Date:         Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:55:36 -0600
Reply-To:     jimt <camper@TACTICAL-BUS.INFO>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         jimt <camper@TACTICAL-BUS.INFO>
Subject:      Re: AC Conversion
Comments: To: TJ Hannink <tjhannink@YAHOO.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <20050429175837.79168.qmail@web60317.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"

On 4/29/05 11:58, "TJ Hannink" <tjhannink@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> Hmm, makes you wonder why every auto manufacturer has been using R-134a in
> their vehicles since the early 90's. You would think that if there was a more
> efficient refrigerant (like some of the alternate refrigerants claim to be)
> out there they would be installing it instead  and it, not R-134a would be
> available at Wal*Mart.
> 
> I haven't had any problems with the efficiency of R-134a in any of my
> vehicles. Most times its the support hardware; blower motors, fan switches and
> wiring etc... that keeps my A/C from working properly.
> 
> What sub-tropical part of the country are you located in that taxes an
> automotive air conditioning system so much?:>)
> 
> Tim
> 

Systems built for 134a are more efficient with it, but I have never seen an
older 12 system that didn¹t work just fine on the stuff after the change was
properly done.  Note that some older compressors  (poorly made in the first
place) did not support 134.

VW Mercedes Saab Nippon Denso  are working on systems.  GM has had a
prototype program that they keep tightly covered about what technology they
are using.

The myths about efficiency abound on the CO2 subject as well.  You will see
quotes on efficiency and costs that are actually from a paper over 10 years
old and have no relation to the current systems.

If either the norwegian design or the nippon denso design end up on the
market I may be looking at a way to put one of those in my van.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
jimt