Dang! That's insane. I appreciate all the info from you and the others. I did decide to go R134a.
Lived in Hahvid... Where 495 & Rt 2 intersect.
A/C Z134A vs. R134A
- Thread starter HawkX66
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Lived in Hahvid... Where 495 & Rt 2 intersect.
, Does anyone else remember when we converted to R134à from R12? Took awhile but when folks first started converting they found out the R12 seals and hoses and crimped connections we're allowing the R134 molecules to leak because the molecules are much smaller than R12. Similar problems were found on home units as well. Anyone know if the latest and greatest refrigerant is going to have similar problems with higher pressures and will it eat the soft portions of the lines from the inside out. What about the pressure switches that control the compressors,extra loads on the serp belts tensioners idler bearings
gixer2000
Retrofit or Bust
The reason for the leaking issues after a R12 to 134a conversion was solely because of the pressure increase and nothing to do with the molecules being smaller. The hoses just weren't built to support the added pressure. There was a bunch of people that claim the refrigerant was Being allowed to permeate through the hoses but it just wasn't the case.
Home units needed to be replaced because the oil from R22 to 410a wasn't compatible plus the coil sizes needed to be increased due to the higher pressure. Basically needed a higher exchange rate at the same CFM(airflow)
powerboatr
Full Access Members
i converted my 1992 f250 from r12 to r134.
i used a kit from thermodynamics iirc...it worked as advertised, changed a fee o rings and insulation pieces. actually it was colder than it ever was from the get go.
i did add a HUGE electric fan on the condenser coil for stop and go traffic.
i do remember getting 38F air out of the center vents easy in hot florida summer traffic
i used a kit from thermodynamics iirc...it worked as advertised, changed a fee o rings and insulation pieces. actually it was colder than it ever was from the get go.
i did add a HUGE electric fan on the condenser coil for stop and go traffic.
i do remember getting 38F air out of the center vents easy in hot florida summer traffic
The fan in front of the condenser is what helps. R134a has a hard time keeping temperatures cool at idling speeds and low air flow. It's a fact that 134a does not cool as well as our 12.
gixer2000
Retrofit or Bust
Electric fans will really wake up a 134a system but for r12 it just wasn't necessary. It was IMO a far better refrigerant
I can't I can't say that I believe that. I got my R12 certification soon as they started back in 1994 and I've done quite a bit of AC work over the years and some residential like installing new systems and charging with R22. I thought it was common knowledge that the R134a molecules were smaller and on an automobile you don't have any higher pressures with 134a versus R12. R12 systems were always rated to 350 PSI operate around 175 to 225 maybe 250. These are pretty much the same pressure to see with R134a because you are always told that you only charge 80% to 85% the amount of what the R12 to.
They specifically made and started using barrier hoses on all 134a systems just a couple of years after the switch over. This was because the hoses tended to act a little porous with 134a but they never did with R12 and mineral oil.
It just doesn't have to be just in your opinion. It's absolute fact that R12 cooled better an R134a. It was the best they had and that's why they used it for cars. I forget why R22 wasn't used. I think I tried to use some R22 one time in a GM system but I had some pressure issues with it anyways. I looked it up once and I forget. I think it was having to do with leaks and all the rubber.
JExpedition07
That One Member
I’m not a big fan of R-410A vs the R-22 either. It seems refrigerants get worse over time.
txracer16
Member
Back to the original question, never use anything but plain R134 in your system. Many of the cans that are sold at parts stores have other crap in them like sealers and stuff they claim helps it cool. It’s BS and just costing you money. If you don’t see plain r134 on the shelf ask them, they have it. 25yrs of factory certified experience.
1955moose
Full Access Members
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Posts
- 6,004
- Reaction score
- 1,351
Customer's as a rule are stupid. They have a small leak in their Ford,Toyota, etc, and they see a can on the shelves of Oreillys, that says freon, with stop leak. Well our friend say's that's for me. After dumping in a can of the do all fixer in a can, he's happy as a clam, untill about 4-6 months later, when his Ac has slowed up, and the compressor is making racket. Gee, what could have gone wrong?
Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk
Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk
Now just to be accurate most of those cans that have the stop leak added in don't harm anything whatsoever. They are simply a lubricant which they call it an o-ring conditioner which does little to nothing. It's the ones that you pay 16 to $30 for as a special stop leak only additive or kit that clogged things up. Those do much more harm than good. The one exception that I have used over 20 times with zero problems is the Red Angel AC stop leak. I have had it not work only two times out of about 25.
But yes, it's simpler just to stick with straight R134a. Especially now that the prices have come down. You can get a can of R134a for 3.99 - 6.97 and all of those cans with the special Space Age cooling agent and stop leak are all about 12.99 on up. Total rip-off.
But yes, it's simpler just to stick with straight R134a. Especially now that the prices have come down. You can get a can of R134a for 3.99 - 6.97 and all of those cans with the special Space Age cooling agent and stop leak are all about 12.99 on up. Total rip-off.
Yeah, but...polar bears.
No...wait. Freon was eating the ozone, causing an ice age. amirite?
1955moose
Full Access Members
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Posts
- 6,004
- Reaction score
- 1,351
That and your wife and sisters spraying their hair with hairspray. Plus side is their coiff doesn't move in 50 mph winds! What's amazing to me is paints that we're safe for the painter, in particular Lacquer, are horrible for the environment. The new paints, the past 30 years, contain isocyanates which harden on your lungs. But our old friend Lacquer, does not. It's sad that everyone not doing the job, day in, and out , like our body shop painters, makes the rules. Painters as a rule are a tough lot, I know I come from a house painting family, starting with my father. I'm sure engineers could figure out ways to cut down or eliminate these harmful properties, in paint, and freon, but as usual they wait till it's too late, and try to fix problems at the last minute. Can you imagine if they would have switched to unleaded fuel right after 2nd world war. When are the people in charge going to stop doing the ostrich in the sand approach, then with law suits and pressures finally play catch up.
Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk
Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk
Wait, what was wrong with the lead in gas? It's been so damn long I can hardly remember what their argument was. But I have to remember you live out there in California where there was a smog issue and that probably had something to do with that. As I said before if nothing would have changed in my neck of the woods and a lot of other places we still wouldn't have seen an issue.
The lead didn't disappear when it went through the engine. It ended up in the dirt next to roadways and in peoples yards, where little kiddies would play in it. Thats one reason.
Another is that catalytic converters can't handle leaded gas. At all. So when the Cats became required, the leaded gas had to go.
I remember a documentary on this years ago, and in old, large cities (Chicago, NY, LA, etc.), lead levels in your front yard could sometimes exceed the EPA level for a "superfund" site.
If they'd a just waited a few years until video games when kids stopped playing outside we found have kept the good gas. Lol
Lead cushioned valves... Exhaust mainly iirc. Old heads didn't have hardened seats. But did they have seats? I mean inserted seats. All iron heads back then, we'll mostly, so I guess they might have been just machined into head.
I don't like aluminum but even with iron I can't imagine having a head without replaceable seats.
I have built a good number of engines and 67-70s ones also but not real up on seats. I pick the heads and the head guy dies the work to them. I just bolt them on as a unit.
Lead cushioned valves... Exhaust mainly iirc. Old heads didn't have hardened seats. But did they have seats? I mean inserted seats. All iron heads back then, we'll mostly, so I guess they might have been just machined into head.
I don't like aluminum but even with iron I can't imagine having a head without replaceable seats.
I have built a good number of engines and 67-70s ones also but not real up on seats. I pick the heads and the head guy dies the work to them. I just bolt them on as a unit.
powerboatr
Full Access Members
the tetra ethyl was used as a cooling additive to keep the precombustion PING down in higher compression engines.
after WW1 ..aircraft engine engineering required a way to help keep the combustion chamber items, VALVES and spark plugs cool enough to stop preignition, it also helped lube the valve guide and valve faces as they closed into the seat.
rapid engine development in the aircraft engine field pushed the lead additive.
as trickle down happens it moved into automobile engines after WWII when car designers started pushing hp and reliability at the demand of consumers. engines were still evolving and lead helped the high compression issues. remember a 400 CUInch engine was barely making 200hp., now we have a 200 CI engines making over 400hp
then as environmental concerns started to show up, it was looked at to remove lead and other additives to solve some of the smog issues and lead deposits on the earth we lived and played on.
it was also pushed to make the ICE run cleaner with better combustion and exhaust scrubbing
aircraft engines up until late 90s still used lead in air cooled engines.
cars of the 70s and 80s were test beds and they sucked in engine performance vs cubic inches because of pollution controls and low compression engines, because high compression does raise emissions, and engineers had not evolved.
once we solved the electronic engine management and did real engine development..BAM we get higher compression, longer life, higher hp and reformulated fuels to help the knock and ping...carter screwed everyone with the ethanol debacle.
we also got hardened valve seats, new valve and engine alloys as well.
.02
after WW1 ..aircraft engine engineering required a way to help keep the combustion chamber items, VALVES and spark plugs cool enough to stop preignition, it also helped lube the valve guide and valve faces as they closed into the seat.
rapid engine development in the aircraft engine field pushed the lead additive.
as trickle down happens it moved into automobile engines after WWII when car designers started pushing hp and reliability at the demand of consumers. engines were still evolving and lead helped the high compression issues. remember a 400 CUInch engine was barely making 200hp., now we have a 200 CI engines making over 400hp
then as environmental concerns started to show up, it was looked at to remove lead and other additives to solve some of the smog issues and lead deposits on the earth we lived and played on.
it was also pushed to make the ICE run cleaner with better combustion and exhaust scrubbing
aircraft engines up until late 90s still used lead in air cooled engines.
cars of the 70s and 80s were test beds and they sucked in engine performance vs cubic inches because of pollution controls and low compression engines, because high compression does raise emissions, and engineers had not evolved.
once we solved the electronic engine management and did real engine development..BAM we get higher compression, longer life, higher hp and reformulated fuels to help the knock and ping...carter screwed everyone with the ethanol debacle.
we also got hardened valve seats, new valve and engine alloys as well.
.02
Some of those old late 60s and early 70s engines had a good deal of power. Engine builders also knew how to make a LOT more. Those 400 and similar cu in engines could crank out 500-600 hp.
I don't like when I hear people say just technology has allowed more powerful cars etc.
Muscle cars and other had power and torque until about 73 and it was gone.
We had lots of technology in 83 and 93 but cars still sucked for power. We could have done it then and even improved the first muscle cars, but it was a timing thing.
Coming out of the (FAKE) oil crisis in the 70s and new environmental concerns (strangulations) the country was much more concerned about mileage along with emissions/overall output than hp performance numbers.
I thought muscle cars were dead after 73.
The 5.0 mustang and the corvette were best we had for the most part and in reality...pretty sad!
In 1993 when the new GM F-body Camaro and Trans Am came out...I said "This will be THE car to have in a few years." After the warranty is out and price drops and we can mod the heck out of them.
Then to top it off in 98 they improved them with the LS1.
I have never liked that Mustang stayed with the too small (displacement not size) 4.6. I'm not a ford car guy at all just a motorhead. They played catch up pretty much still are.
They owned the "pony" cars and hot on the street from about 79-92. The new 5.0 going in a Mustang is the best thing to happen to Mustang since the 302..well maybe 289. I still want a 5.4, 5.7, 5.8 something bigger. Sure the SVO turbo was fast but not what most wanted.
Soon after 1993 Muscle was BACK!!
Only two things basically changed to allow or help this, gas was still comparatively cheap and fuel injection/management/computer controls tweaked things and made them run better and cleaner and maximize power on the fly basically.
We have had the technology for a good while. Power and performance just became allowed an the IN thing.
They started the HP and performance wars a few years ago an I was really in love with it.
Now I almost get annoyed at how far they've taken it but it is still cool.
The darn govt is the main hold up with mileage requirements.
It's not like there's any radical new designs or tech that allows all these cars to be over 600hp. The factories have just decided and been allowed to do it.....and enough people want it
We had cylinder deactivation in 81. They have just made it tolerable now.
Remember the skip shift....Do they still do that? Of course harder to find a manual now.
We are still using pistons, bolt on heads, valves (just more of them and varying the action), cams (I remember the first special grinds or inverted ramps), fuel injectors, sensors and still burning standard typical gasoline.
I'm happy about most of that.
Heck electric is going to soon be fastest guy on the track. Sucks really, but true.
Electric will never be perfect. Nothing is but I fear there will be a day when ICE are dinosaurs and hobby fun cars...if they still let us drive or start them!!
I don't like when I hear people say just technology has allowed more powerful cars etc.
Muscle cars and other had power and torque until about 73 and it was gone.
We had lots of technology in 83 and 93 but cars still sucked for power. We could have done it then and even improved the first muscle cars, but it was a timing thing.
Coming out of the (FAKE) oil crisis in the 70s and new environmental concerns (strangulations) the country was much more concerned about mileage along with emissions/overall output than hp performance numbers.
I thought muscle cars were dead after 73.
The 5.0 mustang and the corvette were best we had for the most part and in reality...pretty sad!
In 1993 when the new GM F-body Camaro and Trans Am came out...I said "This will be THE car to have in a few years." After the warranty is out and price drops and we can mod the heck out of them.
Then to top it off in 98 they improved them with the LS1.
I have never liked that Mustang stayed with the too small (displacement not size) 4.6. I'm not a ford car guy at all just a motorhead. They played catch up pretty much still are.
They owned the "pony" cars and hot on the street from about 79-92. The new 5.0 going in a Mustang is the best thing to happen to Mustang since the 302..well maybe 289. I still want a 5.4, 5.7, 5.8 something bigger. Sure the SVO turbo was fast but not what most wanted.
Soon after 1993 Muscle was BACK!!
Only two things basically changed to allow or help this, gas was still comparatively cheap and fuel injection/management/computer controls tweaked things and made them run better and cleaner and maximize power on the fly basically.
We have had the technology for a good while. Power and performance just became allowed an the IN thing.
They started the HP and performance wars a few years ago an I was really in love with it.
Now I almost get annoyed at how far they've taken it but it is still cool.
The darn govt is the main hold up with mileage requirements.
It's not like there's any radical new designs or tech that allows all these cars to be over 600hp. The factories have just decided and been allowed to do it.....and enough people want it
We had cylinder deactivation in 81. They have just made it tolerable now.
Remember the skip shift....Do they still do that? Of course harder to find a manual now.
We are still using pistons, bolt on heads, valves (just more of them and varying the action), cams (I remember the first special grinds or inverted ramps), fuel injectors, sensors and still burning standard typical gasoline.
I'm happy about most of that.
Heck electric is going to soon be fastest guy on the track. Sucks really, but true.
Electric will never be perfect. Nothing is but I fear there will be a day when ICE are dinosaurs and hobby fun cars...if they still let us drive or start them!!
