the 78 style and the earlier routing should have the spark arrester in the PCV hosing (which IS a fire thing).

I think the "AAR fire" thing was Blue's theory that (however improbable) a gunked up AAR could potentially cause an engine fire if that flammable gunk were paired with an electrical fault inside the AAR resulting in an ignition source.

ZedHead, Do you know if that TSB posted anywhere? Would be an interesting read.

[240260280z]

Correct.  Having dissected and AAR and looking at the heating element and oily goo along with the flame arrestor, there is some risk to be noted... but not enough to warrant a TSB

[Zed Head]

3 hours ago, Captain Obvious said:

ZedHead, Do you know if that TSB posted anywhere? Would be an interesting read.

Humble wrote about a half-page on it with lots of detail but never gave any Bulletin numbers.  Haven't found any documents.  Apparently it was an actual recall with repair kits distributed to the dealers, and stickers to place under the hood when done.  My 76 had the old hose routing and no sticker.

[Captain Obvious]

I think I've got a copy of that around here somewhere. Everyone always talks about it and I've never read it. Maybe I should someday...

[Dave WM]

well if any of you have a line on that flame arrestor let me know. going to start my hunt of one soon.

[Zed Head]

It's essentially just a piece of steel wool, but more prickly and stiff.  I replaced my PCV hose with a piece of water hose 60,000 miles ago.  No arrestor and the hose is fine. I like to live on the edge though.

 I still have the old hose, hard as wood, with the arrestor inside it.  

[Zed Head]

Almost forgot that I had gone through your search before, myself.  Part #12.  I was wrong above, it's not steel wool, it's more like a piece of gun barrel brush.  Discontinued at Courtesy.  Spelled with an "e" also.

http://www.carpartsmanual.com/datsun/Z-1969-1978/engine-280z/emission-control-device/12

http://www.courtesyparts.com/oe-nissan/15296n4200