Stan944

I'm considering adding r12a refrigerant to my r12 -filled system.
I checked the data sheet, and there is ignition hazard - avoid sparks.
I don't think it's a problem if everything works OK, but:
- can it explode if the AC leaks, and the vapors get near the distributor ( I think it can spark), etc?
- in a front end-collision r12a may leak out if the AC is damaged. Would it explode?

Obviously, there is gasoline in the car which is equally explosive, and there is tons of it compared to the amount of the refrigerant. So do I significantly increase a risk of explosion?

There is less than a pound of the refrigerant in the system. Is this enough to cause catastrophic explosion, or it would be a minor "boom" in the worst case, i.e. damage to the car, but no harm to the passengers?

Anybody using it here? Do you know if r12a is commonly used? Have there been documented cases of explosions, etc.?

Thanks, Stan

qoncept944

I don't know a thing about r12a, but in terms of combustibility, you're comparing apples to oranges. Gasoline is a volatile liquid which won't burn, but as vapour is explosive. As a compressed gas, r12a would probably have more potential to explode in a fireball, but then it'd be done. It won't continue to burn.

Stan944

OK, but is there any evidence (e.g. statistics, etc) if r12a is safe enough?
stan

F18Rep

The thing R12 alternatives (which frequently have LP gas as a component) is that it would be circulated into the cabin area (evaporator)of the car - so in the case of an accident, the small boom that you mention might be more than trivial. I don't believe R12 or 134a will ignite, though I could be wrong.

Generally, LP is a tempting theoretical alternative to R12 - I'm not at all an expert but was told the heat factor is similar (to R12), it compresses to a liquid, is cheap and is non-harmful to environment.
I once knew a guy that made the initial fill of re-assembled systems with LP, he claimed it was "dry" (did not introduce water into the system) and leaks were easily found. When done he just vented it into the atmosphere, and filled with refrigerant.

If we could just get around that pesky risk of explosion. Just a thought...Bruce

Ken D

The EPA has determined that R12A is an unacceptable substitute for refrigeration. Main reason being the lack of testing data available on the issue of flammibility. They do believe it poses some type of risk. Here is a link to their assessment:

<a href="http://epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/lists/unaccept.html" target="_blank">http://epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/lists/unaccept.html</a>

You can click on the R12A section which brings you to a FAQ (which covers Duracool, advertised in Pano & Excellence).
Edit: apparently it's also illegal for use in automobiles as a violation of the Clean Air Act? Hmmmm

Stan944

As far as I checked, r12a is even safer to ozone than r134. r12a provides better cooling properties than both r12 or r134. My worries are about the explosion hazard...

It should be stressed that ignition hazard and flamability are two different things: both r134 and r12a are flamable (r12a is actually less flamable than r134; only r12 is completely non-flamable). r134 and r12 do not pose ignition hazard, while r12a does. It's just that how bad is it?

Anybody else knows more about the ignition hazard of r12a ?

Peckster

Is it certified for use? If it is, then I wouldn't worry about it.

Legoland951

Who cares about a little explosion as long as the interior is cool? Its nothing compared to the engine fire potential of the 944/951 straight out of the factory

Mike S

Get your certification online from IMACA for $14.95(test is easy, just time consuming). You can then legally buy R12 from Kragen or ebay(ebay is cheaper usually) for $12-$20 a can. Two cans later you are done. That's a total investment of around $50 to refill it with R12 which it was originally designed for.

ZV

Duracool 12a works well and it has a very high ignition point. A slow leak (or even a fast one) will not ignite.

However, Duracool 12a is _not_ EPA approved for use in an automotive A/C system and if the EPA finds out that you are using it, you can be fined.

Aaron

EDIT: Personally, I don't plan on informing the EPA since the EPA's decisions are largely politically motivated to appease environmentalists. For example, it is illegal to vent R-134a from an A/C system into the atmosphere. However, those "Air Duster" cans for cleaning computer parts are R-134a and they are 100% legal to vent.

Peckster

Am I missing somethign here?

Stan, why don't you just do the right thing and convert to 134 like you're supposed to? I just did it, it's not that expensive and my system works fine. Plus, you don't have to worry about your car blowing up.

And Aaron, do you think those holes in the ozone layer are fiction? The reason for using 134 is that it's less damaging to the environment than CFCs, or whatever they are.

Here's some stuff on R-12 from a US gov't report:

Even before the cessation of R-12 production in the United States, illegal imports entered the country in significant quantities because the high price of R-12 and the excise tax on R-12 made such activity very lucrative. While illegal imports will continue to enter the U.S., the amount of smuggling is not expected to increase in the future. This may be attributed to the increased success of U.S. law enforcement agencies in cracking down on illegal imports of R-12 in recent years. In fact, more and more individuals and companies are being charged for illegally importing R-12 into the U.S. now, than in previous years.

sm

Peckster,

Ever since your conversion to 134a, have you had any problems with high engine temperatures while running the A/C?

TIA

Peckster

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by sm:
<strong>Peckster,

Ever since your conversion to 134a, have you had any problems with high engine temperatures while running the A/C?

TIA</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Nope, no problems.

MachSchnell

Please. Anybody arguing that R12 in car systems was the cause of holes in the ozone needs their head examined. Let's look at the primary problem - unchecked industrial waste and smog production from factories, refineries, and any number of other industries who are almost never forced to comply with the codes of emissions from their stacks...much more of an impact than the sum of R12 (which, as I remember was not exactly readily vented to atmosphere) which people juiced off. Moreover, the R12 as compared to the emissions increase just from allowing SUVs higher emissions outputs than cars must be so minute that it would be ludicrous to speculate.

I keep R12 in my car, will continue to pay for R12, and may even see about retrofitting R12 to new cars I buy. Eat that tree huggers ;o)

Seriously, after many talks with A/C guys, the lower head pressure of R12 (thanks to its superior cooling capability) is a major reason why my '89 has had virtually no A/C work other than the occasional recharge, and I've seen 98, 99, and even 00 models which have weak A/C (not from accidents, just from leaks over time)...the 134A just lends itself more to leaking, the pressure is increased, thus the system is stressed more throughout.

Peckster

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by MachSchnell:
<strong>Please. Anybody arguing that R12 in car systems was the cause of holes in the ozone needs their head examined. .</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Who said it was the cause, it's just one of the causes.

Whatever, you do what you want.