• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

The great 240 AC system information dump + How to improve AC performance

You bastards! Now you are making me want to get the AC working in my 740 after years of FL summers!

Is the Sanden SD7H15 used in the 960?
 
Last edited:
First of all, thank you wcirco for compiling the Bible of 240 A/C and summarizing so well. I just completed an R134a conversion of a '91 245 with a completely leaked out R12 system. I decided to try the Sanden 4664 compressor and thought it would be good to share my experience & tips.

Background: As I was assessing the condition of the new-to-me vehicle and what to do with the A/C, I jumped the low pressure switch and the compressor clutch engaged and turned smoothly. So my initial plan was to flush the lines, drain compressor + refill with Ester oil, and install new accumulator & "yellow" orifice valve. Once I had the compressor out and found some significant gunk plugging the orifice valve, I figured I might as well replace the 30 year old compressor. Quick search on eBay for Sanden 4664 compressors and I found a NOS Mack Truck compressor that I offered $125 and won it. Few days later it showed up and I did a side-by-side comparison of the OEM Diesel Kiki versus the Sanden 4664.

As you can see, the only differences (which later presented some challenges) is the shorter length of the rear body and the slight V-shape alignment of the ports (compared to parallel vertical orientation of the OEM DK ports). The clutch wire also has a different terminal fitting, but that's an easy one.
aiffxkC.jpg


For the most part, the Sanden compressor bolted right up to the C-shaped engine brackets and the mounting ears are identical. Pully belt alignment is spot on as well. There are two sliding brackets on the top mounting brackets which adjust the belt tension. The front sliding bracket with the tensioning bolt goes on fine, but the rear sliding bracket sits behind the rearmost mounting ears; because the suction/discharge ports are closer to the ears, there is no clearance between the discharge (smaller inboard) port and the rear sliding bracket bolt. It would be impossible to get the AC line fitting nut onto the port. So what to do?
Y8KHVy8.jpg


My solution was to use a spacer & longer bolt to offset the rear sliding bracket forward by the width of the compressor mounting ear = 15mm. Go to a real hardware store (not a big box store) and buy the following items from the hardware aisle:
- M8 x 60mm flange head bolt, Grade 8
- 3/8" ID steel spacer, 3/4" length (you can also use a 5/16" for an M8, but OD is smaller and I wanted contact area)
Remove the OEM bolt holding the rear sliding bracket to the engine bracket (it goes through a rubber bushing, nut is welded to sliding bracket). Since the 3/4" steel spacer is 19mm tall and needs to be 15mm, use some form of power tool to remove about 4mm of height; I have a small vertical milling machine in my garage which made it pretty simple. Install new 60mm flange bolt and sandwich 15mm spacer between sliding bracket. Should look like this:
Syug3cc.jpg


Now that the bracket is offset forward by 15mm, it moves the compressor C-shaped bracket to front side of mounting ear.
ZjZTSM7.jpg


Last little tweak I had to make was adjusting the AC discharge (high pressure to condenser) hose hardline end fittings to align with the V-shaped alignment of the Sanden compressor. Between the soft aluminum tubing and the flexibility of the rubber hose, this isn't too difficult with you bare hands especially with the line off the vehicle. Just bring the end fitting a little forward & counterclockwise... you'll see.

Nicely done! Thank you for adding what I neglected to mention. It does take a little finesse to get the 4664 in there. Ideally it would be nice to find the same SD7H15 compressor with the ports further off of the back of the head. Sanden has a new line of modular compressors that may have the answer.
 
HC refrigerants seem to be the center of a lot of debate. I'm sure some will argue their HC charged 240 blows plenty cold, however there are many variables. Products like Envirosafe, Frostycool, Duracool...etc These refrigerants are nothing more than dry Propane and Isobutane blends. I've heard of folks charging 240s with straight propane, which is a bad idea since most propane fuels are quite dirty and have some level of moisture, easy to contaminate your AC system. Not to mention the temperature pressure curve being completely different than R134A or R12, resulting in potential icing problems. These refrigerants are very sensitive to the charge ammount, a tiny bit too much or too little will make your ac not blow cold at all. All of these HC refrigerants have very little mass at the pressures used, meaning they will not remove heat as efficiently as R12 or even 134A. This is not ideal for an already undersized system.

I'm disappointed. I would have hoped to see more information about HC refrigerants. I won't uselessly argue that my Duracool 240 blows plenty cold, because I know different cars have different results all the time. I have a different argument.

CLAIM: "All of these HC refrigerants have very little mass at the pressures used, meaning they will not remove heat as efficiently as R12 or even 134A."

I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that drawing a conclusion on an HC refrigerant cooling potential this way makes it seem inferior based on less MASS. Can anyone expand on the cooling potential of HC refrigerants in comparison to R134a based on MASS?

I did some reading. My research suggests something different. Something call LATENT HEAT. This involves the evaporation of the refrigerant in the refrigeration cycle, which is what produces cooling in your evaporator. From what I read, the latent heat of a refrigerant should be as large as possible for best cooling potential in an evaporative system. Also, the weight (or MASS) of the refrigerant will be less for any refrigerant with a higher latent heat. Less mass reduces the need for a larger system, meaning a smaller system can be just as efficient. Less mass doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

The below Latent Heat chart is from a US Department of Energy study in 2006 on the potential of different refrigerants for cooling power electronics in EVs and hybrids. It specifically compares CFC-12, HFC-134a and Duracool, among others. It can be found at the following link. https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub57507.pdf

It describes LATENT HEAT as the amount of heat unit per mass required to convert the refrigerant from liquid to vapor.
This means that a refrigerant with a larger latent heat value can remove more heat.

Dave B
 

Attachments

  • latentheatmed.jpg
    latentheatmed.jpg
    105.2 KB · Views: 531
So, will a 93 parallel flow condenser bolt right in to a 91 or 92 car, or are the mounting points and/or hose connections different in some way that necessitates some additional adapting?

I?m not sure if anyone answered your question but yes, the condenser will bolt into the core support. The lines are different though. You?ll need new lines a ways to deal with 134a anyways so...
 
The suggested Diesel compressor in the OP. It's mentioned that it is designed for efficiency at lower rpm. Is there any problem with reving it out to 6k or more? Or for that matter running it at 3k cruise for an hour or more? Am I better off sticking with some other compressor? Or is it not a big deal to send it with the Sanden Diesel compressor?
 
I’m not sure if anyone answered your question but yes, the condenser will bolt into the core support. The lines are different though. You’ll need new lines a ways to deal with 134a anyways so...

Well, what I'm really wondering is if the fittings on the 91 hard lines will bolt up to the 93 condenser.

My car was converted to 134 a good few years ago so all the rubber hoses are 134 compatible, but it's since all leaked out. Since I'm going to have it open to atmosphere when I replace the accumulator and orifice tube anyway I'm thinking I'll drop in a 93 condenser.

Here's what I'm thinking after poking around on the web a bit. The immediate connection to the condenser on each side is a hard pipe. Each of those connect to a rubber hose (one to the compressor, one to the evaporator). The part numbers listed in VIDA for those rubber hoses specific to MY 93 are listed at some online retailers as fitting 91 - 93 cars. I'm guessing the different numbers in VIDA for 91 & 92 are due to the rubber being for r12 systems instead of 134. Since no one is using r12 anymore, I think all the hoses being sold now are r134 compliant. And if they're listed as fitting 91 - 31 the threads on the fittings must bolt right up. That leaves the two hard lines between the condenser and those hoses. There are different part numbers for all of them in VIDA, each year has their own lines. I have no idea if this is because fitting size/threads/whatever changed, or maybe some minor thing like the location of the pressure switches was moved or something.

Unless someone happens to have all of this stuff laying around and compare them side by side, I think I'm going to have to hunt down those pipes and cross my fingers. If I figure anything out I'll update here. There's a 93 in the yard nearby, I guess I'm going parts-pulling...
 
I'm disappointed. I would have hoped to see more information about HC refrigerants. I won't uselessly argue that my Duracool 240 blows plenty cold, because I know different cars have different results all the time. I have a different argument.

CLAIM: "All of these HC refrigerants have very little mass at the pressures used, meaning they will not remove heat as efficiently as R12 or even 134A."

I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that drawing a conclusion on an HC refrigerant cooling potential this way makes it seem inferior based on less MASS. Can anyone expand on the cooling potential of HC refrigerants in comparison to R134a based on MASS?

I did some reading. My research suggests something different. Something call LATENT HEAT. This involves the evaporation of the refrigerant in the refrigeration cycle, which is what produces cooling in your evaporator. From what I read, the latent heat of a refrigerant should be as large as possible for best cooling potential in an evaporative system. Also, the weight (or MASS) of the refrigerant will be less for any refrigerant with a higher latent heat. Less mass reduces the need for a larger system, meaning a smaller system can be just as efficient. Less mass doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

The below Latent Heat chart is from a US Department of Energy study in 2006 on the potential of different refrigerants for cooling power electronics in EVs and hybrids. It specifically compares CFC-12, HFC-134a and Duracool, among others. It can be found at the following link. https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub57507.pdf

It describes LATENT HEAT as the amount of heat unit per mass required to convert the refrigerant from liquid to vapor.
This means that a refrigerant with a larger latent heat value can remove more heat.

Dave B

Alright so my hypothesis was wrong. For the record I don't claim to be an expert, only knowledgeable enough to get myself into trouble :roll:
12A is technically a better refrigerant. Although any refrigerant used in a system that isn't optimized for it will not work efficiently. The poor performance I was seeing could be a result of the large variance in low side pressures in the orifice tube system. After charging the system with 12A I noticed the compressor would cycle very quickly. Trying multiple different orifice tubes yielded no better results. I have not personally tried it in a TXV system to compare performance however. To me it would seem radical modification (huge compressor possibly) of the orifice tube system would be needed to make 12A work as effectively as 134A. With the 242 getting close to roadworthy I may do some experiments with the TXV system before swapping it out. Still have a half case of Frostycool to burn...
 
The suggested Diesel compressor in the OP. It's mentioned that it is designed for efficiency at lower rpm. Is there any problem with reving it out to 6k or more? Or for that matter running it at 3k cruise for an hour or more? Am I better off sticking with some other compressor? Or is it not a big deal to send it with the Sanden Diesel compressor?

Anyone?

Can you over-rev a compressor?
 
The suggested Diesel compressor in the OP. It's mentioned that it is designed for efficiency at lower rpm. Is there any problem with reving it out to 6k or more? Or for that matter running it at 3k cruise for an hour or more? Am I better off sticking with some other compressor? Or is it not a big deal to send it with the Sanden Diesel compressor?

Mine is still blowing ice cubes for year and 8K miles since install. I regularly cruise 3Krpm + with the ac on.

Sanden rates the compressor for 6Krpm max.
 
Well, what I'm really wondering is if the fittings on the 91 hard lines will bolt up to the 93 condenser.

My car was converted to 134 a good few years ago so all the rubber hoses are 134 compatible, but it's since all leaked out. Since I'm going to have it open to atmosphere when I replace the accumulator and orifice tube anyway I'm thinking I'll drop in a 93 condenser.

Yes it is a simple remove and replace install, no modification needed for 91-92 cars for the 93 condenser.
 
Too much thinking. Not enough doing.

In my V8 conversion I used the Ford 2000 model year compressor, new aluminum horizonal condenser, new R134a expansion valve, new hoses, rings and dryer. Flushed everything, vacuumed down and filled with Walmart $5 R134a to 30 psi on low side. How's that for a technical spec?

Seven years and 20k miles later still get 46 degrees vent temperature at 83 ambient. Just checked recently. Still setting at 30 psi. That's not in the 30's but 10 degrees below Volvo specs for my '82.
 
12A is technically a better refrigerant. Although any refrigerant used in a system that isn't optimized for it will not work efficiently. The poor performance I was seeing could be a result of the large variance in low side pressures in the orifice tube system. After charging the system with 12A I noticed the compressor would cycle very quickly. Trying multiple different orifice tubes yielded no better results. I have not personally tried it in a TXV system to compare performance however. To me it would seem radical modification (huge compressor possibly) of the orifice tube system would be needed to make 12A work as effectively as 134A.

Optimized is a good word. Smarter people than us designed these systems around the available refrigerants at the time. My experience is strictly with TXV cars, so I don't know how Duracool would or should be expected to work in an orifice tube Volvo.

I originally installed R134a in my Classic Auto Air conversion (which use a TXV) and got disappointing results. Otherwise I wouldn't have changed to Duracool, which made all the difference and brought temps down 10-15 degrees.
Dave
 
2A4RWAbh.jpg


Sanden gang. This one was $160 shipped on ebay.

KrUPcY3h.jpg

9LuAeXyh.jpg


Here you can see how much I had to notch my bracket to make the discharge line fit. You can also see the bolt in r134 charge port adapter I put on the suction line. I then had to make a spacer for the rear upper bracket as vishmutzy detailed. Still need to put the rest of my car back together before I can charge it up and try it out.

I bet this Sanden would be a direct bolt in for anyone with a D24 since the compressor that came on those engines has the same style ports.

By the way, does anyone actually understand the TXV adjustment? Everywhere I read about 240 AC it's 2 or 3 turns for r12 and 7 turns out for r134, but I had a spare late 80s HVAC box with what certainly appeared to be the original undisturbed TXV and when I removed it, it was set to 13 turns . IIRC the one in my old wagon was set to 12 turns, dunno if that one was original or not.
 
Yes it is a simple remove and replace install, no modification needed for 91-92 cars for the 93 condenser.

Almost, but not quite. I pulled a bunch of parts off a 93 in the junkyard. The condenser bolts in with no modifications (but beware those decades -old rubber mounts, they all crumble when you try to loosen them), however the hardline that attaches at to the top connection point on the condenser will need to be swapped out for the line from the 93.

The top connection on my original 91 condenser is right near the top of the condenser. The top connection on the 93 condenser is about halfway down. The hardline will thread on to the condenser, but it doesn't really fit since it's longer. It took me a while to figure out what the problem was. I'm going to have a local place make a new hardline for me, since the one from the junkyard car was in rough shape, and then I expect it'll bolt right in (with a lot less wrestling).
 
Optimized is a good word. Smarter people than us designed these systems around the available refrigerants at the time. My experience is strictly with TXV cars, so I don't know how Duracool would or should be expected to work in an orifice tube Volvo.

I originally installed R134a in my Classic Auto Air conversion (which use a TXV) and got disappointing results. Otherwise I wouldn't have changed to Duracool, which made all the difference and brought temps down 10-15 degrees.
Dave

I'm using 2 cans of Envirosafe refrigerant in my '92 244 DD. It blows 36-38F out of the vents when moving down the freeway when temps are 90F ambient. At a stand still, the vent temps are running around 40-42F. Absolutely necessary in a all black car with no tint

All I did before the install:
  • Cleaned and flushed the entire system. The original orifuce tube was PACKED with crud. I just cleaned out the compressor and filled it with oil through the oil fitting on top of the compressor housing.
  • Replaced all o-rings in the engine bay side of the system (I'll get to the cabin side when/If I replace the blower motor)
  • Installed an self-compensating orifice tube from rock auto (~$10)
  • Vacuumed the system, and then charged it with the appropriate amount. Which just happened to be 2 full cans of Envirosafe.

That was just over a year ago, and the system is still blowing just as cold.
 
Last edited:
This thread could not have come at a better time.
I recently bought an '81 244 DL, and I was told that the ac system had been converted to R134a at some point, and it looks to my untrained eye that they replaced the drier and the compressor, though admittedly I'm not certain. However, the line that leads from the drier through the firewall to the evaporator is damaged, so all the refrigerant is long gone and I can't test anything yet. Perhaps some of you who have updated your systems and had to redo the tubing can tell me, did you have to take apart the dash to replace the drier-->evaporator tube? Or can that be replaced without such drastic action?
 
Almost, but not quite. I pulled a bunch of parts off a 93 in the junkyard. The condenser bolts in with no modifications (but beware those decades -old rubber mounts, they all crumble when you try to loosen them), however the hardline that attaches at to the top connection point on the condenser will need to be swapped out for the line from the 93.

The top connection on my original 91 condenser is right near the top of the condenser. The top connection on the 93 condenser is about halfway down. The hardline will thread on to the condenser, but it doesn't really fit since it's longer. It took me a while to figure out what the problem was. I'm going to have a local place make a new hardline for me, since the one from the junkyard car was in rough shape, and then I expect it'll bolt right in (with a lot less wrestling).

Interesting, didn't run into that issue with my '91. The fittings were in the same spot as the old condenser. I did use a Nissens replacement condenser instead of one pulled from a '93 though.
 
Back
Top