2000 C5 Explosion Under Hood

[Ozark Lee]

That is great news!

There are two lines that go to the back of the compressor and they both can be replaced with relative ease (easier than replacing the evaporator for sure). To determine which line it is just trace it and see where it goes.

You will need to replace the line, replace the accumulator / receiver / filter drier (it goes by any of those names depending on who supplies it but they are all the same thing), pull a vacuum and make sure that the vacuum holds and then add PAG oil and R-134A. I need to switch operating systems to get the total charge specification and the PAG oil weight will depend on which compressor you have. If you can get the numbers off of the compressor we can tell you which weight PAG oil you need.

...Lee

[regent]

Look at your HVAC system arrangement here; you may be able to source the parts you need from them also: http://volvopartslisle.com/assembly/790 ... nditioning

From your description, it appears that you blew the High-pressuse hose from the compressor into the condenser. For certain, since the system has been open for some time, you need to replace the line and the drier first, then evacuate it completely and then build vacuum/check for leaks. The required freon charge is around 1 kg of freon but you should check with your manual or VIDA for the exact amount.

Considering the circumstances when it blew up (at full pressure) and the location of the breach, you can assume there is next to no oil left in it. I can check in VIDA for the specs in a few hours; someone that has access now may be able to chime in sooner. (I just saw Lee did, thanks!)

[Ozark Lee]

I only have VADIS at the cabin this weekend and it is a bit slim on specifics. The oil capacity after a hose rupture is 200cc (6.75 oz) and they reference a service tag on the right hand strut tower for system refrigerant capacities. I did find another source that shows a refrigerant capacity of 29 oz of R-134A for a 2000 model and 6.75 Oz of PAG 100.

http://www.techchoiceparts.com/refriger ... ies/uvwxyz

...Lee

[instarx]

As far as R-134A goes you, as a car owner (As of this posting) can vent it without fear of going to EPA jail. A professional, working for hire, cannot legally vent it to the atmosphere though. R-134A is an HFC refrigerant which has no Chlorine and thus it poses no harm to the Ozone layer. If for no other reason than the cost of the refrigerant it is never advisable to vent it though.

...Lee

Lee, technically you are correct, R134a has very little effect on the ozone layer. But there is more to the story of R134a than ozone. R134a is moderate to strong greenhouse gas 1,400 times more potent than CO2. It has a GWP (Global Warming Potential) index of 1,430 which is only a bit less than HCFC-22, one of the worst of the old chlorinated fluorocarbons (GWP 1,800). Although it does not significantly deplete the ozone layer, it does contribute significantly to global warming through other greenhouse mechanisms. So the inference that most would make after reading your post -- that it is OK to release R134a directly to the atmosphere -- would be wrong.

[abscate]

Without getting too moralizing, the really bad actors are the ones whose cars " need a can of Freon every now and then". You have already blown your charge due to component failure, so no more harm to be done, other than fixing any leaks correctly. If you were adding a Freon periodically, now is the time to pump the system down and test for leaks before recharging.

[northernlights]

As far as R-134A goes you, as a car owner (As of this posting) can vent it without fear of going to EPA jail. A professional, working for hire, cannot legally vent it to the atmosphere though. R-134A is an HFC refrigerant which has no Chlorine and thus it poses no harm to the Ozone layer. If for no other reason than the cost of the refrigerant it is never advisable to vent it though.

...Lee

Lee, technically you are correct, R134a has very little effect on the ozone layer. But there is more to the story of R134a than ozone. R134a is moderate to strong greenhouse gas 1,400 times more potent than CO2. It has a GWP (Global Warming Potential) index of 1,430 which is only a bit less than HCFC-22, one of the worst of the old chlorinated fluorocarbons (GWP 1,800). Although it does not significantly deplete the ozone layer, it does contribute significantly to global warming through other greenhouse mechanisms. So the inference that most would make after reading your post -- that it is OK to release R134a directly to the atmosphere -- would be wrong.

Dude, you might want to park your car.

Assuming R134a has 1430x the GWP of CO2, means that if the OP manages to vent one pound of R134a from his exploded system, it is the same as producing 1430 lb of CO2, or (warning: chemistry babble ahoy!) about:

650kg of CO2 or
14800 mole of CO2 which requires about
1850 mole of C8H18 (which gasoline isn't, but close enough) which is
211 kg gasoline or about
310 liters of gasoline (with a SG=0.68) which is
82 US gallons or
2 fillups for a Ford Excursion.

It's all relative. Don't worry about fixing the AC. Worry about the Ford's.

[hvymtlc5]

Thanks for all the info and capacities of the oil and freon. The line blew right at the metal crimp off the compressor.

[matthew1]

Sorry for the off-topic nature of this, but NL, 82 US gallons of burned gasoline produces 650kg of CO2?

[northernlights]

Yep, assuming 8 carbon atoms per molecule of gasoline. If you look at European cars they all list grams of CO2 per 100 km as a metric, and (I believe) tax accordingly.

Again, it's all relative. I think a person generates 1 kg per day!

(and if anyone is off topic, it's me!)

[Ozark Lee]

I would really like to have an intelligent discussion about the chemistry of refrigerants, ozone depletion, GWP (besides being referenced to CO2 with CO2 having a GWP of 1, I have no idea what the inputs to the calculations are).

As a part of getting EPA section 608 and 609 certifications I was left scratching my head a bit at the explanations that were presented so I cracked open some of my old college chemistry books (Guilty admission, I only took 12 hours of chemistry as a part of my engineering degree and I am not a chemist) and started to look at molecular bonds. The molecular structure of CHFC 22 particularly bothered me due to the Lewis dot representations of the bonding of the Chlorine atom.

The basis of ozone destruction theory is the interaction between ozone (O3-a molecule) and Chlorine (Cl - an atom) and there is a quantum leap made that has a molecule that contains Chlorine assuming the characteristics of a free Chlorine atom for the purposes of the ozone destruction theory.

Northernlights, you used the word "mole", and used it in a sentence with numbers, which leads me to believe that you may have education that goes beyond seeing the word in a book somewhere when it comes to chemistry.

Can you read the core section (Pages 9-12) of this EPA certification guide and then take a quick peek at the molecular structure of CFC-12 and HCFC-22 and, without violating the board prohibition of about discussions on religion and politics, help me reconcile this information.

https://www.americantrainco.com/pdfs/ep ... 0guide.pdf

...Lee