"I'll just yank that stuff out to leave more room for working in the engine bay."
This is what I did. It gets HOT here in Texas, but I would rather have less clutter under the hood.
That's just me though...
| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| Factory AC https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33977 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | 75dartcustom [ Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Factory AC |
I have factory AC in my 74. Haven't tried to turn it on, though I doubt it works. But I wanted to do a little survey. How many of you out there have gotten your factory AC to work? And how much money did you have to invest in it? If I just have to charge up the freon, cool. But if it's going to be real involved and expensive I'll just yank that stuff out to leave more room for working in the engine bay. Thanks M |
|
| Author: | MiDi [ Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i have aftermarket or dealer installed AC, my brother just charged it @ his shop and it works great! i did spend 20.00 on a new belt for it. |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Unless grievous mayhem has been committed on them, these systems aren't too complicated or costly to put in good working order. As long as repairs are done thoughtfully, with correctly-chosen parts and supplies of good quality, performance, reliability, and durability are all quite good. |
|
| Author: | Wesola78 [ Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
"I'll just yank that stuff out to leave more room for working in the engine bay." This is what I did. It gets HOT here in Texas, but I would rather have less clutter under the hood. That's just me though...
|
|
| Author: | 75plyduster [ Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ill be working on my a/c this summer. |
|
| Author: | SwingerDeluxe [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was told that it wouldn't be much of a problem to check over and recharge as long as I had a new type of ends replaced on the hoses as the new type of "freon" could screw up the old type. Were they pulling my chain? |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You need to go into this educated. Your system was built for R12 refrigerant. The current ("new") type is R134a. The two refrigerants are not compatible; an R12 system needs careful and thorough modifications to work well and last dependably with R134a. The $20 "conversion" kits from the parts store will usually cause expensive system failure in short order. But in the United States, there is no real reason to convert — there's plenty of R12 available, and it is what R12 systems work best with. It is more costly than R134a, but you only need a couple of pounds of it for your system. Once you've made sure the system is basically sound and replaced or repaired any faulty or damaged components, the two wise choices are either to charge with R12 or do a complete conversion and then charge with R134a. Half-baked/lazy/corner-cutting conversions are not a smart way to spend money, time, or effort. See threads linked from here. |
|
| Author: | slantvaliant [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you decide to "yank" it out, do yourself some favors. Document what's there and how it's connected. Take lots of photos and notes. Evacuate the system per whatever regulations apply. Carefully remove the parts, and save ALL of the hardware. Tag and bag. Clean the parts up before you store them away. You never know when you'll decide to reinstall it or sell the hardware to someone who wants to be cool. |
|
| Author: | daughters/scamp [ Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i have never tried to convert an old Chrysler system over to 134r but i did have a shop swap over the ac in my 69 impala wagon. the shop did tell me that r12 would perform better but the price of freon was either $60/lb or $6/lb for 134. i asked about swapping out the expansion valve for a pressure switch but was told it wouldn't be necessary. my wagon blew 39 deg. every day all day (new orleans heat.) i am hoping to have the same luck with the scamp in a month or so. jd |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Expansion valves and pressure switches do not serve similar purposes; one does not ever swap one for the other. |
|
| Author: | daughters/scamp [ Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i was told that with the expansion valve still in place the compressor would not cycle. if it was replaced with a pressure switch it would cycle off / on. i may be mistaken in what i am calling the expansion valve. the component that made the 69 style ac cycle. mine did not cycle at all. just blew cold air all the time. jd |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: i was told that with the expansion valve still in place the compressor would not cycle.
No, that's the EPR valve — for "Evaporator Pressure Regulator" — not the expansion valve. It is a type of suction-throttling valve present in Chrysler air conditioning systems with the V2 and RV2 compressor (except pre-1974 A-body systems), and yes, it should be replaced with a thermal clutch cycling switch as part of an R134a changeover. I am pretty sure it is not present in the system of a Chevrolet Impala, which I think has a clutch cycling switch as factory equipment. The purpose of the EPR valve/STV or clutch cycling switch is to control the evaporator temperature at just above 32°F so that moisture in the air condenses on it, but does not freeze on it (which would quickly build up enough ice to stop up the airflow).
|
|
| Author: | Charrlie_S [ Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Quote: i was told that with the expansion valve still in place the compressor would not cycle.
I am pretty sure it is not present in the system of a Chevrolet Impala, which I think has a clutch cycling switch as factory equipment. |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ah, didn't realise the '69 Chev used a POA valve (nor that it could be adjusted). Haven't seen any adjustment provision on either the L- or the H-style expansion valves on Chrysler systems, tho. |
|
| Author: | Charrlie_S [ Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Ah, didn't realise the '69 Chev used a POA valve (nor that it could be adjusted).
Not the expansion valve. The Chrys EPR has an pressure adjustment screw/nut on the back end. It is factory set, but can be adjusted on the bench with a "test" fixture, or by trial and error to change the evap suction pressure.Haven't seen any adjustment provision on either the L- or the H-style expansion valves on Chrysler systems, tho. The use of an epr/poa valve will give better humidity control, but a clutch cycling swich will help fuel milage. I do not like using a clutch cycling switch on the GM systems with the long round A-6 compressor. The compressors are great, but the clutch is on the small side, and has a tendency to burn out prematurly, when cycled, rather then being continuosly engaged. My personal opinion, for an efficient system would be a "Package" system, similar to a window unit. Completely sealed (less chance of leaks), and it would slide into the vehicle "compartment" and connect to ducts (makes for easy service). It would use an electric pulse with modulated motor, to vary compressor speed, base on heat load (increase effeicency). |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|