 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / June 20059000 air-conditioning service?
kindo of hard to be certain ... but now the weather has started to warm up just started to use the aircon on my 1996 9000cd... more or less, first time since last summer and it doesn't seem to pump out air quite as cold as I remember... (cool rather than cold, and also a bit musty smelling ... though nothing too bad) Its the basic air/con not the fancy ACC version ... is there any setting to say how cold it should blow out air? Also ... just had the car serviced (not by a saab agent... nearest is 30 miles away)... for the last 6 years the aircon hasn't been touched ... are there any filters to change etc... I have heard mention of "re-gassing" the aircon ... how would I know if it need doing? thanks AJ Check how cold the air is coming out of the vents. You can do this with your wife meat themo. If the air coming out is 62-66 degrees and its 95 out your ok . If degree is lower say 85 air in vents should come out a litter cooler. So I guess it depends how hot is is outside. good luck papa > kindo of hard to be certain ... but now the weather has started to warm > up just started to use the aircon on my 1996 9000cd... more or less, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ... are there any filters to change etc... I have heard mention of > "re-gassing" the aircon ... how would I know if it need doing? A 9000 most likely uses R-12, so unless you get it converted to R-134a, re-gassing is a rather expensive proposition, about $200 at current prices, more than the parts to convert. As far back as 1993, SAAB 9000's US model use r-134a already. For sure 1996 9000 cde uses r-134a. Recharge doesn't cost $200 either. Let me guess. You live in the UK, correct? Divide everything you pay in the UK by 2 to 4, depending on the item, that's what you pay for in the US. > As far back as 1993, SAAB 9000's US model use r-134a already. For sure > 1996 9000 cde uses r-134a. Recharge doesn't cost $200 either. Let me > guess. You live in the UK, correct? Divide everything you pay in the > UK by 2 to 4, depending on the item, that's what you pay for in the US. I didn't realize they made 9K's much after '93 so my comment was based on an older car. No I don't live in the UK, I live in the US, and recycled R-12 is running about $70/lb or about $200 to recharge an old system. That's why I advocated R-134a if it was not already made to use it, as it's only about $2/lb in 30 lb cylinders or $5-$6/lb in the little cans you can get anywhere. It's still not cheap to have a shop do anything related to the A/C but if the system hasn't lost it's vacuum anyone can buy the stuff to top it off. The hole in the sky is really making the price of r-12 like gold. Remember the gold ole days when r-12 was 99 cents a can? I'd upgrade r-12 to r-134a if I have a car which still uses it. > The hole in the sky is really making the price of r-12 like gold. You mean, the theoretical effect of an unproven poorly researched theory? That "hole in the sky"? > Remember the gold ole days when r-12 was 99 cents a can? I'd upgrade > r-12 to r-134a if I have a car which still uses it. Yup. No different to the ozone layer, but not banned and doesn't work as well. Boy, I'm glad we're concentrating on _important_ environmental things, aren't you? I am not absolutely convinced either the hole was made by r-12. But I am comfortable with not using it. It doesn't hurt my pocket book anymore. I am more worried about the increasing carbon dioxide emissions and the resulting green house effect, however. Apparently Exxon-Mobil disagrees. > I am not absolutely convinced either the hole was made by r-12. But I > am comfortable with not using it. It doesn't hurt my pocket book [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > resulting green house effect, however. Apparently Exxon-Mobil > disagrees. I think you should stop breathing. You are making too much carbon dioxide and ruining the atmosphere. You should also not procreate as your progeny will only increase the CO2 output. In fact, if you would kindly go out and "take out" a couple of your neighbors before you off yourself it would be greatly appreciated. There is no *proof* that any of the current changes in global temperature are being directly *caused* by this pollution. There is conjecture and there are studies and there are conclusions. But there is no proof of the cause and effect. -Fred W > There is no *proof* that any of the current changes in global > temperature are being directly *caused* by this pollution. There is > conjecture and there are studies and there are conclusions. But there > is no proof of the cause and effect. Among other things - as the global temperature raises, less CO2 can stay dissolved in the oceans. Maybe the CO2 levels raising are an effect of the temperature climb, rather than a cause. All we have is correlation, and a bunch of people on either side who don't look at the whole picture. Me, I would be happy just being able to use a substance that hasn't been actually shown by scientists to be an actual problem. But I'm kinda funny that way. In the meantime, we're all stuck using an inferior product, that chemically interacts _exactly the same way_ with Ozone. You are the kind that no amount of evidence can convince you one way or another. Because you already have your mind made up. So why bother? > You are the kind that no amount of evidence can convince you one way or > another. Because you already have your mind made up. So why bother? Who are you talking to? You didn't provide any context. >>You are the kind that no amount of evidence can convince you one way or >>another. Because you already have your mind made up. So why bother? > > Who are you talking to? You didn't provide any context. He was replying to me, so I guess that was who he was talking to. -Fred W >>>You are the kind that no amount of evidence can convince you one way or >>>another. Because you already have your mind made up. So why bother? >> >> Who are you talking to? You didn't provide any context. > > He was replying to me, so I guess that was who he was talking to. It's so hard to tell when they don't give context. Ah well. > You are the kind that no amount of evidence can convince you one way or > another. Because you already have your mind made up. So why bother? What gives you that idea? I have not seen any conclusive evidence that the one (increase in CO2) is the cause of the other(global warming). I have seen evidence that both of those things appear to be happening simultaneously, though even that evidence is not entirely conclusive. But just beciuse they are both occurring does not prove a cause and effect relationship. But I will keep an open mind about it... OTOH, you are so convinced that this pseudo science is the only truth that you will not even consider there being other possibilities. I would say that you are the horse with the blinkers on... -Fred W >> You are the kind that no amount of evidence can convince you one way or >> another. Because you already have your mind made up. So why bother? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have seen evidence that both of those things appear to be happening > simultaneously, though even that evidence is not entirely conclusive. You know, every time the dog goes to the window and goes nuts, someone drives up the driveway. Obviously, the dog going nuts by the window causes people to drive up my driveway. > But just beciuse they are both occurring does not prove a cause and > effect relationship. But I will keep an open mind about it... Exactly. > OTOH, you are so convinced that this pseudo science is the only truth > that you will not even consider there being other possibilities. I > would say that you are the horse with the blinkers on... Me, I'd just like to be able to buy decent freon without a bunch of lawyer/lawmakers interfering, based on flawed research. What makes you think I am convinced one way or the other? I am merely worried about global warming. The effect of what human activities over time, in particular over the last century is naturally long term therefore the ramifications are not easily ascertained. Like in the case of curtailing, or eliminating the use of R-12, I am for reducing the sources which contribute to increasing the potential for more global warming. Provided of course my worldly comforts are not affected. That's my position. > What makes you think I am convinced one way or the other? I am merely > worried about global warming. WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO? INCLUDE SOME FREAKING CONTEXT FFS. If my reply appears directly below yours in the tree, like right now, I am replying to you. So obviously I didn't reply to you in my prior post. > If my reply appears directly below yours in the tree, like right now, I > am replying to you. So obviously I didn't reply to you in my prior > post. Your reply doesn't appear directly below _anything_, as there is no tree. Have you not noticed that everyone else in Usenet includes context, as I am doing here, to show what and who they are replying to? Maybe everyone else is wrong, and you've got it right. Yeah, that's probably it. You only speak for yourself. Don't everyone me. There are variuos ways to post in alt.auto.saab. I do from google. The default setting is no context included. I am not a computer expert. My guess is neither are you. If I am wrong, please educate me how to include context in my google setting. There must be a way to change my google setting to include context. I just have not gotten around doing it. By the same token there must be a way to display tree in the environment you are in. You would have known if you are one. Now I am replying to you. > You only speak for yourself. Don't everyone me. There are variuos > ways to post in alt.auto.saab. I do from google. The default setting > is no context included. That is a flaw with google. Choosing to accept an unwise default is like choosing to crap in your pants because that's where your a.s happens to be at the time. > I am not a computer expert. My guess is neither are you. If I am > wrong, please educate me how to include context in my google setting. You said it yourself, there's a clicky-box to turn it on. And you have no idea of the extent of my computing experience. > There must be a way to change my google setting to include context. Maybe you could google for it. > I > just have not gotten around doing it. Because you don't care enough to communicate effectively. > By the same token there must be > a way to display tree in the environment you are in. You would have > known if you are one. You're right, I am not a tree. I made my suggestion in the hope that I could show you that by not including context, you're not communicating clearly. Even when you do communicate as clearly as you can, I have yet to see you write anything here of any value. > Now I am replying to you. And now, I am killfiling you. Feel free to respond; I shall not see it. You're not worth the effort to read. >>You only speak for yourself. Don't everyone me. There are variuos >>ways to post in alt.auto.saab. I do from google. The default setting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like choosing to crap in your pants because that's where your a.s > happens to be at the time. ROFL - Thanks Dave. -Fred W >>> You only speak for yourself. Don't everyone me. There are variuos >>> ways to post in alt.auto.saab. I do from google. The default setting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ROFL - Thanks Dave. Thanks for what? I thought you guys had a disagreement based on content not form. And Dave had a disagreement based on form. Or is this just about collectively shutting up someone you don't like? X. PS: I thought even slrn had threads... Relax. This is internet. No one can shut anyone up. >>> That is a flaw with google. Choosing to accept an unwise default is >>> like choosing to crap in your pants because that's where your a.s >>> happens to be at the time. >> ROFL - Thanks Dave. > Thanks for what? I think he was thanking me for making him laugh? > I thought you guys had a disagreement based on content not form. And > Dave had a disagreement based on form. No, my problem with whoever it was the non-context giver, was that he repeatedly posted a standalone sentence with nothing to indicate who or what he was talking to or about. I pointed out that this makes his posts hard to understand, and suggested that he notice that convention is to include enough context to let people know WTF he's talking about. > Or is this just about > collectively shutting up someone you don't like? I never could tell what he was talking about. If his goal is to communicate, he's not doing it well for the reasons I suggested. > PS: I thought even slrn had threads... It does. It also has a "show only unread messages". A thread display only helps if the other messages are also unread and therefore displayed. There's a reason that the "include some context so people know what the heck you're talking about" convention developed. There's a difference between being ignorant of it, and in choosing to continue to communicate poorly. He chooses to not quote, I choose not to read him. I'm not shutting him up, I'm just not bothering to read his posts. >>>> You only speak for yourself. Don't everyone me. There are variuos >>>> ways to post in alt.auto.saab. I do from google. The default setting [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Dave had a disagreement based on form. Or is this just about > collectively shutting up someone you don't like? My "Thanks" was for the chuckle. I had never seen that particulat analogy before and it struck me as humorous. You do have a sense of humor, don't you? Perhaps not... -Fred W >>>>> You only speak for yourself. Don't everyone me. There are variuos >>>>> ways to post in alt.auto.saab. I do from google. The default setting [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > My "Thanks" was for the chuckle. I had never seen that particulat > analogy before and it struck me as humorous. OK, I get it now. > You do have a sense of humor, don't you? > Perhaps not... I must admit my scatological sense of humor is seriously underdeveloped. Hence my misinterpretation. X. > What makes you think I am convinced one way or the other? I am merely > worried about global warming. The effect of what human activities over [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > global warming. Provided of course my worldly comforts are not > affected. That's my position. Sure, I can understand your concern. The way I look at it, we (the entire human race) are a pestilence on the planet. Pretty much everything that we do is detrimental in one way or another. -Fred W > The way I look at it, we (the > entire human race) are a pestilence on the planet. Pretty much > everything that we do is detrimental in one way or another. Oh, I dunno. I'm about 8,000 trees ahead on the planted-vs-cut score, and I hope that I'm helping in that regard? > What gives you that idea? I have not seen any conclusive evidence that > the one (increase in CO2) is the cause of the other(global warming). I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that you will not even consider there being other possibilities. I > would say that you are the horse with the blinkers on... It's just one of those things in life that's easily avoided so why chance it? I'm not convinced that smoking cigarettes would kill me, nor am I convinced that large quantities of pesticides are harmful, or that wading in PCB containing oil is bad for me, playing with mercury or any number of other things like that but I acknoledge that there's evidence out there showing these things are bad for me and therefore I choose not to do them and it doesn't make my life appreciably harder. Now cars for example I can plainly see are harmful to the environment but I have no feasible alternative at the moment so I'll just have to live with any negative effects. >>What gives you that idea? I have not seen any conclusive evidence that >>the one (increase in CO2) is the cause of the other(global warming). I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > have no feasible alternative at the moment so I'll just have to live with > any negative effects. Your reply is extremely out of context. If you look at my post (directly above yours) I am specifically questioning whether CO2 is directly responsible for global warming. Nothing else. I never questioned these other pollutants that you mention, including freon. -Fred W >> I am not absolutely convinced either the hole was made by r-12. But I >> am comfortable with not using it. It doesn't hurt my pocket book [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > kindly go out and "take out" a couple of your neighbors before you off > yourself it would be greatly appreciated. The environmentalists would say that these are irrelevant. The CO2 you and your neighbours produce was absorbed by the plants or animals you consumed to begin with. The CO2 our cars produce has been stored under the earth for millions of years and is only now coming out into the biosphere. > There is no *proof* that any of the current changes in global > temperature are being directly *caused* by this pollution. There is > conjecture and there are studies and there are conclusions. But there > is no proof of the cause and effect. I haven't made up my mind about that. X. > > The hole in the sky is really making the price of r-12 like gold. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as well. Boy, I'm glad we're concentrating on _important_ environmental > things, aren't you? lets check the specs. R-12 Vapor Density: 4.26 (Air = 1.0) at 25°C (77°F) http://www.refimax.com/docs/msds/R-12_MSDS_ASPEN.pdf R-134a Vapor Density: 3.6 (Air=1.0) @ 25°C (77°F) http://www.refimax.com/docs/msds/R-134a_MSDS_ASPEN.pdf It looks to me like both are heavier than air, thus neather should ever get up to the ozone layer. I belive they actualy found high levels of freon in the fish by a manufacturing plant. I guess the ozone is replesihed from the sea ;-) Stephen B. I would not be so sure that your argument is the definitive proof R-12 doesn't ever get to the atmosphere to destroy the ozone layer. I am no chemist or chemical engineer. But if it is that simple, the world wide effort to ban the production and use of R-12 which has been in effect for decades is a farce. I know to some people it is. > I would not be so sure that your argument is the definitive proof R-12 > doesn't ever get to the atmosphere to destroy the ozone layer. I am no > chemist or chemical engineer. But if it is that simple, the world wide > effort to ban the production and use of R-12 which has been in effect > for decades is a farce. Yeah, because lawmakers would _never_ pass a law that wasn't logical or scientifically accurate... >> Yup. No different to the ozone layer, but not banned and doesn't work >> as well. Boy, I'm glad we're concentrating on _important_ environmental [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > R-12 Vapor Density: 4.26 (Air = 1.0) at 25°C (77°F) > R-134a Vapor Density: 3.6 (Air=1.0) @ 25°C (77°F) > It looks to me like both are heavier than air, thus neather should ever get > up to the ozone layer. It's probably a bit more complicated than that, but yes, it's hard to make something that dense, go up a long way and stay there. > You mean, the theoretical effect of an unproven poorly researched > theory? That "hole in the sky"? Well either way, the ozone layer is important enough that I'd rather make some relatively simple changes today rather than risk finding out I was wrong when it's too late. > Yup. No different to the ozone layer, but not banned and doesn't work > as well. Boy, I'm glad we're concentrating on _important_ environmental > things, aren't you? R-134a does NOT have the same effect on ozone, it's an HFC (hydroflourocarbon), which lacks the chlorine molocules of both R-12 which is a CFC(chlorofluorocarbon) or R-22 which is an HCFC (hydrochlorofluorocarbon). It's the chlorine that reacts to rapidly break down ozone, and CFC's are very stable compounds which means they hang around for a long time in the atmosphere. The hydrogen molecule in HCFC's causes them to break down much more quickly so they have only 5% the ozone depletion factor as CFCs. HFC's have no ozone depletion factor but they are considered a greenhouse gas so it's still illegal to vent them to the atmosphere, that part seems a bit strange to me since those little air duster cans are tetrafluoroethane which is just R-134. As for whether or not CFC's caused the hole in the ozone, we can measure significant quantities of the compound in the upper atmosphere, it's just basic chemistry that chlorine rapidly breaks down ozone, that's all the evidence I need to say go with the nearly trivial change to R-134. >> You mean, the theoretical effect of an unproven poorly researched >> theory? That "hole in the sky"? > Well either way, the ozone layer is important enough that I'd rather make > some relatively simple changes today rather than risk finding out I was > wrong when it's too late. If we're going to "Do something...anything...", we should pick the right things to spend our efforts on. I haven't seen the research to show that R-12 is a real threat. Yes, it destroys ozone, but low-altitude ozone is a pollutant - it only becomes an asset at high altitude, where the heavy CFC can't get to. >> Yup. No different to the ozone layer, but not banned and doesn't work >> as well. Boy, I'm glad we're concentrating on _important_ environmental >> things, aren't you? > R-134a does NOT have the same effect on ozone, it's an HFC > (hydroflourocarbon), which lacks the chlorine molocules of both R-12 which [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > them to break down much more quickly so they have only 5% the ozone > depletion factor as CFCs. Sorry, I should have said "on the ozone layer", not "on ozone". Unless you can show me a peer-reviewed study showing that CFCs can and do get into the ozone layer? > HFC's have no ozone depletion factor but they are > considered a greenhouse gas so it's still illegal to vent them to the > atmosphere, that part seems a bit strange to me since those little air > duster cans are tetrafluoroethane which is just R-134. Hm, I use this substance called "compressed air", which, depending on where the compressor is, is fairly neutral in that regard. Seems to work for me. > As for whether or not CFC's caused the hole in the ozone, we can measure > significant quantities of the compound in the upper atmosphere, it's just > basic chemistry that chlorine rapidly breaks down ozone, that's all the > evidence I need to say go with the nearly trivial change to R-134. Can you show me that information? I've tried a couple times and only come up with alarmist sites with lots of rants on them, which I have a hard time taking seriously. >>kindo of hard to be certain ... but now the weather has started to warm >>up just started to use the aircon on my 1996 9000cd... more or less, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > re-gassing is a rather expensive proposition, about $200 at current prices, > more than the parts to convert. Nope. 9000s had R12 up through MY 1992 for sure, but I believe it was in '93 (definitely by '94) that they switched to R134. So the '96 MY car in question is definitely *not* loaded with R12 -Fred W |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.