How much does AC cost you?
James
DemoDisk
"James" <j006...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ffc1d1a-abfe-45f7...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> I get 30 mpg not using AC but only 25 mpg with it on.
Oh. I thought you were talking about your home AC, and I'm thinkin, Man,
that's one helluva house!
clams_casino
>I get 30 mpg not using AC but only 25 mpg with it on.
>
>
That's contrary to any study I've read, unless perhaps you are driving
with your windows closed. Any references?
At best, I see a 15% variation in tank-to-tank mileage, quite
consistently throughout the year. I've also found no significant
differences comparing spring, fall, winter & summer gas mileage.
Consequently, I'm reluctant to believe there is any significant
difference.
James
Well, 30 less 15% is about 25.
BTW I also notice a lot less power with the AC on so I have to shift
gears differently.
clams_casino
>On Jul 11, 7:01 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>James wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I get 30 mpg not using AC but only 25 mpg with it on.
>>>
>>>
>>That's contrary to any study I've read, unless perhaps you are driving
>>with your windows closed. Any references?
>>
>>At best, I see a 15% variation in tank-to-tank mileage, quite
>>consistently throughout the year. I've also found no significant
>>differences comparing spring, fall, winter & summer gas mileage.
>>
>>Consequently, I'm reluctant to believe there is any significant
>>difference.
>>
>>
>
>Well, 30 less 15% is about 25.
>
>
>
15% is the maximum variation I've seen over 110k on one car and 85k on
the other - more likely variations due to how much the tank was filled /
type of driving during any particular tank (city vs. hwy).
As previously mentioned, I have also compared fall, winter, summer &
spring mileage with essentially no significant differences (less than
1/2 mile).
I highly doubt there is much difference w/wo air.
"In Edmunds.com's test, conducted at a steady 65 miles per hour,
"windows down" or "A/C on" made virtually no difference in mileage."
"Basically, the extra fuel used by the air conditioner is made up for in
improved aerodynamics at high speeds (vs.windows down). Your not really
saving any fuel but, at least on the highway, the A/C isn't costing you
appreciably either."
clams_casino
Apparently, the type of car / design may have a significant effect - A
lot will also depend on the speed.
"The air conditioner draws its power from the engine which uses some
gas, but with today's cars, this use of gas is minute. The air
conditioner can decrease the fuel economy of your car up to 20% in some
vehicles, but it depends on the type. Driving with the air conditioner
is more fuel efficient than driving with the windows down. Driving with
the windows down creates drag which means that your engine has to work
harder to keep your car at the current speed; this burns more gas than
if you just ran your air conditioner."
according to Consumer Reports. "If you're going more than 40 miles per
hour, it's probably better to have the air conditioning on. But if
you're driving around town at 30 miles per hour, keeping the windows
down may be your best bet."
Jeff
> James wrote:
>
>> On Jul 11, 7:01 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> James wrote:
>>>
>>>> I get 30 mpg not using AC but only 25 mpg with it on.
>>>>
>>> That's contrary to any study I've read, unless perhaps you are driving
>>> with your windows closed. Any references?
>>>
>>> At best, I see a 15% variation in tank-to-tank mileage, quite
>>> consistently throughout the year. I've also found no significant
>>> differences comparing spring, fall, winter & summer gas mileage.
>>>
>>> Consequently, I'm reluctant to believe there is any significant
>>> difference.
>>>
>>
>> Well, 30 less 15% is about 25.
>>
>>
>>
>
> 15% is the maximum variation I've seen over 110k on one car and 85k on
> the other - more likely variations due to how much the tank was filled /
> type of driving during any particular tank (city vs. hwy).
>
> As previously mentioned, I have also compared fall, winter, summer &
> spring mileage with essentially no significant differences (less than
> 1/2 mile).
>
> I highly doubt there is much difference w/wo air.
I see no difference myself. I have an instantaneous mileage gauge.
But all this will vary depending on the car and the way it is driven.
A small engine will need proportionately more of it's power to run the
AC. Car ACs are different also.
As far as power, many, if not most cars, cut off the AC when max power
is required. Your car appears to be different.
I'd say that a lot of fuel economy is lost while waiting in a parked
car. On a hot day, the temptation to leave the car running with it's AC
on is great!
>
>
>
> "In Edmunds.com's test, conducted at a steady 65 miles per hour,
> "windows down" or "A/C on" made virtually no difference in mileage."
>
> "Basically, the extra fuel used by the air conditioner is made up for in
> improved aerodynamics at high speeds (vs.windows down). Your not really
> saving any fuel but, at least on the highway, the A/C isn't costing you
> appreciably either."
Everything I've read is along those lines.
Jeff
Lou
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:tnJdk.17967$3q7....@newsfe15.lga...
That doesn't accord with my experience. A few years ago I had a grueling
commute for a couple of years - about 60 miles each way, part of the trip
through downtown Philadelphia, some on the traffic clogged expressway - you
could count on a couple miles of inching through traffic as well as coming
to a full stop at least a couple of times on the expressway. My car had one
of those gadgets that told you both the instantaneous mileage and the
average mileage since the last reset, and I reset it each week when I bought
gas.
For what it's worth, the average mileage reported by the gadget tended to
differ from the mileage I'd compute using the miles from the odometer and
the gallons read from the gas pump at the service station. Sometime my
computed mileage would be higher, but more often it was lower. On average
I'd estimate that the gadget read 9-10% high.
Anyway, according to that gadget, on weeks when I used air conditioning, my
mileage would be anywhere from 5 to 10 miles per gallon less than it was on
weeks when I didn't use the air.
But it's hard to tell. I have a newer version of the same car, a different
commute (only 40 miles now, and in a different direction). Over the last
month, my weekly mileage as computed from the odometer and the reading on
the gas pump has varied from a low of just over 32 to a high of over 37.
For the most part, I'm not using the air - I think I've had it on twice this
summer. But the point is that at least some of the variation appears to be
due to how the attendant fills the tank (no self-service gas in New Jersey).
When I was paying by credit card, they'd let the pump run until it shut off,
then usually but not always give it a little more until it shut off again.
But lately, I'm paying cash (10 cents a gallon cheaper), and they let it run
until it shuts off, then try to get enough more in to make the sale a whole
dollar amount - easier to make change. So sometimes they don't put much
more in, and other times they baby it along as though they were using an eye
dropper. Though interestingly enough, the week I got the 37+ mpg was a week
when they appeared to squeeze in as much as they could.
I've yet to see a credible test that compared the real effect of driving at
highway speeds and using the air with windows closed and not using the air
with windows open. The new EPA tests supposedly take air conditioning into
account, but since cars are tested on a dynamometer they're not subject to
wind resistance. Supposedly the resistance of the rollers can be adjusted
to simulate hills and wind, but calculating how much to vary the resistance
involves so many assumptions and approximations that I don't really trust
the results. My wife drives a similar car (same make/model, different trim
level and a year older) and she uses the air all the time. Her mileage is
in the low to mid twenties most weeks, but her driving style is very
different from mine.
Lou
"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
news:vbudnXfHz5mr8-rV...@earthlink.com...
> clams_casino wrote:
> > James wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 11, 7:01 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> James wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I get 30 mpg not using AC but only 25 mpg with it on.
> >>>>
> >>> That's contrary to any study I've read, unless perhaps you are driving
> >>> with your windows closed. Any references?
> >>>
> >>> At best, I see a 15% variation in tank-to-tank mileage, quite
> >>> consistently throughout the year. I've also found no significant
> >>> differences comparing spring, fall, winter & summer gas mileage.
> >>>
> >>> Consequently, I'm reluctant to believe there is any significant
> >>> difference.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, 30 less 15% is about 25.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > 15% is the maximum variation I've seen over 110k on one car and 85k on
> > the other - more likely variations due to how much the tank was filled /
> > type of driving during any particular tank (city vs. hwy).
> >
> > As previously mentioned, I have also compared fall, winter, summer &
> > spring mileage with essentially no significant differences (less than
> > 1/2 mile).
> >
> > I highly doubt there is much difference w/wo air.
>
> I see no difference myself. I have an instantaneous mileage gauge.
I've had an instantaneous mileage guage on three cars. I don't see how it
helps answer the question - the instantaneous mileage changes constantly
with the slope of the road - a swing of 50 miles per gallon in a couple of
seconds isn't rate, and changes for 5 to 20 mpg happen almost every 2
seconds (that how often the display updates). I don't think I've ever
driven as much as a mile with a constant instantaneous mileage, even though
sourthern New Jersey is pretty flat.
Bob F
**************************************************************
With my nissan van, I frequently will turn off the A/C when climbing long hills.
It makes a significant difference in the ability to hold speed. Opening the
windows has no such noticable effect. The owners manual does claim that opening
the windows is worse for mileage, but the evidence says otherwise.
Jeff
I simply don't see that. If I have this on cruise it remains fairly
constant as long as I'm on about the same slope. Turning the AC off and
on has a very minor effect. Averaging yields about the same results.
I've looked at average mileage on long trips (700 miles back and forth
to the same location). The mileage looks about the same in AC season and
when I run no AC. I do notice about a 1 mpg difference traveling the
downhill leg from the uphill. Even though the total elevation change is
only 1000 ft, I find that interesting. Something else may be going on.
A smaller or higher mileage car than mine would yield different results
than my New Yorker.
Jeff
Vic Smith
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:19:41 -0700 (PDT), James
><j006...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I get 30 mpg not using AC but only 25 mpg with it on.
>
>Smaller engines tend to use more fuel with A/C on then the larger
>ones, that much I have learned.
Yeah, but it balances out since it takes more fuel to develop the
initial torque anyway. MPG figures do vary more with the A/C
on small engines.
Now, "How much does AC cost you?"
1997 Lumina
2006(Oct) - Florida - $167 at an A/C shop to refill and dye-test.
Couldn't find leak and was good for remainder of trip.
2007(June) IL - No A/C. Bought dye kit $25, found bad original
compressor shaft seal leak. $283 for rebuilt compressor at Murrays
Auto Parts, $25 for R134, compressor oil, $100 to my kid for the work.
2007(June) - IL -Compressor clutch short blowing fuses, had to rent
a car for my girls who I had promised the Lumina for their Florida
trip. $450.
2007(September) - IL - Swapped warranted bad compressor for another
reman at Murrays Auto, $15 for R134, $100 to my kid for the work.
2007(Oct) Florida - Arrived in Florida 90F and sticky. A/C failed
first day.
$25 for R134 kit at Walmart, but it leaked out in an hour. Had to
give it a try.
Worked out OK as we spent mid days on the ocean and had more fun than
previous years. Quickly found out that you don't REALLY need A/C,
but I prefer not to hear my wife bitch about it.
2008(June) - IL - Bitched to Murrays Auto Parts manager about a refund
instead of a swapped reman compressor, so I could buy a new one.
Two bad compressor strikes you're out.
He preferred not to hear my bitching, so he ordered an OEM factory new
one as the swap at no additional cost. But I ordered a dryer/receiver
too. $30.
More R134. $15. Paid my kid $100 for the work.
2008(June) - IL - A/C fails after 2 days. No obvious dye
indications. Refilled with R134 and a shot of dye. $20. A/C lasts a
couple days, then blows warm.
2008(July) - IL -Kid finds dye indicating R134 leaking from both
dryer/receiver o-ring fittings. Went to local GM shop and purchased
GM o-rings. $2. Murrays for more R134, compressor oil, and a GM A/C
o-ring kit to boot. $25.
2008(4 days ago) - IL - Replaced dryer o-rings with the ones I got at
the dealer. Kid says the o-rings supplied with the Murrays dryer were
not lR134 o-rings. $50 for the kid.
So far so good, cold air with no indication of leak.
But I ain't convinced yet, not until:
2008 (Oct - Florida - A/C works fine
I don't have the heart to add it all up. The kid is a good mechanic
and has A/C gauges, evacuation pump, etc. The vacuum held on the bad
rings with no R134 in the system, but when filled the R134 went right
through them.
Here's some minimal advice if you do your own A/C work.
1. Pop for a NEW compressor.
2. Don't rely on getting the right o-rings with aftermarket parts.
--Vic
Jeff
OTOH. I've had pretty fair luck with buying USED compressors and other
AC parts out of the bone yard I think I've fixed all of my friends
AC's. Generally you'll want to make sure the seals are right and if the
system has been empty a new dryer is a good plan.
I'm not crazy about Murrays parts, I've gotten some off stuff from them.
There's many things I wouldn't put in used, but when the parts get
over $100, used, if you choose carefully can work well.
Then again, GM might just be designing crap AC parts. Got a save
buck... I will say that when I'm in the junkyard looking at disassembled
cars, the GM stuff always looks cheaper than the other makes.
Jeff
>
> --Vic
Vic Smith
>
> Then again, GM might just be designing crap AC parts. Got a save
>buck... I will say that when I'm in the junkyard looking at disassembled
>cars, the GM stuff always looks cheaper than the other makes.
>
Remans with seals are always iffy. More so now it appears. Goes for
P/S pumps and water pumps too.
Last time I bought a reman compressor I tossed it on an R12 system
with a shot of oil, no evac and left the old dryer on. Lasted about 5
years until I junked the van.
Boneyard parts are often factory originals.
My kid put a boneyard compressor on a Pontiac 3 years ago and it works
fine. Boneyard warranties are basically worthless, finding the right
part can be spotty, and knowing if a boneyard compressor is good is
practically impossible. My kid loves boneyards and could put an
entire car together in a few trips if he wanted to. I quit using
boneyards years ago. Only used them for body parts anyway.
"GM stuff always looks cheaper" is a common personality-based
perception disorder of some Jap/German car owners, and no more than
that. Same goes for GM owners who think the others are junk.
Pretty much like saying I don't like people with such and such a nose.
You can "Love The One You're With" and still keep measured perceptions
about others. But you don't have to, of course.
--Vic
Jeff
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:55:20 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> Then again, GM might just be designing crap AC parts. Got a save
>> buck... I will say that when I'm in the junkyard looking at disassembled
>> cars, the GM stuff always looks cheaper than the other makes.
>>
> Factory GM compressors were/are good for about 10 years.
> Remans with seals are always iffy. More so now it appears. Goes for
> P/S pumps and water pumps too.
Could be that the Chinese are cutting cost too much. I think the shaft
seal is a common leakage point. I can tell you that it is next to
impossible to get the seal yourself!
> Last time I bought a reman compressor I tossed it on an R12 system
> with a shot of oil, no evac and left the old dryer on. Lasted about 5
> years until I junked the van.
> Boneyard parts are often factory originals.
> My kid put a boneyard compressor on a Pontiac 3 years ago and it works
> fine. Boneyard warranties are basically worthless, finding the right
> part can be spotty, and knowing if a boneyard compressor is good is
> practically impossible.
Oh, it's not easy. But it is doable. I've been dealing with Pull a Part
(they run good yards and keep the inventory fresh and organized) which
has flat rate pricing and an optional no questions asked 30 day
warranty. I'm most apt to spend a few bucks to get the warranty if I'm
not sure it will fit.
My kid loves boneyards and could put an
> entire car together in a few trips if he wanted to. I quit using
> boneyards years ago. Only used them for body parts anyway.
> "GM stuff always looks cheaper" is a common personality-based
> perception disorder of some Jap/German car owners, and no more than
> that.
Well, I'm saying this as someone who is driving an 88 New Yorker. Now
that is junk. But the GM section always seems to be in a sorrier state
of affairs and seeing a partially disassembled chevy looks a good bit
worse than it's brethren... Now, my Dad was a Chevy man, and I have
friends that have worked in management at GM/Saturn, and I have a deep
admiration for small block V8s and the cars that used them, so I should
be a bit biased toward, not against! I don't see much recent stuff, so I
can't say there. The stuff that is about 10 years old or so just isn't
my Dads Chevy. It's intangible but I notice it every time I'm in the
bone yard. It just looks "crappier" than the fords and chryslers, it may
be that the parts are better, but the execution is poorer.
GM has fallen on hard times lately, but I think they still have the
technology base to pull it off again. We'll see. I'd like to see it.
Jeff
Vic Smith
>
>Well, I'm saying this as someone who is driving an 88 New Yorker. Now
>that is junk.
Don't know much about Chrysler products, but a 20 year old running
car is usually a good thing. I'm driving a '90 Corsica. My wife took
over the luxurious '97 Lumina for her commute since I retired.
> But the GM section always seems to be in a sorrier state
>of affairs and seeing a partially disassembled chevy looks a good bit
>worse than it's brethren...
You would have to show me that. Every boneyard I've been to is a
general mess no matter what car area. I'm getting visions here of
greasy bums tearing through Chevys helter-skelter while all the
non-Chevy parts getters are wearing tuxedos and neatly stacking,
sorting and labeling all the dashboard components they disassembled
but don't need onto white shelves - all to get at that 10 cent clip.
But I do seem to recall one boneyard where the Toyota section looked
cleaner than the rest, so you may have a point.
Just speculating, but my kid quickly repaired two Chevys that were
front-end totaled. Fenders, grillwork, light assemblies, hoods, etc.
I was amazed he spent a total of about $500 to fix them with perfectly
matched factory paint on the boneyard parts. IOW, you couldn't tell
the cars had boneyard parts.
I suspect you couldn't do that so cheaply with the Toyotas, so maybe
the boneyard operators take better care of that section because it is
a cash cow.
--Vic
Dennis
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:11:28 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Well, I'm saying this as someone who is driving an 88 New Yorker. Now
>>that is junk.
>
>Don't know much about Chrysler products, but a 20 year old running
>car is usually a good thing. I'm driving a '90 Corsica. My wife took
>over the luxurious '97 Lumina for her commute since I retired.
Hey, I've got a '91 Suburban that runs great -- I just took it on a 4K
mile trip over the Rockies and back last summer without a stumble. The
A/C works, but I have to get it recharged every other year ($75). The
guy who does the A/C service (old-school refrigeration guy who's been
in business for 30-40 years) has looked for a leak each time he does
the recharge, but hasn't been able to find one. His best guess is
that the 17-year-old hoses are somewhat permeable.
That said, my 15-year-old Nissan, two 13-year-old Mazdas and
10-year-old Toyota blew cold the whole time I owned them without ever
touching the A/C system.
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>Hey, I've got a '91 Suburban that runs great --
is it up-armored (-:
> I just took it on a 4K
>mile trip over the Rockies and back last summer without a stumble. The
>A/C works, but I have to get it recharged every other year ($75). The
>guy who does the A/C service (old-school refrigeration guy who's been
>in business for 30-40 years) has looked for a leak each time he does
>the recharge, but hasn't been able to find one. His best guess is
>that the 17-year-old hoses are somewhat permeable.
>
>That said, my 15-year-old Nissan, two 13-year-old Mazdas and
>10-year-old Toyota blew cold the whole time I owned them without ever
>touching the A/C system.
>
During my recent A/C issues with the Lumina, I was railing against GM
A/C to my kid the mechanic and said I hardly ever hear about the Jap
cars having A/C problems. He told me saw them all the time in his
last shop, which was a general repair shop. Since I've never had a
Jap car I don't have a good handle on it.
What I know is that I have personally never had a GM that went more
than 10 years on the compressor.
So you're doing good. If it's an R12/R134 conversion you could have
a newer compressor, but that's not necessary.
Fixing the A/C has never been a big issue in the overall cost picture
and I've replaced a few compressors and one condenser. But I do it
myself, so the cost is never more than a few hundred bucks.
If I was paying a grand like I suppose many GM owners do, I'd feel
differently.
I've heard the Chryslers are even worse, but can't vouch for that.
The kid says he likes the Ford A/C's.
The Lumina is ok now after replacing the Murrays supplied o-rings with
good ones, so all that "nightmare" A/C repair I posted about was
really caused solely by bad parts from Murrays. Lesson learned.
--Vic
Jeff
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:11:28 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, I'm saying this as someone who is driving an 88 New Yorker. Now
>> that is junk.
>
> Don't know much about Chrysler products, but a 20 year old running
> car is usually a good thing.
Well, as I tell the Dodge Parts counter people. It's not Chryslers fault
that you have to get my 20 year old part, they did everything they could
to not make it last.
> I'm driving a '90 Corsica. My wife took
> over the luxurious '97 Lumina for her commute since I retired.
>
>
>> But the GM section always seems to be in a sorrier state
>> of affairs and seeing a partially disassembled chevy looks a good bit
>> worse than it's brethren...
>
> You would have to show me that. Every boneyard I've been to is a
> general mess no matter what car area.
Here's the one I go to:
http://pullapart.com/Locations/LocationDetail.aspx?locationId=3
the cars are inventoried, on "blocks" and labeled where they are in the
yard (by row). Stripped and old cars are crushed and replenished.
Inventory turns over constantly.
Looking at the map, I see the GM section is huge. It's been
encroaching on the areas for years.
I'm getting visions here of
> greasy bums tearing through Chevys helter-skelter while all the
> non-Chevy parts getters are wearing tuxedos and neatly stacking,
> sorting and labeling all the dashboard components they disassembled
> but don't need onto white shelves - all to get at that 10 cent clip.
> But I do seem to recall one boneyard where the Toyota section looked
> cleaner than the rest, so you may have a point.
> Just speculating, but my kid quickly repaired two Chevys that were
> front-end totaled. Fenders, grillwork, light assemblies, hoods, etc.
> I was amazed he spent a total of about $500 to fix them with perfectly
> matched factory paint on the boneyard parts. IOW, you couldn't tell
> the cars had boneyard parts.
> I suspect you couldn't do that so cheaply with the Toyotas, so maybe
> the boneyard operators take better care of that section because it is
> a cash cow.
All parts are the same cost regardless of vehicle. A Chevy compressor
is the same as a BMW.
A few exceptions might be a GM integrated distributor is more than
one without the coil.
Overall prices are cheap:
http://pullapart.com/Pricing/Main.aspx
And you don't have to make friends with the counter guy so you don't get
reamed. That's almost worth the buck it costs to get in!
Still, when I walk past the rows of GM product, they seem to be such
a sorry lot. There's just something about the way they are put together
that makes them look like they were destined for this.
Jeff
>
> --Vic
Vic Smith
>Here's the one I go to:
>
>http://pullapart.com/Locations/LocationDetail.aspx?locationId=3
Weird. Nothing like that here in the Chicago area.
Apparently the model is working since they've been going 10 years.
I think my kid would love it, and it looks like an attractive way to
cop junkyard parts.
"Attractively landscaped and diligently maintained"
And the prices look good too.
Wow.
>
> Still, when I walk past the rows of GM product, they seem to be such
>a sorry lot. There's just something about the way they are put together
>that makes them look like they were destined for this.
>
Again, I'm not getting it. What motivates you to extrapolate parts
strewn about a boneyard into some kind of hallucinogenic view of an
assembly line?
Do you have a sixth sense?
We're back to square one here unless you can talk real nuts and bolts.
--Vic
Dennis
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:13:25 +0000 (UTC), Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Hey, I've got a '91 Suburban that runs great --
>
>is it up-armored (-:
3/4 ton set up for towing, so yeah, it's a tank. ;-)
Got 16mpg driving down the freeway, though. I was pleasantly
surprised.
>> I just took it on a 4K
>>mile trip over the Rockies and back last summer without a stumble. The
>>A/C works, but I have to get it recharged every other year ($75). The
>>guy who does the A/C service (old-school refrigeration guy who's been
>>in business for 30-40 years) has looked for a leak each time he does
>>the recharge, but hasn't been able to find one. His best guess is
>>that the 17-year-old hoses are somewhat permeable.
>>
>>That said, my 15-year-old Nissan, two 13-year-old Mazdas and
>>10-year-old Toyota blew cold the whole time I owned them without ever
>>touching the A/C system.
>>
>During my recent A/C issues with the Lumina, I was railing against GM
>A/C to my kid the mechanic and said I hardly ever hear about the Jap
>cars having A/C problems. He told me saw them all the time in his
>last shop, which was a general repair shop. Since I've never had a
>Jap car I don't have a good handle on it.
>What I know is that I have personally never had a GM that went more
>than 10 years on the compressor.
>So you're doing good. If it's an R12/R134 conversion you could have
>a newer compressor, but that's not necessary.
I think it's original, definitely R12. I should note that the A/C has
had pretty light use here in NW Oregon. But still, I can't complain.
I was really glad that I'd had the A/C serviced before driving across
Montana at 100F last July.
Dennis (evil)
--
My output is down, my income is up, I take a short position on the long bond and
my revenue stream has its own cash flow. -George Carlin
Jeff
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:10:16 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Here's the one I go to:
>>
>> http://pullapart.com/Locations/LocationDetail.aspx?locationId=3
>
> Weird. Nothing like that here in the Chicago area.
> Apparently the model is working since they've been going 10 years.
> I think my kid would love it, and it looks like an attractive way to
> cop junkyard parts.
> "Attractively landscaped and diligently maintained"
> And the prices look good too.
> Wow.
>
>> Still, when I walk past the rows of GM product, they seem to be such
>> a sorry lot. There's just something about the way they are put together
>> that makes them look like they were destined for this.
>>
> Again, I'm not getting it. What motivates you to extrapolate parts
> strewn about a boneyard into some kind of hallucinogenic view of an
> assembly line?
Well, they aren't strewn about. But when you see automobiles pulled
apart you get a sense of how they are put together.
I'll take some notes next time, but it seems like more plastic where
others have metal and and a less sturdy construction overall. I'm left
with the impression, Gee, what a cheap way to make something! Now,
that's probably not true of all GM products, but there's some strikingly
poor and flimsy designs. At least whenever something catches my eye as
being a good example of a poor bit of design it has a GM ancestry. It's
happened enough to leave a lasting impression!
Jeff
Cheapo Groovo
http://cheapogroovo.vox.com/library/post/cheapo-air-conditioning.html
In article <ht9s74d7olbfso7d2...@4ax.com>,
thismaila...@comcast.net says...
Jeff
> $0 most of the year. We get cooling from Lake Michigan
That's rather interesting. So, when it gets hot in your car you drive it
into Lake Michigan? We were talking car ACs.
Jeff
timeOday
In this guy's jeep A/C increased fuel consumption by 5%.
<http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Improve_MPG_The_Factors_Affecting_Fuel_Efficiency>
There's a lot of info on that page.