Maxi-Frig for R12/R134A ?

> Another is if a person can buy it where he lives and wants to try it
> not saying he was even going to drive the car...
> Nitpicking a subject can work either way.

I have to wonder why some people defend this stuff so strongly. What's
the "compelling reason" to take a half-assed approach? It doesn't even
save a significant amount of money over just doing a real conversion to
134a.

aarcuda69062 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Edward Strauss > wrote:


> > Another is if a person can buy it where he lives and wants to try it
> > not saying he was even going to drive the car...
> > Nitpicking a subject can work either way.

> Fine. the first nit was yours, so is the last.
>

> > > Who screamed?
> > > The context in which the question was asked is germane to whether
> > > or not it would be used in an allowed or legal manner.
> >
> > Did someone ask for permission or just wanted to know how and if something
> > worked?

> What good would asking permission here do?
> No one here can grant permission to the OP.
> The OP didn't ask whether it worked.
> He originally asked:
> >> Has anyone used Maxi-Frig? It sounds too good to be true?
> The answers that you seem to take issue with do in fact address
> the question that he posed.


Have you answered the OP's question? Have you ever used Maxi-Frig?
Or just given your opinion on whatever he wonders if it's too good
to be true in.


> > > So what?
> >
> > So why would you want to compare an ignition system to the electrical
> > engineering behind a hybrid car?
> >
> > Thats what.

> Don't know, you brought up high voltage hybrid cars...

> > > It's your compressor, if you want it to seize up, that's your
> > > prerogative.
> > > From a legal stand point, for an automotive system that falls
> > > under EPA jurisdiction, topping off an R-12 system with -any-
> > > other refrigerant including those that are acceptable* under
> > > section 609 without first recovering the original refrigerant is
> > > against the law.
> > > (* R-22 is a component of many different substitute refrigerant
> > > blends allowed under section 609 by the EPA)
> >
> >
> > Nope, watch the head pressures, A little shot of R-22 can work wonders.

> A little shot of R-22 where?


Low pressure, (suction), port.



> > > > Or you could just tell it like this. Maxi-Frig in a older vehicle that
> > > > has a A/C system that is in decent shape could be a cost effective
> > > > solution. It is not approved for automotive use by the EPA and all
> > > > warnings should be read and understood before it's use.
> >
> > > I wouldn't tell it like that unless I knew for sure that the OP
> > > or any other poster inquiring about it was not going to use it in
> > > a vehicle that would be operated on a public street or highway.
> >
> >
> > Thats why there are other people that will.

> **** the rules, 'eh?

> > > Using hydrocarbon blend refrigerants in a motor vehicle on public
> > > roads is illegal. There, no screaming, no opinion, just fact.
> > > Hope this clears any confusion.
> > > There is no such thing as a "drop in substitute" refrigerant that
> > > can be used in a motor vehicle that is operated on public roads
> > > and highways in the United States. No screaming, no opinion,
> > > just fact.
> > > It is illegal to vent any refrigerant from a motor vehicle into
> > > the atmosphere, regardless of its use in the United States
> > > whether it is ozone depleting or not, thusly making the use of
> > > any hydrocarbon blend refrigerant impractical to use for all
> > > intents and purposes. No opinion, no screaming.
> >
> > > There is no known "unique identifier" service fitting available
> > > for hydrocarbon blend refrigerants for use in automotive
> > > refrigerant systems, thus making it impossible to legally
> > > retrofit an automotive air conditioning system for use on public
> > > roads and highways in the United States.
> >
> > > Anything else you'd like clarified?
> >
> >
> > You can preach all you want but it is not the reality of the situation.

> Actually, it IS the reality of the situation.
> Choosing to ignore the laws of the US is hardly considered to be
> reality.

> > Once
> > the temps start to rise
> > this stuff is being used all over the country.

> No shortage of stupid people out there.

> > People use this stuff based
> > on results.

> All the while ignoring the consequences.

> > Telling people
> > that it is illegal does not mean anything when it is this easy to buy.

> Well, Henry (the OP) did ask if it was too good to be true.
> Pardon us for giving the answer he was looking for.


If you never used it how would you know??


> > Answering their questions and
> > allowing them to make their own choice is the way to go.

> Exactly what was done.

> > You seem to enjoy
> > enforcing you opinion
> > using the word illegal. I don't...

> You seem to have trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.



No fiction here except for the fact that you think that calling
something illegal will stop people from using something that you
do not approve of. Now, after using Maxi-Frig did you find it
to be too good to be true??

In article ich.edu>,
says...
>On Fri, 20 May 2005, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>> sorry, I came in late on this thread, but what is a safe non-flammable
>> alternative?

>R12, which is still available and legal in the US, or R134a.

R134A is not an option since it performs poorly in a system designed for
R12.
------------
Alex

In article >,
says...

>Have you EVER heard of the use of this stuff actually causing harm?
>This hysteria reminds me of the "don't use your cell phone at a gas
>station or you'll blow up nonsense".

This was an episode on mythbusters. Maybe this flamable referigerant can
be another episode.
-------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:

>
>>R12, which is still available and legal in the US, or R134a.
>
>
> R134A is not an option since it performs poorly in a system designed for
> R12.

That depends ENTIRELY on the system in question. Many R-12 systems work
absolutely great when converted to R-134a (properly converted, that is).
Only a few really can't be converted because they're so marginal on R-12
The Ford Aerostar comes to mind as one that doesn't convert well.

On Tue, 24 May 2005, Alex Rodriguez wrote:

> R134A is not an option since it performs poorly in a system designed for
> R12.

Only if you're shortsighted enough to do a "suck and dump" job. If a
proper retrofit is done, there's no performance reduction.

In article >,
Edward Strauss > wrote:

> Have you answered the OP's question? Have you ever used Maxi-Frig?

That is just half of what he asked.

> Or just given your opinion on whatever he wonders if it's too good
> to be true in.

Opinion? I think not.

> Low pressure, (suction), port.

In an automobile that already has R-12 in it?

> If you never used it how would you know??

How do you know I never used "it?"

> No fiction here except for the fact that you think that calling
> something illegal will stop people from using something that you
> do not approve of.

It's the EPA that doesn't approve of its use in an automobile
which is used on public roads and highways.
You seem to have a hard time accepting this fact and for some
reason choose to assign to me that which the government dictates.

> Now, after using Maxi-Frig did you find it
> to be too good to be true??

How do you know if I've used "Maxi-Frig?"

aarcuda69062 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Edward Strauss > wrote:

> > Have you answered the OP's question? Have you ever used Maxi-Frig?

> That is just half of what he asked.

> > Or just given your opinion on whatever he wonders if it's too good
> > to be true in.

> Opinion? I think not.


You have either used it or not. Which is it??



> > Low pressure, (suction), port.

> In an automobile that already has R-12 in it?


Yes.


> > If you never used it how would you know??

> How do you know I never used "it?"



I don't. I'm asking have you ever used Maxi-Frig.


> > No fiction here except for the fact that you think that calling
> > something illegal will stop people from using something that you
> > do not approve of.

> It's the EPA that doesn't approve of its use in an automobile
> which is used on public roads and highways.
> You seem to have a hard time accepting this fact and for some
> reason choose to assign to me that which the government dictates.


Nope. I just deal with the reality of the situation.


> > Now, after using Maxi-Frig did you find it
> > to be too good to be true??

> How do you know if I've used "Maxi-Frig?"


Again, I ask have you ever used Maxi-Frig and did you find it
too good to be true. You can give a one word answer to each part...

In article >,
Edward Strauss > wrote:


> > Opinion? I think not.
>
>
> You have either used it or not. Which is it??

Are you a priest?

>
>
> > > Low pressure, (suction), port.
>
> > In an automobile that already has R-12 in it?
>
>
> Yes.

Just wanted to be sure.


> > How do you know I never used "it?"
>
>
>
> I don't. I'm asking have you ever used Maxi-Frig.

Are you a priest?


> > It's the EPA that doesn't approve of its use in an automobile
> > which is used on public roads and highways.
> > You seem to have a hard time accepting this fact and for some
> > reason choose to assign to me that which the government dictates.
>
>
> Nope. I just deal with the reality of the situation.

When no one is looking.

> > How do you know if I've used "Maxi-Frig?"
>
>
> Again, I ask have you ever used Maxi-Frig and did you find it
> too good to be true.

Are you a priest?

> You can give a one word answer to each part...

Hilarious.

aarcuda69062 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Edward Strauss > wrote:


> > > Opinion? I think not.
> >
> >
> > You have either used it or not. Which is it??

> Are you a priest?


Is that the best you can come up with?


> >
> >
> > > > Low pressure, (suction), port.
> >
> > > In an automobile that already has R-12 in it?
> >
> >
> > Yes.

> Just wanted to be sure.
>

> > > How do you know I never used "it?"
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't. I'm asking have you ever used Maxi-Frig.

> Are you a priest?


Are you praying for an answer??


> > > It's the EPA that doesn't approve of its use in an automobile
> > > which is used on public roads and highways.
> > > You seem to have a hard time accepting this fact and for some
> > > reason choose to assign to me that which the government dictates.
> >
> >
> > Nope. I just deal with the reality of the situation.

> When no one is looking.

> > > How do you know if I've used "Maxi-Frig?"
> >
> >
> > Again, I ask have you ever used Maxi-Frig and did you find it
> > too good to be true.

> Are you a priest?

> > You can give a one word answer to each part...

> Hilarious.


No, It is just typical. With no real experience I guess that this
is the best that you can do...