Refrigerant and rebuilding AC (In defense of Durocool)

Robert Myers robert at
Sat Jun 14 08:23:10 EDT 2003

[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
At 08:50 PM 6/13/2003 -0400, Stephen Santoliquido wrote:
>Anyway; Here are the choices as I see it.
>1) stick w/ R12   Pros; great performance, no equipment change. Cons;
>expensive to purchase, and (for someone like me who does give a sh!t) not

In a properly maintained system (without leaks [yeah?]) and when properly
recovered during maintenance work R-12 is not bad for the environment.  It
is when it is allowed to escape into the environment when it becomes a problem.

>2) R134 Pros; readily available, cheap, pretty much eco-freindly,

It is only "eco-friendly", IMO, because the global effects of R-134 have
not been studied as thoroughly as have those of R-12.  It is "eco-friendly"
only because we don't as yet actually know its effect on the
environment.  Therefore, lacking evidence, it has been declared "safe" for
the environment.  Until, of course, when its effects have become known
sometime in the future.

>can be
>topped off. Cons; toxic?,

Not at all toxic.  It is a suffocation hazard (as is R-12 or other similar
materials) simply because it replaces the air you are trying to breathe and
you therefore cannot obtain the required oxygen while immersed in R-134 or
R-12 vapors.  Brief short term inhalation exposure poses no significant
hazard as long as you are able to bet into "normal" air fairly quickly.

>does not perform as well as other options, if
>"done right" can be somewhat expensive to convert, uses hydroscopic oil.


>3) R406 (autofrost, GHG12, etc.) Pros; pretty much eco freindly, claims
>great performance, fairly inexpensive, uses mineral oil. Cons; it's a blend-
>as such it will leak at unequal rates resulting in need to evacuate and
>start over, barrier hoses are a must due to small molecule size.

A possibility.  Again, a tight system will prevent significant leaks.

>4) Hydrocarbon refrigerants (isobutal-propane mix) Pros; eco freindly,
>claims great performance, inexpensive, can be mixed from stuff available at
>the hardware store, no equipment change out. Cons; it's a blend- as such it
>will leak at unequal rates resulting in need to evacuate and start over,
>then there's the "Pinto hit from behind" exploding car thing.

It's crispy critters all over again.  Not recommended, IMO.

>I supose if you put together a leak-tight system (always the goal), one of
>the drawbacks of blends goes away.
>So here I am, closer maybe. But still waffling over a decision. It's getting
>hot out though, so I'll need to do something soon...


Osama bin Forgotten but he turned up again.

  Robert L. Myers  304-574-2372
  Rt. 4, Box 57, Fayetteville, WV 25840 USA  WV tag Q SHIP
  '95 urS6 Cashmere Grey - der Wunderwagen   ICQ 22170244

More information about the quattro mailing list