Automotive Air Conditioning Information Forum (Archives)

Provided by www.ACkits.com

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Search Auto AC Forum Archives

need feedback on freon Pages: 12Last

boatmoter on Thu July 12, 2007 9:25 PM User is offline

Year: 91
Make: ford
Model: exploder
Engine Size: 4.0
Refrigerant Type: enviro safe
Ambient Temp: 96

I was surfing and run across freon called enviro safe.. it says its colder than R-12 and it takes less to fill the system to get the same pressure reading and claims to use less horsepower then useing R-12 or R134-A ,and is compatable with both types of oil.and is not flamable. has anybody every used this product or heard good or bad things about it?? if used it ,how did it work??

-------------------------
Glenn //

TRB on Thu July 12, 2007 10:46 PM User is offlineView users profile

Do a search on HC refrigerants and you will find all the information you need on that stuff.

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

powerflite on Thu July 12, 2007 11:50 PM User is offline

My experience - cools great (Industrial 12 only), is illegal in motor vehicles in most places, and is extremely flammable!

mk378 on Fri July 13, 2007 12:56 AM User is offline

It's a well-known mixture of propane and butane. They go to considerable length to disguise that fact, calling it "alkanes". Also they sell leak sealer. Not a good practice.

NickD on Fri July 13, 2007 7:31 AM User is offline

The propane/butane mixture is suppose to emulate R-12, but the pressures are still too low. System has to be 100% leak proof as the lighter of the two gases, don't recall which one, using what brain cells I have left to try to remember the important things, will leak out causing the pressures to skyrocket. This is a very common problem with any mixture of gases, safe or unsafe. The list of acceptable heterogeneous refrigerants is very low for MVAC applications, namely R-12 and R-134a, that I can remember.

If these refrigerants leak out, can add more and still have the same stuff in the system, and if enough leaks out, the safety devices in the system will shut it down. With a blend with not enough refrigerant to properly circulate the very necessary compressor lubricant, the pressures can still be great enough to fool the system into thinking everything is okay and your compressor seizes.

Did you read that in your EnviroSafe literature?

Another little detail they left off is that the ideal pressures only occur with a given mixture at one specific temperature, the P-T of this mixture is nothing like R-12, and before it was made illegal by the EPA for MVAC applications, guys that tried it were going crazy. Their solution was to add air to the system if you can believe that. Air does not cool, but increases the low temperature pressures and really screws up the high temperature pressures. So what may work well at one of the spectrum screws up the other end of the spectrum.

So besides being illegal, you will have some rather technical complications to work out and their advertisements are misleading to say the least. Several years ago, their key sales outlet was ebay, but with thousands of complaints, even ebay banned them. What they charged for an 8 ounce can, think that is was, was outrageous and also think it was like a 60/40 blend that a guy could do with a very inexpensive bottle of propane and butane.

So if you want major technical problems, believe in fairy tales, and want to break the law, and like being screwed, send them a few bucks.

boatmoter on Fri July 13, 2007 6:01 PM User is offline

thats what I needed to know..going to stick to R-12,have a friend that owns a repair shop thats going to sell me a few cans he has left..

-------------------------
Glenn //

graeme on Sat July 14, 2007 5:01 AM User is offline

Boatmotor, you are not on the right site for objective information about HC refrigerants......or maybe you are.
I have run HC's in three of my vehicles for the last 10 years. I chose to do that because, I could buy the cans $20 for 300grams with no licence for and top them up myself.....my systems are old and the compressor seals are leaky.......and any thoughts of spending money getting them fixed would over capitalise the vehicles, or paying for a shop to charge them up every year was ridiculous! Ive possibly topped them up with ~ 5 times the standard charge over the time. Whether there is any truth to the theory that the system will be reduced to a dangerous blend because one "alkane" leaks out faster than the other.......I dont know.....can only say that my systems are still working great, Ive not measured any pressures.......but have scrupulously measured vent temps to confirm that performance was on a par with r12.

NickD on Sat July 14, 2007 6:38 AM User is offline

In like manner we should advise our Canadian neighbors and UK friends to top off with R-12 when this process is illegal in their respective countries.

I do not mean to question your credibility, but let's just say your experiences with HC's is indeed very very rare and do not share the same experiences as the other thousands that come to these boards.

Do you by any chance sell HC's? You are advising boatmotor to break our laws, whether we agree with them or not. And I find your technical reasons to be contradictory and incredible.

graeme on Sat July 14, 2007 8:45 AM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: NickD
In like manner we should advise our Canadian neighbors and UK friends to top off with R-12 when this process is illegal in their respective countries.
I do not mean to question your credibility, but let's just say your experiences with HC's is indeed very very rare and do not share the same experiences as the other thousands that come to these boards.
Do you by any chance sell HC's? You are advising boatmotor to break our laws, whether we agree with them or not. And I find your technical reasons to be contradictory and incredible.

Boatmotor wanted to hear about people's experience.....good or bad. What the laws are where Boatmotor lives....I dont know....where I live its illegal to "touch" a system that runs r12 or r134 without a licence(I dont expect autoacforum to be responsible for what people do where I live either)but HC's are OK(environmental regs).......so be enlightened rather than blinkered. In Australia where I live, HC's would be at least 50% of the professional A/C market for replacing gas in vehicles that previously ran r12, there is a huge market for it locally since the average age of australian vehicles is around 15-20 years old. If there were problems one thinks that they ought to have surfaced by now
Where are the reports of "1000s" that come to these boards that have bad experiences?.....certainly not on this forum......we only have the tirade of scaremongering and heresay from the "forum experts" . The good reports....... look how aggressive people get when someone has a good experience with HC's, accused of selling the stuff and have "contradictory and incredible" technical reasons?(what have I provided other than Ive found it works ?) , Ill probably be threatened with being banned from this website again! for being troublesome.

bohica2xo on Sun July 15, 2007 5:04 PM User is offline

Boatmoter:

The biggest problem with HC's are the irresponsible jerks that tend to gravitate to using HC's. They are trying to cut every corner, and doing the job RIGHT is the last thing on their alleged minds. Consider the statements of the average HC user:

"..my systems are old and the compressor seals are leaky.."
They refuse to fix a known leak, and fill it with a flammable gas.
.


"I've possibly topped them up with ~ 5 times the standard charge over the time."
Their systems leak an entire charge every two years, but they have not fixed them in 10 years.
.


".......I dont know.....can only say that my systems are still working great, Ive not measured any pressures..."
Without a clue to the system pressures, they continue to add refrigerant.
.



And THAT is your average automotive HC end user. I can go to the local swap meet on any weekend, and find the guys selling Envirosafe to people that can not even understand the language the seller is speaking. Telling people to "put it in any system". Customers returning weekly for a little more to refill a bad leaker. HC's are the province of the slipshod mechanic or DIY bungler. If they won't fix a small leak, what else do you think is junk on their cars? Wonder how bad the brakes are?

I happen to like HC's as a stationary refrigerant. I have several big chillers running on the stuff in industrial applications. They are solid metal plumbed, with good ventilation, located outside, & equipped with gas alarms. I think HC's are great. In some applications. There is just no place for them in US MVAC applications at this time.

B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

graeme on Sun July 15, 2007 5:57 PM User is offline

As you can see boatmoter, the bullies kick in attacking the messenger, my car has now got poor brakes and steering etc. I do know the pressures are acceptable as the first time I had my system recharged with HC's it was done by "professionals" with gauges, my system also has low and high pressure cut offs, so I do have some idea of where the pressures lie. The opinions of doing the "job right" are exactly that......we could have tyres that never have to have air added to them........but its acceptable to the industry to provide tyres that arent air tight....so whats so wrong about topping up a leaky compressor with HC's, not ideal(good earner for the repair industry)........yes they are vented to the atmosphere.....not good, but so happens when you fill the car with gas......or propane, in fact more unburnt hcs will come out the exhaust of a typical car in a year.

TRB on Sun July 15, 2007 8:19 PM User is offlineView users profile

Greame, for a person who told me they did not answer many questions on this site because they knew little about repair auto a/c systems. You sure jump to discredit those that do help. Also I have been sitting back checking your posts lately. For a person to complain so much about being attacked by the members of this site. You sure throw as many jabs at everyone else as they have thrown at you. So again quit crying about how the moderators don't stick up for you in your posts.

Do we need to post the link of the HC explosion again. Also the other day a poster claimed to have done some original testing on R134a. You know that stuff you claim causes cancer. Did not see you taking issue with that person. Guess the Green Peace site did not have a response for those points.

No one here has said an HC refrigerant will not work. But it is dangerous, not backed By the industry and hardly anyone will service a vehicle with it. We get people in our shop with this stuff and turn them away. Some get mad at us for not working with their cocktail. But we never installed it in your system in the first place.

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com


Edited: Sun July 15, 2007 at 9:10 PM by TRB

bohica2xo on Sun July 15, 2007 9:00 PM User is offline

I am sorry graeme, did I mis-quote you somehow? I DID correct a typo for you.

I guess you will have to go back to attacking my use of punctuation & symbols as you did in the other thread.


I was speaking of the rolling wrecks in the swapmeet parking lot when I questioned the brakes - but you should KNOW that...


B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

graeme on Sun July 15, 2007 11:50 PM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: TRB
Greame, for a person who told me they did not answer many questions on this site because they knew little about repair auto a/c systems. You sure jump to discredit those that do help. Also I have been sitting back checking your posts lately. For a person to complain so much about being attacked by the members of this site. You sure throw as many jabs at everyone else as they have thrown at you. So again quit crying about how the moderators don't stick up for you in your posts.



Do we need to post the link of the HC explosion again. Also the other day a poster claimed to have done some original testing on R134a. You know that stuff you claim causes cancer. Did not see you taking issue with that person. Guess the Green Peace site did not have a response for those points.



No one here has said an HC refrigerant will not work. But it is dangerous, not backed By the industry and hardly anyone will service a vehicle with it. We get people in our shop with this stuff and turn them away. Some get mad at us for not working with their cocktail. But we never installed it in your system in the first place.

As you can see, in the eyes of this site's moderator, Graeme is the problem, not the other "experts" engaged in their normal unjustified bullying. No I didnt say that r134a gives one cancer, but is it not a hazardous chemcial?, but do we have any willing people to sit in a cabin and breath the stuff in and out for 10mins. Where is your research into that it is dangerous(other than a staged explosion), why is it used safely and effectively throughout the industry in Australia. I dont accept that it is ideal, but the risks have proven themselves to statistically insignificant, especially when the number of cars that catch fire from simple under hood fuel leaks everyday is considered. Of course there is nothing to gain from regulatory authorities in many countries to approve the use of this gas, simplest just to ban it because it "could" be dangerous. New car manufacturers, of course they are not going to touch it, they can design a system to work properly on r134a so there is nothing in it for them either.

TRB on Mon July 16, 2007 12:28 AM User is offlineView users profile

Greame you make me laugh. Like I keep saying, if you continue to take shots at everyone else around here. Quit crying when they give you some of your own medicine. Do a little research on Mercedes and HC's and you will learn a thing or two about HC's. Personally I don't have an issue with HC's being used in a system designed to use them. But they are illegal where I work/live so you will not be seeing me promote a product that is dangerous and illegal to use. Get over it, if you want to create a forum to promote HC's go ahead and do so. I'll come by now and then so you can tell me how great it is.

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

NickD on Mon July 16, 2007 7:27 AM User is offline

I don't recall anyone on this board or any other for that matter that claim they love R-134a, matter of fact that is a thread in the Automotive Air Conditioning Forum on questioning the price of this product, swings faster than the stock market or the price of gasoline. The old supply and demand approach. Further discussions on R-134a revolve around which is the best lubricant to use with it, never was a debate on the mineral oil with R-12 as mineral oil was never a problem, only the quantity of it in a system.

In R-134a equipped vehicles, we are pretty much stuck with it if we want continued warranty protection. In boatmotor's thread on his 91 Explorer, several of us suggested he stick with R-12, we can still get it, but have to pay through the nose for it, none of us like this, but sometimes more economical to stick with the refrigerant the system was designed for. I sure don't like paying the price for it, but in yet another price comparison, doesn't cost anymore than filling up my gas tank. Ironically, what they are selling EnviroSafe for, it's just about the same price of R-12.

Wouldn't want to be in a closed room with any refrigerant being released, really a stupid argument. Would be dead if I ran my LawnBoy mower for ten minutes, releasing a couple of cans of off the grocery shelf safe Windex in aerosol cans would cause severe lung damage, a plant in WI with pure plumbing dumped 800 gallons of LPG killing eight and severely burning another three dozen, in my book, the ones killed were the lucky ones. Even R-12 causes oxygen displacement, what's your point? My mom worked in a children's burn ward, maybe that is what killed her at such an early age, suggest you visit one and see how long you can take it.

Recently, our EPA is promoting the recycling and reuse of R-12, quite a contrast from a few years ago, this is of course is for vehicles designed to use R-12. Tomorrow, they may say, R-12 and R-134a is banned and only HC's are permitted to be used, in which case, all of us will have a learning curve using HC's. The point is, none of the "experts" on this board have a say as to which refrigerant should or can be used, we are told what is to be used and have to learn to live with it. So any discussion on this subject is fruitless and a waste of time. HC's are currently illegal for MVAC applications and some pretty stiff fines had to be paid by those that did, none of these were accident or so-called accident related, it's the law.

With an R-12 system, pressures for HC's are too low, and for R-134a, pressures are too high, so screwed either way, unless you make some expensive system changes, can't just fix it and fill it with anything your heart desires. And those that claim you can are lying through their teeth.

graeme on Mon July 16, 2007 11:51 AM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: NickD
I So any discussion on this subject is fruitless and a waste of time. HC's are currently illegal for MVAC applications and some pretty stiff fines had to be paid by those that did, none of these were accident or so-called accident related, it's the law.
With an R-12 system, pressures for HC's are too low, and for R-134a, pressures are too high, so screwed either way, unless you make some expensive system changes, can't just fix it and fill it with anything your heart desires. And those that claim you can are lying through their teeth.


" it's the law"........well that depends whereabouts on the planet one lives, do remember this site goes worldwide so questions and advice needs to be considered in that light(the site has a disclaimer about advice given, so why all the fuss, as long as the moderator doesnt sell them or just asks people to check whether they are legal in their neck of the woods, there can be no legal problem).......and further to that the enquiry was about whether the gas works or not.
HC pressures too low for an r12 system, maybe, but as I have stated in my experience with typical txv systems they cool just as effectively as r12. I can tell hc's wont work in a vir system(maybe with modification), one explanation offered to me was due to the lower density of hc compared to r12?
TRB: you really cant distinguish between unjustified bullying and harassment and questioning/challenging/finding fault in some of the material posted by our "experts"(which is what a discussion forum should be about) (Typically bullying and harassment happens when someone has no real logic to their objection and has their beliefs challenged) ie labelling them as an incompetent DIYer
You want me to start a website on HC's, be serious, Im just an amateur in a/c knowledge........and dont know enough about a/c in general.......I do know when people are talking out of their depth on some topics though............
Perhaps you want to make clear your "unofficial policy" . All those that mention that HC's can be used as a refrigerant in vehicles or dont join the forum chorus on the "great global warming swindle" are open slather to bullying and intimidation.

mk378 on Mon July 16, 2007 12:01 PM User is offline

In the USA if you do something unconventional and risky you're open to being sued. The risk of fire from using HC refrigerant is admittedly small, but it is there. I think it is state law (probably passed in the wake of the Hindenburg incident) whether it is legal or not, so it may be legal in a few states, but you're taking a chance driving to another state.

Envirosafe is marketing its product deceptively, talking about "flammable 2" versus "flammable 4" etc. It is in fact propane and butane, substances that are among the most flammable to be found in the consumer market. Also it is reportedly quite expensive compared to just buying fuel gas instead.

My cars are basically "rolling wrecks" by outside appearance but the brakes work, tires aren't bald, and the seals don't leak. It would just bother me to have a leaky seal even though it may cost less to keep topping up than to fix it.

TRB on Mon July 16, 2007 12:18 PM User is offlineView users profile

Typical Blah Blah Blah response graeme. You get the same treatment you give the others on this site. I'm not here to baby sitting the forum. If you had a clue as to what percentage of our viewers were US and foreign. You would understand the need to distinguish the legal aspects of using an HC refrigerant. Anyway no need to continue this debate as stirring up issues here is your favorite past time.

PS: I do believe you have mentioned the cancer issue in the past. But I'm certainly not going to dig through the posts to find it.

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

HECAT on Mon July 16, 2007 2:34 PM User is offline


It may be "legal" in Australia, but...

http://www.vasa.org.au/pdf/memberlibrary/hydrocarbons/hc_white_paper.pdf

-------------------------



HECAT: www.hecatinc.com You support the Forum when you consider www.ackits.com for your a/c parts.

FLUSHING TECHNICAL PAPER vs2.pdf 

TRB on Mon July 16, 2007 2:44 PM User is offlineView users profile

Hey were did graeme's last post go?

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

NickD on Mon July 16, 2007 2:55 PM User is offline

Yes, but is this sufficient evidence about HC refrigerants in MVAC applications? Or should the word of one individual that claims to know nothing or very little about MVAC be taken? This is not an attack, but just a question. And what about the credibility of the following organizations and OE's, should that also be questioned as well?


"The evidence:
Mid 1990s
“Customer advised the system was full of LPG, done at home via a BBQ bottle. Ford vehicles have alternator
mounted above the compressor with a live terminal on the back. My technician ended up with a shirt full of LPG
and a spark from a live terminal resulted in a ball of flame and a fire. The radiator test tank was less than five
feet away and the technician was in it in three seconds flat with no major problems.” – Open letter, undated, from
Noosa Radiator Services and Car Air Conditioning, signed by the Proprietor.
January 1996
“HC is not safe to be used in MVAC systems – it is explosive and flammable. HC is heavier than air and can
settle in pools on the floor of the passenger compartment. Electrical components inside the passenger
compartment create sparks sufficient to produce an explosion with HC”. - Briefing Paper, Motor Vehicle Repair
Industry Council, NSW.
22 August 1996
“Nissan, in line with FCAI member companies ! policy on this matter, would not support the use of hydrocarbons
in motor vehicle air conditioning.” - Nissan Motor Co (Australia) Pty Ltd.
5 September 1996
“In respect of the use of HC type refrigerant…totally opposed to such practice, and as such will not be a party to
any activity or any body promoting its use in automotive air conditioning systems.” - Toyota.
10 September 1996
“The Chamber (Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries), adopted the view that use of hydrocarbons in
airconditioners would be strongly opposed. We remain wholly aligned with that view.” - Daewoo Automotive
Australia.
September 1996
“…strongly objects to the use of HC refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning and cannot support any attempt
to justify its use. Any dealer ignoring MMAL !s recommendation should consider their own Product Liability risks.”
- Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd.
1 February 2000
“Melbourne Auto Air will not stock refrigerants containing hydrocarbons. We will put VASA principles, which are
for the long term good, above short term profit.” – John Blanchard CEO CoolDrive (formerly Melbourne Auto Air).
6 November 2000
“As a manufacturer we can only recommend repairs as set out in the workshop manuals.” - Ford Motor Company
of Australia Limited.
24 November 2000
“…under no circumstances does Holden endorse the use of hydrocarbons in the air conditioning systems of our
vehicles.”- Holden Ltd.
3
December 2000
“Flammable refrigerants must only be used with the approval of the relevant equipment manufacturer. Any
retrofit using flammable refrigerant should only be undertaken if the equipment components are designed or
modified for such use.” - Reprinted with the kind permission of Motor Trade Association of South Australia Inc.
12 January 2001
“MMAL strongly objects to the use of HC refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning and cannot support any
attempt to justify its use by the referenced (Hydrocarbon) Code of Practice. This statement was issued to our
Dealers in 1996 and is still current.” - Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd.
24 September 2002
“Even the mixing of small quantities of flammable gas with non-flammable gas is all you need to turn the
recovery of refrigerant into a hazardous operation.” - Media Statement, Michael Bennett, General Manager,
Refrigerant Reclaim Australia.
10-11 February 2003
At the Mobile Air Conditioners World Summit in Brussels, a presentation by the Hydrocarbon refrigerant industry
was challenged by an Australian government representative on their claim that the hydrocarbon industry had
received an OEM approval to charge a/c systems with a hydrocarbon refrigerant. In front of the most influential
international audience of this industry in the world, the hydrocarbon representative withdrew the claim, saying
that he could not produce any such approval. – Report of Australian industry representative Mark Mitchell (then
president of VASA)
4 March 2003
Qld Government issues Safety Alert, reinforcing that use of flammable gas refrigerants in automotive
applications is not permitted in Queensland, and recommending recall of any vehicle converted in this state to
use LP gas as a refrigerant. Names HR12 from HyChill as the product which “can lead to fire or explosion.” -
Chief Inspector Petroleum and Gas, Bureau of Mining and Petroleum.
14 July 2004
“The defendant was employed by the University of New South Wales as a senior lecturer in the University
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, and on 12 July 2001, the defendant conducted an
experiment at the premises involving the ignition, within a closed motor vehicle, of a hydrocarbon gas which was
a mixture of propane, isobutene and air. The experiment was requested by Dr Michael Belsted Belsted, the managing
director of a company described as Minus-Forty Pty Limited.
“The defendant discharged into the air two aerosol containers containing approximately 343 grams of the gas.
The defendant proceeded to light a match that ignited the gas and thus caused a burst of flame. The tops of the
four passenger doors were bent outwards by up to 28 millimetres, part of the interior lining of the roof and doors
were melted or softened and the passenger side front window of the vehicle fractured into hundreds of
thousands of shards. Four onlookers suffered first degree burns.
“Mr Belsted !s clients were seeking information on a concentration of hydrocarbon refrigerant in the passenger
cabin of a motor vehicle, which, if ignited, would cause no significant bodily injury or property damage.” -
Transcript of the judgement in the successful prosecution of Ian Maclaine-Cross by Work Cover NSW, in the
Chief Industrial Magistrate !s Court, Sydney.
Flashback to 12 July 2001
“Well, you live and you learn. At least we have proved that the product can !t kill you at least.” – Interview to
camera by Brett Hoare, hydrocarbon promoter, at the hospital which treated the injured in the above explosion.
3 March 2003
“I have visited the outlet and advised the manager of the matters regarding the sale of HR12 refrigerants. He
said he would push it to the back of the shop. Our Chief inspector is currently writing a safety alert which will be
issued and sent to Automotive regas/agents. He has also alerted the Office of Fair Trading of the issue
regarding the sale of a restricted/banned refrigerant.” - Petroleum and Gas Inspector, Queensland Govt.,
reporting on VASA !s complaint that an auto wholesaler was selling hydrocarbon refrigerant over the counter.
4
21 October 2004
“At this stage Proton are using refrigerant gas R134a until further notice. All manufacturers are using this and are
all working together to develop any other alternatives.” - Proton Australia.
25 April 2005
"The U.S. Army operates fleets of armored tactical vehicles equipped with air- conditioning," said John
Manzione, Chief of the Environmental Technology R&D Team at Fort Belvoir, "But we would never jeopardize
soldier safety by putting hydrocarbon refrigerants in our vehicles."
“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Society of Automotive Engineers 6 April 2005 (SAE), the
Mobile Air Conditioning Society Worldwide (MACS), and the vehicle manufacturers, automotive organizations
and suppliers listed below agree that hydrocarbons are unsafe as refrigerants in vehicle mobile air conditioning
systems designed for CFC-12 and HFC-134a.”
“No vehicle manufacturer has endorsed or authorized the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants in current production
mobile air conditioning systems and no professional or technical association has approved the use of
hydrocarbon refrigerants. Vehicle warranties are voided for any air conditioning system that has been charged
with hydrocarbons. Vehicle manufacturers only recognize HFC-134a as acceptable for use in their current
mobile air conditioning systems.”
“Off highway and large commercial vehicles require substantially more refrigerant than a passenger car. Use the
refrigerant designed for the system--stay away from hydrocarbon refrigerants.” states Gary Hansen, Vice
President of Engineering for Red Dot Corporation. - A Warning to Consumers about Hydrocarbon Refrigerants
Safety and Health issued by MACS Worldwide.
The service announcement containing the above quotes was endorsed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Society of
Automotive Engineers, the Mobile Air Conditioning Society and supported by ACC Climate Control, AGRAMKOW, AirSept, Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (Aston Martin, Ferrari, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Maserati, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot, Renault,
Subaru, Suzuki and Toyota), Audi, Australian Fluorocarbon Council, Behr, BMW, CalsonicKansei, DaimlerChrysler, Delphi, Federation of
Automotive Products Manufacturers (Australia), Eaton Corporation, Ford, General Motors, Goodyear, Institute for Governance &
Sustainable Development, Manuli Automotive, Modine, Neutronics, Red Dot Corporation, RTI Technologies, Sanden, Spectronics
Corporation Tracer Products Division, Transpro, U.S. Army, UView Ultraviolet Systems, Valeo, Vehicle Airconditioning Specialists of
Australasia, and Volvo Car Corporation.
6 April 2005
“Despite a concerted lobbying effort by the sellers of flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants, the US government
has again rejected these refrigerants on safety grounds.” Mr Dave Godwin of the US EPA speaking at the MACS
Summit in Sacramento, California in March, 2005.
25 April 2005
“Manufacturers, owners and fleet managers of heavy trucks, buses, rescue and other specialty vehicles will want
to take extra efforts to avoid hydrocarbon refrigerants that can endanger drivers and passengers,” said Dr. Alex
Moultanovsky, Vice President of ACC Climate Control. A Warning to Consumers about Hydrocarbon
Refrigerants Safety and Health issued by MACS Worldwide.
25 April 2005
“There is no evidence to prove that hydrocarbons are safe to use in mobile air conditioning systems designed for
either CFC-12 or HFC-134a.” A Warning to Consumers about Hydrocarbon Refrigerants Safety and Health
issued by MACS Worldwide.
26 April 2005
“The #LPG/butane refrigerant groups have been successful in not having to explain that #a hydrocarbon refrigerant
actual comprises LPG and butane.” - Chris Lindeman MIAME, Fluoroclaim and technical expert.
5
May 2005
“The Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, clarifies and brings Victoria !s safety laws up to date to
reflect modern workplaces and arrangements. The manufacturer must establish, through testing and
examination for each substance they produce, the health and safety requirements for the intended use of each
substance. Suppliers must supply substances in a condition that is safe to use and does not create risks to the
health of the people who might use it or be exposed to it. This applies when the goods are used in a workplace
for a purpose for which they were designed, manufactured or supplied.” - Information for manufacturers and
suppliers of substances, Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Victoria)
16 August 2005
“For liquefied flammable gases, any person who proposes to use such a gas as a motor vehicle air conditioning
refrigerant…is required to make sure that the gas may safely be used for that purpose.
Manufacturers, designers or suppliers are required to provide appropriate information to ensure that the
refrigerant may safely be used in their equipment. Further, the a/c system should be operated safely which
usually entails regassing it in accordance with the manufacturer !s operating instructions. It would be
inappropriate to modify the procedures specified in the manufacturer !s service instructions or change the product
used in the a/c system without the manufacturer !s consent or support.” – John Della Bosca MLC, special Minister
of State, Minister for Commerce and Industrial Relations, in a letter to HyChill Australia.
December 2005
“Most people are unaware that refrigerants can be flammable.”
“Before using hydrocarbons to re-gas any MVACs, obtain written advice from its designer, manufacturer or
supplier that hydrocarbons can be safely used in it.”
“To avoid the possibility of voiding a customer !s vehicle warranty, check with the motor vehicle manufacturer that
they allow hydrocarbons to be used in their systems. This advice should be obtained in writing from each
vehicle manufacturer and retained.
“Written approval should be obtained from customers before re-gassing with hydrocarbons. The document
should record that the customer was warned of possible safety issues associated with using flammable
hydrocarbon gases in their air conditioning systems and that they agree to its use.” - Safety alert prepared jointly
by MVRIA and WorkCover NSW to ensure motor vehicle repair businesses are aware of the hazards to their
staff and customers in respect to re-gassing Motor Vehicle air-conditioning systems (MVACs) with Flammable
Hydrocarbon Gases.
24 March 2006
“Employers providing air conditioning charging services breach OH&S laws in both states (NSW and Victoria) by
electing to use hydrocarbon refrigerants when non flammable refrigerants are available and suitable.” - Effect of
OH&S legislation and policy on sale and use of hydrocarbon refrigerants. Legal opinion by leading barrister Tom
Brennan of Canberra.
24 March 2006
“Suppliers of hydrocarbon refrigerants to … employers probably breach OH&S laws in both states (NSW and
Victoria) by providing hydrocarbon refrigerants when they are able to source non flammable refrigerants and
those non flammable refrigerants would be suitable for use.” - Effect of OH&S legislation and policy on sale and
use of hydrocarbon refrigerants. Legal opinion by leading barrister Tom Brennan of Canberra.
28 July 2006
“The use of hydrocarbons in motor vehicle air conditioning as a refrigerant has an inherent risk to the user, other
road users, technicians handling the material and others. These other groups include technicians repairing other
parts of the vehicle, emergency crews who may be cutting people out of wrecked cars and even the greater
public when using public transport vehicles including buses, taxis and the like.” - Motor Traders ! Association of
NSW in submission to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
6
28 July 2006
“The Office of Fair Trading alert stated that the product should only be used in vehicles where the manufacturer
[of the vehicle] has stated that the use of such products is permitted. The MTA knows of not one vehicle
manufacturer that permits the use of flammable refrigerants in its vehicle !s air conditioning.” - Motor Traders !
Association of NSW in submission to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
28 July 2006
“I am informed by business proprietors that Hychill is informing people that a certificate is not required to use
their products, ignoring the fact that it is needed to remove existing refrigerant.” - Motor Traders ! Association of
NSW in submission to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and corroborated by evidence
from VASA and also as revealed at the industry forum of the Australian Refrigeration Council on 5 October 2006.
12 October 2006
“Factory engineers both here and in China and Japan have confirmed the only approved refrigerant for use in
our compressors is HFC134a. Any use of alternatives, including the flammable HCs on promotion in Australia
will null and void any warranty or support offered to our product.” - SCA Australia (representing Unicla at OEM
level in SE Asian markets)
October 2006
“Sanden recommends R134A as the refrigerant to be used in our range of compressors. The compressors have
been designed to use PAG oil and R134A, the use of any other refrigerant/oil combination may void your
warranty.” - Technical Bulletin Sanden International (Australia) Pty Ltd
31 October 2006
“The policy at Caterpillar Institute Vic-Tas, is to fill AC systems with R134a ONLY. If it is (was) an R12 system
when it leaves us it is retrofitted to R134a. We believe that if all in the trade were to simply retrofit to R134a
then there is NO fear of contamination problems.
“It has been brought to my attention that some AC repairers are using LPG to "top up" AC systems. If they get
caught, or an accident, or leak results in death or injury, they will feel the full force of the law.” - Gregory K.
Young, Training Facilitator, Caterpillar Institute Vic-Tas
16 October 2006
“I can confirm that there is not one single car manufacturer in the world that in any way has authorized the use of
hydrocarbons (HC) in any type of vehicle air conditioning systems.
“All engineers in this business are in full agreement that if HC, or any other flammable refrigerant, is to be used
in a MAC, it has to be in what is called an indirect system or 'Secondary Loop' system. This means that the
systems need to be fundamentally redesigned in order to be safe #in both safety and reliability aspects.
“During recent years different rubber materials were introduced into the R-134a/PAG-oil systems that are not
compatible with HCs. These materials work perfectly well with the original refrigerant and oil but are definitely
questionable with HCs or any refrigerant mix that contains HC. Due to the simple fact that HCs from a
flammability/safety standpoint are out of the question, independent of the circumstances, the exact impact of
HCs on these materials has not [needed to be] established. The above is based on normal, generic material
compatibility facts and experiences.
#
“Any use of a HC or mix containing HC in the air conditioning system refrigerant loop #will void all warranty
obligations for the climate system #given by our company. #
##
“For the moment, there is no development work #whatsoever on HC-Secondary Loop systems in either Europe or
USA and I do not know of any plans to do any such work #for the near future.” - Hans Fernqvist, Technical Expert,
Climate AC System Strength & Endurance Testing, Volvo Car Corporation, Gothenburg, Sweden
7
12 December 2006
DENSO, Australia !s largest supplier of air conditioning products, does not support the use of hydrocarbons as a
replacement refrigerant in current automotive applications. Automotive air conditioning systems have been
designed for fluorocarbon refrigerants (HFC-134a) since 1995. The use of hydrocarbon refrigerant will affect the
air conditioning system in the following ways:
Safety and serviceability
Hydrocarbons are flammable and in the event of a leak, place the safety of both the occupants and
service technician at risk of an explosion. As a result, licensed Service Dealers may refuse to service
your system.
Durability
Hydrocarbons charge amount is typically 1/3 of normal refrigerant levels resulting in a reduced amount
of oil returned to the compressor. Hence the durability of the compressor can be adversely affected by a
lack of oil returned.
Only HFC-134a refrigerant is approved by DENSO as the system supplier and also by the Vehicle Manufacturer
for replacement use in their vehicles. This refrigerant will allow your system to operate as it was designed. It will
ensure reliability of operation, durability of components and a safe environment for all concerned. - Robert Burns
Service Manager, Denso International Australia Pty Ltd
THE LAST WORD
For those who believe that by switching to the use of a flammable refrigerant, they can avoid the
licensing provision of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act.
5 April 2006
“A National Refrigerant Handling Licence is not required for natural refrigerants such as hydrocarbons. However,
regulation 111(1) of the Regulations provides that it is an offence for a person to handle a fluorocarbon
refrigerant without a relevant licence. For the purposes of this offence, "handle a refrigerant ! means "to do
anything with the refrigerant that carries the risk of its emission !, including decanting the refrigerant or
decommissioning or disposing of refrigeration and air condition equipment. This offence applies to all handling of
fluorocarbon refrigerants, including evacuating systems prior to decommissioning or retrofitting so that it will be
operate on an alternative refrigerant. Technicians working with natural refrigerants will therefore contravene
Regulation lll if they do not hold a Refrigerant Handling Licence when they convert refrigeration or air
conditioning equipment with a fluorocarbon refrigerant, such as R134a, to an alternative refrigerant. It will be
necessary for technicians to engage a licensed technician in these circumstances.
“In addition to contravening the Regulations, the discharge of a fluorocarbon refrigerant to the atmosphere will
also be a strict liability offence under section 45B of the Act. Section 45B provides that a person is guilty of an
offence if they:
• engage in conduct that results in the discharge of a schedule substance (fluorocarbons)
• it is likely that the schedule substance will enter the atmosphere
• and the discharge of the substance is not in accordance with the Regulations.
This offence will carry a penalty of up to $11,000.” - Patrick McInerney, Director, Ozone and Synthetic Gas
Team, Australian Government"

graeme on Tue July 17, 2007 8:25 AM User is offline

Nick, is there anything we dont know ^. Of course no vehicle manufacturer will endorse HC's, why would they, what is in it for them other than the potential for something to go wrong and get sued for. Car manufacturers as a matter of routine do not approve any modifications to their cars, unless there is some money in it for them. I wanted information from GM regarding removing the petrol tank from my vehicle, whether it formed part of the structural integrity of the car..or was part of the impact absorption process......reply? "GM can not recommend modifications to its vehicle........blah, blah(no mention of what i was asking specifically)....it just serves no purpose to consider anything.
There are lots of "authorities" claiming that HC in mvac is dangerous, but its just opinion, there is no evidence(only stunts)........despite many cars being on the road for years with it. Years ago, the use of lpg (propane/butane mix) as a fuel was similarly frowned upon........how dangerous putting a gas bottle in a car and driving it......what if it crashed/leaked........etc . Gas bottled cars in Aus have proven to be a far better proposition in an accident, cars bursting into flames because of the bottle in accidents.....unheard of.......people fitting the tanks themselves.......some disasters.

NickD on Tue July 17, 2007 10:35 AM User is offline

How is your reading comprehension? Not an attack, just a question.

Sure they don't have any reason to endorse HC's, but in like manner, they (OE's, politicians, organizations, etc.) don't have any reason to be so negative about it's use either. They won't be sued or liable if a 3rd party modifies their vehicles.

You are giving the impression that everyone in Australia loves HC refrigerant, this rather very long list states otherwise.

Can you post a list of credible organizations, professionals, politicians, manufacturers, etc., that are for using HC refrigerants that is at least as long as the above list?

Find it ironic that many of the statements posted above question the integrity of those selling HC refrigerants. Would it likewise be acceptable to question your integrity?

P.S. also don't recall anyone on these board claiming to be an expert, well, with perhaps exception of you, not in AC, but in the physical sciences.

graeme on Tue July 17, 2007 5:10 PM User is offline

What a lot of twisting of words........I quoted that I have qualifications in the physical sciences........doesnt make me an expert on anything that is discussed on this forum, but it sure gives me the background with which to recognise when some people are talking nonsense and are out of the depth.
No I didnt say all of Australia loves HC's, said it was widely used.....as an alternative to retrofits to r134a.......due to non availability of r12. Authorities have nothing to gain in saying it is "safe" either,I think I made this very clear in my previous response(they would have to go to exhaustive lengths to justify that it could pose no risk), easier to say it has the potential to ignite and cause problems.......there can be no disputing that. No government department even has to consider allowing its vehicles to be recharged with HC's as they are all their fleet is turned over regularly and obviously run r134a, even if the fleet was old enough they wouldnt use HC's either..........its easy to order an expensive retrofit to r134a using someone elses money. Not living in Aus, you would possibly be unaware that there is no such thing as an a/c expert here, the number of people I know that arent happy with the cooling and expense on their r134a converted system far outweighs those that are. HC works, (with the exception of vir systems) and any a/c shop can do it.
How is my credibility or integrity under attack, Ive not made any false statements, .......or nothing that anyone has any evidence to prove otherwise...........there maybe good reasons not to use HC's other than just "it could blow up", thats all these "authorities" cling to.......lets hear about them.

Quote
And I find your technical reasons to be contradictory and incredible. Nick this is harassment, for one you havent quoted what you find contradictory and incredible and implies the technical reasons Ive given to support it are nonsense.
I dont think Ive given any technical reasons to support HC(sorry not an expert in the field)....Ive just given my own personal experiences where it appears to work, which was sought by boatmoter seeking objective info on HC's
For those who havent worked it out TRB, deleted my last post about his bullying behaviour........................

Back to Off Topic Chat

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Copyright © 2016 Arizona Mobile Air Inc.