To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

Generic A/C questions

theoldwizard1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
43,095
Location
SE MI
Just because I want to know !

Why do most cars (until very recently) use R134a while home systems use R410 ?

Why do some A/C systems have a "receiver/dryer" and some do not ?
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
184
Location
Deep in the heart of Dixie land
Just because I want to know !

Why do most cars (until very recently) use R134a while home systems use R410 ?

Why do some A/C systems have a "receiver/dryer" and some do not ?

Recr/drier is on the liquid side of systems using a TXV metering device. On newer systems. Some are located as a seperator canister, some are contained in a housing mounted on the side of the condenser. It contains a dessicant/filter and also does some duty as a liquid reservior

Accumulators are larger in size and are used on Orfice tube systems. They are located on the suction line, leaving the evaporator. They are typically larger in size when compared to a recr/drier and also contain a desiccant/filter. Due to the nature of how an orfice tube AC system works (basically a flooded evaporator process), there is the possibility of some liquid refrigerant that does not completely "boil" in the evaporator leaving via the suction line. If this liquid would enter the compressor, it could cause damage. The accumulator serves as a reservoir for this refrigerant and allows it to fall to the bottom of the canister where is will be picked up and removed as a vapor.

As far as refrigerant gases, selection is based on the heat transfer characteristics/pressures required for the cycles plus the size of the heat transfer devices that would be needed for the desired results. BTU factors, etc.
 

TRWham

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
1,957
Location
East Cobb County, Georgia
You bring up some painful memories.

It was the mid 80s when the HVACR industry saw the signs that we would need to move away from CFCs. Automotive AC was still running R12 at the time because the lower pressures were better for the hot and cramped space available (small condensers, etc.), so HFC134A was the logical choice. They went with PAG (polyalkylene glycol) oil because it was available earlier than POEs.

Stationary direct expansion (DX) systems had moved mostly to R22 by the late 60s, so an R22 substitute was needed. Because 22 is an HCFC, and less ozone depleting than CFCs (5% as much as R12), the timetable for phaseout was longer. In refrigeration, we even moved from single stage R502 to compound and injection cooled R22 systems for several years because it looked like we might be able to keep 22 a bit longer and there was not a good HFC just yet. R404A and R507 eventually replaced 502, but not for much longer.

As an eventual R22 substitute, R410A and R407c (both HFCs) were early candidates. 410 runs much higher pressure than either 22 or 407, but that works well in smaller systems. 407c was used in larger commercial units with larger components, especially semi-hermetic compressor applications, where the high pressure of 410 would have been problematic.

Eventually HFCs will also be gone, so don't get too comfortable just yet.
 
OP
T

theoldwizard1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
43,095
Location
SE MI
It appears (and please correct me if I am wrong) that most automotive A/C system use a fixed orifice tube instead of a TXV (or the equivalent electronic device). I am guessing this is because an orifice tube is cheaper than a TXV and because the engine is always running, it is easy to cycle the compressor on and off with the A/C clutch.
 
OP
T

theoldwizard1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
43,095
Location
SE MI
The new "greener" refrigerant the auto industry seems to be migrating to is R1234yf. Very expensive and potentially flammable.

Most people don't know it, but "pure" propane (not what we burn in are BBQ's or home heating equipment which is a blend) is an excellent refrigerant. Much less expensive, but probably more flammable.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
184
Location
Deep in the heart of Dixie land
It appears (and please correct me if I am wrong) that most automotive A/C system use a fixed orifice tube instead of a TXV (or the equivalent electronic device). I am guessing this is because an orifice tube is cheaper than a TXV and because the engine is always running, it is easy to cycle the compressor on and off with the A/C clutch.

The trend is toward TXV systems across all manufacturers, especially those platforms that originated in Europe, especially for cars
Asian vehicles have consistently, for the most part used TXV systems.

The TXV is a variable metering device whereas the standard orfice tube is basically flooding the evaporator with max refrigerant. There is better, consistent cooling output with an TXV system, especially at idle with no ram air flow from the front of the condensor. Also, with limited engine compartment, it is easier to put a rcr/drier on the side of the condensor rather than find room for the large accumulator close to the firewall.

Given a choice, I prefer to work on an orfice tube system as the metering device is always external to the hvac box and is accessible. Some TXVs are buried inside the firewall side of the hvac box which requires removal of the HVAC box (and dash components to access)
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
184
Location
Deep in the heart of Dixie land
The new "greener" refrigerant the auto industry seems to be migrating to is R1234yf. Very expensive and potentially flammable.

Most people don't know it, but "pure" propane (not what we burn in are BBQ's or home heating equipment which is a blend) is an excellent refrigerant. Much less expensive, but probably more flammable.

One of the design changes that had to be incorporated in order to use R1234yf was in the area of the evaporator. Since their is slight flammability in R1234yf, this required a more robust evaporator with some safeguards built into it.

For anyone who does AC work, they know the very common failures/leak of evaporators on Chrysler products that required extensive dash removal to replace. Jokingly, this new evaporator mandate was the only way to get Chrysler to make a better evaporator as a result:lol_hitti
 

Tim C

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
263
It appears (and please correct me if I am wrong) that most automotive A/C system use a fixed orifice tube instead of a TXV (or the equivalent electronic device). I am guessing this is because an orifice tube is cheaper than a TXV and because the engine is always running, it is easy to cycle the compressor on and off with the A/C clutch.
In my experience the US manufacturers, Ford and GM specifically went to orifice tube systems in the late 70s to early 80s. They were simpler than the over complicated pre 70s systems (some had a valve on both the inlet and outlet to the Evap!) , clutch could be cycled as you said to control Evap temps. Some Chrysler products mostly ram trucks used the o tube system too. Most imports, specifically Asian imports since we don't mess with Euro cars much at work have always been expansion valve (txv) setups. Lots of the smaller Chrysler trucks and fwd vehicles used the txv too.

In my experience o tube systems don't seem to cool as good since the orifice is a fixed size, it has to be large enough for high compressor rpm cooling, but the air temp will creep up at idle since the refrigerant flow is slower the orifice is too big then, iow, not enough pressure drop. Txv setups have a variable orifice since the pintle will open or close the orfice after referencing the discharge temp or pressure of the Evap. Txv systems will cool better with a low charge for that reason also. I've seen systems that hold a similar charge, say 1.5 lbs where the txv system is still blowing cool to cold a half lb low and the o tube system is warm.

More and more modern domestics are going txv GM and Ford both. My old 03 f250 had an o tube, but the 16 f250 I drive now is txv. The modern h block style txv is simple and easy to package right on the evaporator where the lines attach.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 

Tim C

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
263
Looks like tarheelmechanic and I were typing basically same thing at the same time. He just beat me to the punch, lol.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
184
Location
Deep in the heart of Dixie land
The new "greener" refrigerant the auto industry seems to be migrating to is R1234yf. Very expensive and potentially flammable.

Most people don't know it, but "pure" propane (not what we burn in are BBQ's or home heating equipment which is a blend) is an excellent refrigerant. Much less expensive, but probably more flammable.

Everything has an R rating of some type and some are great for the heat transfer process but very dangerous.

That is why we use a refrigerant identifier on all vehicles coming into our shop for repair for AC work which will require us to open up the systems.

Since we raised our shop hourly rates about two years ago, we have pretty much stopped the gas jockey cars coming into the shop. They now go to JOES SHOOT SOME GAS down the street and pray that his miracle in a can fix will solve all their AC woes:lol_hitti
 
OP
T

theoldwizard1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
43,095
Location
SE MI
I am retired (11 years) auto engineer. I have heard rumblings about "light hybrids" that use a 48V battery. With that kind of voltage and current, electric powered A/C compressors will quickly flood the market. (It took a long time to perfect electric power assist steering, but I don't think there are many light duty vehicles that still use a PS pump.)

There is at least one company is making a small refrigerant compressor that uses a 12V/24V brushless DC motor. It is packaged for refrigeration or resident A/C use, not automotive.

With a variable speed pump, do you think auto manufactures will stay (return) to orifice valves ?
 

Tim C

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
263
I don't know. The txv setup seems to cool better and it's smaller to package. Like said above o tube systems need a fairly large accumulator after the evaporator. Most newer cars have the reciever/dryer as one of the side tanks of the condenser, and it's smaller physically. That means less weight too. Also everything seems to hold less refrigerant now a days. Most or all hybrids have gone to electric compressors already, still with the txv. Of course they run off the high voltage system for the drive motor, not 12v but it's just a matter of time I believe.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 

bonneyman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
8,759
Location
Desert SW
The new "greener" refrigerant the auto industry seems to be migrating to is R1234yf. Very expensive and potentially flammable.

Most people don't know it, but "pure" propane (not what we burn in are BBQ's or home heating equipment which is a blend) is an excellent refrigerant. Much less expensive, but probably more flammable.

:thumbup: Been around awhile. Large industrial plants (say 2 million BTU's per hour and up) can use propane cost effectively for both heating and cooling. The liquid propane is evaporated to produce refrigeration for the offices and processes that need cooling, and then the vaporized propane is fed into large furnaces for heating purposes.
 

bonneyman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
8,759
Location
Desert SW
You bring up some painful memories.

It was the mid 80s when the HVACR industry saw the signs that we would need to move away from CFCs. Automotive AC was still running R12 at the time because the lower pressures were better for the hot and cramped space available (small condensers, etc.), so HFC134A was the logical choice. They went with PAG (polyalkylene glycol) oil because it was available earlier than POEs.

Stationary direct expansion (DX) systems had moved mostly to R22 by the late 60s, so an R22 substitute was needed. Because 22 is an HCFC, and less ozone depleting than CFCs (5% as much as R12), the timetable for phaseout was longer. In refrigeration, we even moved from single stage R502 to compound and injection cooled R22 systems for several years because it looked like we might be able to keep 22 a bit longer and there was not a good HFC just yet. R404A and R507 eventually replaced 502, but not for much longer.

As an eventual R22 substitute, R410A and R407c (both HFCs) were early candidates. 410 runs much higher pressure than either 22 or 407, but that works well in smaller systems. 407c was used in larger commercial units with larger components, especially semi-hermetic compressor applications, where the high pressure of 410 would have been problematic.

Eventually HFCs will also be gone, so don't get too comfortable just yet.

Good explanation.

I think R410a won out among the various alternatives tested in the 1990's due to it's thermodynamic properties outweighing the downside of its higher operating pressure. It is more 'efficient" than R22, and thus was deemed the best alternative at the time. At first it used similar coil designs and tube diameters, until the manufacturers figured out how to make parts and coils to specs that maximized R410a's advantages.
Sort of like when the F-15 Eagle was introduced. At first pilots were flying it like they did the older F-4 Phantom, and didn't fully realize the Eagles capabilities till they "relearned" flight techniques that the F15 allowed. I think the same scenario is playing out with the F-22 Raptor, just like it will again with the new refrigerants.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
184
Location
Deep in the heart of Dixie land
I am retired (11 years) auto engineer. I have heard rumblings about "light hybrids" that use a 48V battery. With that kind of voltage and current, electric powered A/C compressors will quickly flood the market. (It took a long time to perfect electric power assist steering, but I don't think there are many light duty vehicles that still use a PS pump.)

There is at least one company is making a small refrigerant compressor that uses a 12V/24V brushless DC motor. It is packaged for refrigeration or resident A/C use, not automotive.

With a variable speed pump, do you think auto manufactures will stay (return) to orifice valves ?

You're a retired auto engineer that doesn't know everything?:shocking::lol_hitti

What part of the design process were you involve with so I can complain about its piss poor design?:lol_hitti
 
OP
T

theoldwizard1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
43,095
Location
SE MI
You're a retired auto engineer that doesn't know everything?:shocking::lol_hitti

What part of the design process were you involve with so I can complain about its piss poor design?:lol_hitti

If you drove a Ford built between 1978 to sometime after 2000, I wrote some of the engine control code. EEC-I through EEC-V. I spent about 18 month somewhere in there working on experimental transmission control systems (we had a 6 speed dual clutch transmission running in the mid-1980s). I was heavily involved with overall design of PTEC (after EEC-V).

After retiring, I had a short gig working for an aftermarket company on CNG. I bailed before the whole CNG industry imploded. (It is still an excellent fuel, but the tanks are large and expensive.) I'll never understand why anyone would bother with LNG. Very large and VERY expensive.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
184
Location
Deep in the heart of Dixie land
If you drove a Ford built between 1978 to sometime after 2000, I wrote some of the engine control code. EEC-I through EEC-V. I spent about 18 month somewhere in there working on experimental transmission control systems (we had a 6 speed dual clutch transmission running in the mid-1980s). I was heavily involved with overall design of PTEC (after EEC-V).

After retiring, I had a short gig working for an aftermarket company on CNG. I bailed before the whole CNG industry imploded. (It is still an excellent fuel, but the tanks are large and expensive.) I'll never understand why anyone would bother with LNG. Very large and VERY expensive.

I am going to now blame you for the failure to provide EECIV datastream/PIDS from the crazy Ford DLC under the hood:lol_hitti. Chrysler was the first with datastream on OBD 1 and GM had some nice data as well, but Ford, now way
The only exception with EECIV was the vehicles that typically had the EOD auto trans. Those, IIRC, typically had a datastream that my snappy Red Brick could view.

BTW, knew a retired GM design engineer, who said he sole job, was the designing of door handles.:shocking:
 

Dagny

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
2,980
Location
Northern Wi.
With an orifice tube a lot of cooling is wasted because refrigerant is boiling in the accumulator under the hood raising the suction pressure and the evaporator temperature.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
Top Bottom