Dodge Durango Forum banner

21 - 39 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I believe if someone who switches a vehicle that is: R1234YF to R134 for $$$ reasons.. At least they would have the common sense and wisdom to MARK THE VEHICLE WHERE IT SAYS ON IT: Uses R1234YF and put a label over it, that it has been changed to R134a.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I also believe, if the planet savers do not want people to convert back to R134..
They should make the R1234YF as affordable as the R134. Like Now!!
This is the ONLY reason that someone would go to through the trouble of converting back to R134a
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Unfortunately I've been around long enough to see the good that the EPA has done for us. We wouldn't have the HP out of these engines that we do without the EPA driving the manufacturers into computers and stricter controls. The air is better even though we have a ton more vehicles on the road than before the rules got put into place. I am just a supporter of them, but I know there are a lot of folks that aren't. That's their choice.
The EPA has not given us any HP increases. I have been around long enough to Have a 1966 GTO that had the same HP as my 2014 Durango R/T and even at that GM was lying to the low side and that car had no EPA anything of even fuel injection. My MoPar from that era was a 1969 GTX 440 6pack with over 400 HP on caburetors and also practically no epa envolvment EPA requirements gave us no horsepower all it did was cause the anemic HP of the 70's through to the 90's
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
The EPA has not given us any HP increases. I have been around long enough to Have a 1966 GTO that had the same HP as my 2014 Durango R/T and even at that GM was lying to the low side and that car had no EPA anything of even fuel injection. My MoPar from that era was a 1969 GTX 440 6pack with over 400 HP on caburetors and also practically no epa envolvment EPA requirements gave us no horsepower all it did was cause the anemic HP of the 70's through to the 90's
.
However the scientific advances of the mandated epa stuff has given us computer systems that screw up and engines with unsolvable problems that we never had with carburetors and distributors and the mechanical parts were a lot more bullet proof than they are now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
I also believe, if the planet savers do not want people to convert back to R134..
They should make the R1234YF as affordable as the R134. Like Now!!
This is the ONLY reason that someone would go to through the trouble of converting back to R134a
I don't trust the "Planet Savers" as far as I can throw them they are telling us trace a gas that plants thrive on is going to kill the planet, Get Real! Read Bert Rutan's powerpoint onAGW is is still true today AGW is just a power grab
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,480 Posts
The EPA has not given us any HP increases. I have been around long enough to Have a 1966 GTO that had the same HP as my 2014 Durango R/T and even at that GM was lying to the low side and that car had no EPA anything of even fuel injection. My MoPar from that era was a 1969 GTX 440 6pack with over 400 HP on caburetors and also practically no epa envolvment EPA requirements gave us no horsepower all it did was cause the anemic HP of the 70's through to the 90's
.
Horsepower back then isn’t rated like horsepower now. They used SAE Gross, which is wildly different from SAE Net. With the gross measurement, it was essentially a “best case” as they left off things like alternators, water pumps, added free flowing headers etc. SAE net required them to test the engine “as installed” which caused the power to drop ~20%.

For instance, the 426 HEMI had a gross 425HP. Net, it dropped to 350. Even less at the wheels.

While yeah... epa mandates haven’t “given” us more power, manufacturers trying to eek out more fuel economy and cleaner emissions have led to greatly improved efficiency. They’re able to do more with less.

And I’m by no means a tree hugger, and the EPA is a bit ridiculous at times with certain things (diesel emissions standards) and entirely too lenient with others, like the steel mills/oil refineries having “processing upsets” and dumping whatever they want into a lake, causing a HUGE fish kill and closing multiple water intakes just to get a small slap on the wrist for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Flawless starts when its below zero/virtually no warming up, not having to smell the car in front of you, actually being able to see across the LA basin, 400+ HP V8's (SAE real numbers, not the bogus numbers from back in the day) that get 24+mpg on the hwy, virtually no maintenance outside of oil changes...yeah I agree advancements in engine management are totally lame. Sure, the EPA and most other government agencies overreach & over legislate after the low hanging fruit is picked just to justify themselves (CARB for instance), but these agencies are a form of competition that force beneficial technological advancements that wouldn't otherwise be pursued by a for profit company.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,056 Posts
Considering that you get the same 400 hp from an engine 100 CI less, you can't say we get the same HP today as 66. Engines are more efficient and accessories require less HP to operate. Burying your head in the sand because you hate the EPA is not a legitimate reason to ignore the facts. I remember when we had just started to meet smog requirements and the new Dodge CHP cars couldn't catch a car doing 85 when the CHP did a standing start. Now we have 700 HP and more for the street with less than 426 CI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Charged my system up a few days ago with 134a and everything works wonderfully. Only had to buy new fittings for my gauge set to fit the 1234yf fittings and the rest was routine. Less than $70, including buying the new fittings. Cheapest 1234 price I got, just to fill and not including mandatory diagnostic charge, was $500. I'll take the $70 fill every time over the other crap. So screw you hippies! ?

I just did my wife's Rover yesterday that takes 1234yf and put 134a in it. How has yours been holding up? I've had people tell me that its gonna fail. I still did the 134a.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter #30 (Edited)
Another update since I still get messages asking how the conversion back to 134 is working. Well, the compressor locked up about 10,000 miles after changing it over and the entire system had to be changed out. Nah. Just kidding. Several years and over 50,000 miles later, still works like new. And that’s in South Georgia heat. I would have no qualms doing it again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Your co2 will be lower, but Nox will be through the roof.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
NOX is not naturally occurring and is caused by extreme temperatures in the combustion chambers. It is a major contributor to smog. Co2 is naturally occurring and is required by plant life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Another update since I still get messages asking how the conversion back to 134 is working. Well, the compressor locked up about 10,000 miles after changing it over and the entire system had to be changed out. Nah. Just kidding. Several years and over 50,000 miles later, still works like new. And that’s in South Georgia heat. I would have no qualms doing it again.
Thanks for taking the risks you've taken on your own equipment and your dime, and posting the results here!! I greatly admire all ingenuity that allows humans to continue to survive in spite of oppressive governments (even their own).
Hopefully, this will buy we consumers around ten more years of freedom, before the next edict blocks us with new snake oil and regulations forcing us to use it at wildly-inflated costs again.
You are an inspiration!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Another update since I still get messages asking how the conversion back to 134 is working. Well, the compressor locked up about 10,000 miles after changing it over and the entire system had to be changed out. Nah. Just kidding. Several years and over 50,000 miles later, still works like new. And that’s in South Georgia heat. I would have no qualms doing it again.
How did you determine the amount of the refrigerant charge? Did you weigh it in or did you use pressures? What where the numbers for the method you used?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Charged my system up a few days ago with 134a and everything works wonderfully. Only had to buy new fittings for my gauge set to fit the 1234yf fittings and the rest was routine. Less than $70, including buying the new fittings. Cheapest 1234 price I got, just to fill and not including mandatory diagnostic charge, was $500. I'll take the $70 fill every time over the other crap. So screw you hippies! ?
Well, its been 3 yrs, is it still working? Also, how did you charge it, by weight or pressures?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Starting with a clean system under vacuum, by weight is the most accurate. That is why OEM's place the under hood sticker indicating the number of ounces a given system takes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
A fair amount of misinformation there I think..

The cold-weather loss of refrigerant is a non-issue; the fitting caps are designed to prevent that.

The fittings are different, so you'll at least have to use adapters. The next person to work on the system may be surprised.

"r1234yf is not nearly as efficient as r134a" is apparently not true, at least from a quick read of a few industry papers just now. If you were to put R1234yf in a system designed for R134a, it looks like you'd end up with about a 10% loss of cooling capacity, but putting R134a into a R1234yf system would be a wash.

It appears R1234yf oil is compatible with R134a (but not vice-versa), so shouldn't be a problem there.

I don't think you can charge by weight using the same numbers for R134a, you'll have to play the superheat/subcool/pressure game. Not sure about this, don't have time to research.

Expansion valve calibration won't be quite right for R134a, but should be acceptable.

third-party shops are going to have to eventually deal with R1234yf; because very few cars come with R134a anymore. Collision industry rags seem to say that bodyshops were already buying R1234yf gear in 2015, so it should be getting pretty common..

Just my $0.02, and I know I didn't answer the question you asked ;)
not only did you not answer the question, the information you gave us completely wrong. R134 is just as efficient as the 1234 crap the EPA is pushing. In addition, 1234 is flammable. lastly, 1234 is designed to decompose because of the environmental idiots complaining about the ozone. 134 was the rate of go. 1 2 3 4 is just some environmental clueless full trying to make more regulations
 

·
Registered
2017 durango sxt,tinted windows,Cooper tires, oem splash guards, husky liners, avs vent shades,Clean
Joined
·
132 Posts
You must put the r134 in by weight. Just went through this with my 2006 Jeep Commander with rear ac...replaced the compressor, drier and condenser. The label under the hood says system holds 2.12 lbs r134...exactly what I weighed in. The newly refurbished system puts out 47 degree air...
Looked under the hood of the Dodge that also has rear ac...holds 2.12 lbs of r1234. It's got to be the same system...11 years later
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
So I'm tying to wrap my brain around this....R134A replaced R12 because R-12 was bad for the planet. Now R-1234YF is replacing R-134A because it is no longer environmentally friendly?? You need special equipment to "reclaim the refrigerant before servicing the A/C system", yet when a rock hits your condensor it escapes to the atmosphere. I guess that is calculated risk. Yeah, I guess I'm just too old to understand the politics of it all.
 
21 - 39 of 39 Posts
Top