Low side AC port reroute
#16
Chronic Tool Dropper
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,506
Likes: 549
From: Bend, Oregon
For R-12 on the original port on my S4, getting a hose connected was easy... ---IF--- I put the hose on while the engine was still cold. So no need to wrestle with the hot upper radiator hose. Same on disconnect-- let the thing site for 30 mins before burning any fingers or wrists.
I added a 90º adapter when I converted to R-134a. Now the port faces up and forward slightly. The hose connector is now the cam-lock type so it has to be lined up perfectly before it will go together. Still need room to get fingers in there to retract the hood on the cam-lock, so while there is some improvement, it's not a complete solution. Still easier to connect and disconnect when the engine isn't at full temp.
When actually charging, I add liquid to a cold system via the high-side port, as Dan mentions. This means charge-by-weight into an empty system only, or guess at what it needs if it's been leaking.
Back to the original question-- I have to ask why anyone needs 'easier' access to the low-side port? Charging is a once-in-a-blue-moon event. If you are charging more often then you really need to sniff out and fix the leaks rather thah just adding more gas every few months. Adding more connections and extensions really just offers more places to leak. CraigL's copper-tube extension solution adds work-hardening and fatigue failure to the mix, so it's not a reasonable option IMHO. There are obviously differing opinions out there.
I added a 90º adapter when I converted to R-134a. Now the port faces up and forward slightly. The hose connector is now the cam-lock type so it has to be lined up perfectly before it will go together. Still need room to get fingers in there to retract the hood on the cam-lock, so while there is some improvement, it's not a complete solution. Still easier to connect and disconnect when the engine isn't at full temp.
When actually charging, I add liquid to a cold system via the high-side port, as Dan mentions. This means charge-by-weight into an empty system only, or guess at what it needs if it's been leaking.
Back to the original question-- I have to ask why anyone needs 'easier' access to the low-side port? Charging is a once-in-a-blue-moon event. If you are charging more often then you really need to sniff out and fix the leaks rather thah just adding more gas every few months. Adding more connections and extensions really just offers more places to leak. CraigL's copper-tube extension solution adds work-hardening and fatigue failure to the mix, so it's not a reasonable option IMHO. There are obviously differing opinions out there.
#17
As Doc Bob mentioned about using a straight port to make it simple, what you can do when you go to put on the snap connector when things are hot is simply wear a leather glove, definitely slows down the burn time on the back of the hand.
#18
Sorry, but the bad motor mount breaching a low-side pipe reasoning is BS IMO. The only connection that low-side pipe has to the engine is via a rubber hose connected to the compressor, which is attached to the engine block. Well, on a 928 also the fuel cooler has fuel lines connecting to the engine, but those too are flexible. And, bad mounts cause the engine to rock LESS anyway. I would love to be proved wrong though... is there a pic of the damage?
Dan
'91 928GT S/C 475hp/460lb.ft
Dan
'91 928GT S/C 475hp/460lb.ft