DRIVEABILITY CORNER DEC 2014v2_Layout 1 11/21/14 3:35 PM Page 1
Driveability Corner
When it’s working properly, a fuel cap should protect the fuel tank
from damage due to vacuum or pressure extremes. However,
caution is required when applying vacuum to test an evap system.
I
n my October column, I addressed the
problems associated with attempting to
test for an evap system leak using pres-
sure and closing the system vent valve
with a bidirectional control. When one
Mark uses this method, the pressure tends to
Warren bleed out through the vacuum pump assembly’s
one-way valves, which are intended to hold vacu-
smwarren@motor.com um, not pressure.
To deal with this problem, I built an assembly
to apply vacuum and test pressure decay, watch-
ing the gauge and recording the vacuum decay
while monitoring the evap system pressure sen-
sor on a scan tool. This assembly gives me com-
plete control to test an evap system under all
conditions. All that’s necessary to begin testing is
to close the vent with the scan tool’s bidirectional
command and start applying vacuum. I opted to
use my five-gas analyzer to supply the vacuum.
There’s one potential problem associated with
this method. The fuel cap’s relief function is sup-
posed to protect the fuel tank by venting when
excessive pressure is present or allowing atmos-
pheric air to enter the tank when excessive vacu-
um is present. These changes in tank pressure
Fig. 1
Cover
Torsion Spring
Race
O-Ring
Housing
Gasket
16 December 2014
naturally occur due to expansion or contraction
of the fuel in the tank that takes place during
changes in ambient or fuel temperature.
Is it possible for a large vacuum hose to flow
more vacuum during purge than the cap’s relief
function can handle, causing damage to the
tank? The definitive answer is…it depends.
I have seen two vehicles whose tanks were col-
lapsed by excessive purge with the vent closed.
But don’t all gas caps have a pressure and vacu-
um release built in? See Fig. 1 below from Stant
(http://www.stant.com/index.php/english/prod-
ucts/consumer-products/caps/unique-stant-safe-
ty-features/). Visit the site for an interesting les-
son on gas cap design and safety features.
I believe all gas caps do have a pressure and
vacuum release, but will the release handle full
flow from an evap purge? Or did the vehicles
I’ve seen with collapsed tanks have a defective
cap? I can’t say for sure. Both vehicles were in
shops I was visiting.
Okay, so let’s put my 2010 Toyota Tacoma
4.0L V6 to the test and see how it responds. I
connected a manually controlled valve between
the intake manifold and the purge hose under
Retainer
Cover Plate
Pressure Spring
Seal Plate
Illustration courtesy Stant
Vacuum Valve
Vacuum Spring
DRIVEABILITY CORNER DEC 2014v2_Layout 1 11/21/14 3:35 PM Page 2

the hood, bypassing the purge control in.-Hg. The cap handled all of the air- did find a couple of specs once for a
valve. Fig. 2 on page 18 is the recording flow of 2 g/second from the evap purge. 1998 Ford Explorer. They were: pres-
of the test. I also wanted to test the total What are typical cap pressure and sure release: 14 Kpa, or 2 psi; vacuum
purge flow in grams per second, using vacuum release points? Hard to say. I release: 3.8 Kpa, or .53 psi. The Tacoma
the difference in the mass airflow
(MAF) reading. Baseline readings at
idle with the valve closed are shown at
the green cursor. They are:
Idle: 700 rpm
MAF: 3.76 g/second
Fuel tank pressure (FTP): 91.454
Kpa, or 27.01 in.-Hg at 3000 ft.
Referring to Fig. 2, the first series of
changes are with the vent open and
opening and closing the manual purge
valve:
Vent open and purge manually wide
open: 900 rpm
MAF: 3.26 g/second
FTP: 90.88 Kpa, or 26.84 in.-Hg.
Note a drop of .17 in.-Hg in the fuel
tank pressure with full purge and the
vent wide open. The drop relates to the
restriction in airflow through the vent
and canister. Looks like the system
flows purge air pretty well.
Now, how much did the evap purge Circle #26
system flow? Note that the MAF
dropped from 3.76 to 3.26 g/second as I
bypassed air around the throttle/MAF
sensor directly from the vent to the in-
take manifold. The difference would be
the purge flow if rpm had remained at
700. The rpm rose to 900; therefore,
Circle #27
the MAF had to rise as well. Testing lat-
er showed MAF to be 5.28 g/second in
Park at 900 rpm. So, the 3.26 MAF
(purge open at 900 rpm) subtracted
from the 5.28 reading (900 rpm MAF
in Park) shows the difference in purge
flow is 2.02 g/second, or a 53% increase
in airflow. Circle #28
Now let’s close the vent and see if we
can damage my gas tank. Look at the
data on the right side of Fig. 2. The
rpm is almost 900, MAF is slightly low-
er than the 3.26 g/second (vent open) Circle #29
and FTP dropped to as low as 77.82
Kpa and then stayed at about 83 Kpa,
or 24.5 in.-Hg.
Okay, the tank did not implode and
the gas cap vented at 24.5 in.-Hg, a
drop of 2.5 from the baseline of 27.01

December 2014 17
DRIVEABILITY CORNER DEC 2014v2_Layout 1 11/21/14 3:42 PM Page 3
Driveability Corner
Fig. 2
QUALITY.
dropped from 91.45 Kpa to about 83
Kpa, a drop of about 8.5 Kpa vacuum
release.
What’s the take-away from all of
this? You can use MAF to determine
evap purge flow, but be sure to com-
pare the minimum MAF at wide-
open purge to MAF with closed
Circle #15
18 December 2014
Screen capture: Mark Warren
purge at the same rpm. Be cautious
when applying vacuum to an evap
system to watch vacuum decay or test
flow; the cap should relieve excess
vacuum before tank damage can oc-
cur, but don’t depend on it. Watch
the tank pressure and don’t apply too
much vacuum.