Guest model1822
Anyone else find that older Corolla AC's were stronger than the current generation?
My dad has a 94 which seems colder than my new 05. The 05 is adequate, but not as cold as the 94.
Anyone else find that older Corolla AC's were stronger than the current generation?
My dad has a 94 which seems colder than my new 05. The 05 is adequate, but not as cold as the 94.
Perhaps 94 is charged with freon (banned items nowdays)
Yup, the older Corolla's (and other auto makes) use the now politically incorrect Freon, which has been banned by the environmentalist wacko tree-huggers because it allegedly makes holes in the ozone layer or some damn thing. Therefore, your '05 is not as "cool" as your father's '94. My '03's AC is plenty cold for me, and I live in a fairly warm climate (central Delaware). I attribute this to the outstanding design by Toyota's engineers.
The HVAC system on the '05 isn't necessarly worse than the HVAC system on the '94. Here's why: Before 1995 most car A/C was charged with R12. It contained Freon, which is a Chloroflorocarbon, or CFC. CFC's were found to deplete the Ozone layer. In 1995 the Federal Government banned the use of R12 in all new vehicles. R134a was the cheapest replacement. R134a is CFC free, and for some reason and it isn't nearly as cold. If the refrigerant in your Dad's car was ever to need recharging, R12 is still available, but very expensive. It is usually cheaper to convert to R134a. If you were ever to convert his 94 A/C system to R134a, you would find it "adequate" also.
But you endorse the tree huggers when they want to tax SUVs out of existence?Yup, the older Corolla's (and other auto makes) use the now politically incorrect Freon, which has been banned by the environmentalist wacko tree-huggers because it allegedly makes holes in the ozone layer or some damn thing.
Dai_Shan
What....then soccer moms and all the rest of the yuppy SUV driven foo's will have to drive minivans again?
Would that be so bad?
:-p
I have a 1994 Toyota Corolla DX. The factory refrigerant is R-134A. All may not have come this way but mine did. Look for a sticker under the hood that will describe the refrigerant type for the vehicle.
I can say that the 1994 air conditioner is noticeably colder that the one in the 2003 Toyota Corolla CE I also have.
I have a 94 as well which came with R134a. Over the past few years I have noticed it taking longer to cool down the car on hot summer days. Does anyone know the procedure for recharing the system with R134a?
Dai_Shan
Hmmm interesting Eddie....so either they shunk the size of the compressor...cooling coils...or somethin...
you guys use recircuilate?
it might have something to do iwth the amount of outside ari that was requiredin 94(none/little) vs 04(more...afraid of C0 /exhaust etc)
personally i feel like my vents put out slightly warm air even with vent on full cooll....so maybe they have some hot air leakage in newer corolla's. I was thinking of having Toyota take a look at my heating/cooling damper to see if it is sealing properly.
When we use recirc on my 03 CE in North Carolina, we quickly have to back off the setting because it's too cold.
I have an '05 CE and I think the AC is icy cold. I live in south Florida, so heat and humidity are facts of life, when your not dodging hurricanes.
Consider window tinting. I had 2 previous vehicles and it does make a difference in the overall heat inside the car.
Also, I usually run it in Vent, unless I'm in traffic then it's Recirculate.
I think that SUV's are deplorable, and it has little, if anything, to do with their environmental impact. SUV's are unnecesaarily wasteful of fuel, present unnecessary danger to drivers of normal-sized vehicles, and give the SUV drivers a sense of false confidence which causes them to drive in a manner which causes accidents. Whenever I see the largest SUV's, they are usually occupied with just the driver, usually a woman, and devoid of any sort of cargo which may possibly justify their presence on the road. If more people drove Corollas, we would be less dependant on foreign oil, causing demand to fall and prices to stabilize. Most of the SUV's I see around my area are parked next to run-down mobile homes; if I were the owner, instead of a gaudy, expensive vehicle that makes absolutely no economic sense, I'd rather have a nice house!But you endorse the tree huggers when they want to tax SUVs out of existence?Yup, the older Corolla's (and other auto makes) use the now politically incorrect Freon, which has been banned by the environmentalist wacko tree-huggers because it allegedly makes holes in the ozone layer or some damn thing.
BTW -- I'm all for protecting the environment, but I don't see it as quite the fragile thing that the environmentalists would have us believe. If we were burning less gasoline by driving Corollas instead of Escalades and Sequoias, we could afford to use nice cold R12 in our AC units instead of the lukewarm R-134a.
That wouldn't be bad as all. The minivans, particularly the outstanding Toyota Sienna, have much more room in them for the kids and their gear, they get a nice, comfortable, safe ride in a vehicle that isn't unnecessarily top-heavy and difficult to handle, and they get twice the gas mileage as the bloated 4X4 SUV's. I think there is a legitimate market for certain full-sized truck-based vehicles to be used primarily as towing platforms for RV trailers, boats, etc. but the majority of SUV's aren't used that way -- they're used as daily drivers for people with more money to burn than common sense. I do believe that they should be subjected to confiscatory road use taxes and insurance rates, in order to discourage their proliferation.What....then soccer moms and all the rest of the yuppy SUV driven foo's will have to drive minivans again?Would that be so bad?
:-p
R-134a is plenty cold. For cryin' out loud, do you want it to blow -50F air or what?
I think an automobile's A/C system should blow cold enough that you rarely, if ever, have to have it set on maximum cold setting to cool the car down quickly after being left out in the Sun all day. In other words, there should be ample "reserve" cooling capacity. Older A/C systems had it, for the most part. Newer "environmental" systems don't seem to do as well.
In that case we are in agreement.
No, but I definitely want it to be able to blow 35F air, and a lot of post-1995 cars with the R-134a in their A/C system won't! Most of the newer A/C systems probably don't blow much colder than 55 or 60F; and that just doesn't feel cold enough on a hot day. R-134a systems get cool eventually, but the cool-down takes a lot longer, and this only tends to make drivers compensate by starting the vehicles and allowing them to run at idle for extended periods to cool down the vehicle's uncomfortably hot interior. On the hottest Summer days, even the reflectorized windscreen shades aren't much of a help; I've measured temperatures as high as 134F inside my Corolla on a sunny, 98F day! I see this idling/cooling-down going on a lot, and I have to wonder if all the extra hydrocarbons being pumped into the atmosphere by running, unattended vehicles travelling at Zero MPH are worse than whatever incidental leakage of R-134a occurs during the servicing of A/C systems. It would seem that the environmentalists have shot themselves in the foot on this one!R-134a is plenty cold. For cryin' out loud, do you want it to blow -50F air or what?
My wife just wrote a letter to our congressman yesterday about how we don't think that we should have to pay excessive insurance because we'd come out on the losing end of a collision with an SUV.That wouldn't be bad as all. The minivans, particularly the outstanding Toyota Sienna, have much more room in them for the kids and their gear, they get a nice, comfortable, safe ride in a vehicle that isn't unnecessarily top-heavy and difficult to handle, and they get twice the gas mileage as the bloated 4X4 SUV's. I think there is a legitimate market for certain full-sized truck-based vehicles to be used primarily as towing platforms for RV trailers, boats, etc. but the majority of SUV's aren't used that way -- they're used as daily drivers for people with more money to burn than common sense. I do believe that they should be subjected to confiscatory road use taxes and insurance rates, in order to discourage their proliferation.What....then soccer moms and all the rest of the yuppy SUV driven foo's will have to drive minivans again?Would that be so bad?
:-p
Since the SUV is the dangerous vehicle, their insurance should be higher.
We should not be penalized for being safe, practical and economical.
G
What my wife wrote (feel free to copy/edit/'be motivated by' it and send it to your own representative) :
I think it is completely unfair that my car insurance premium is made higher because "soccer moms" feel it is necessary to drive their 2.5 kids around in a "tank" that poses a serious threat to those who respect the environment and drive an economical small sized car. Why should I be stuck carrying the high premium when it is the absurdly oversized SUVs and trucks that cause all the damage. If I get hit (driving a Toyota Corolla) by a Ford Excursion (or some other tank-type truck or SUV) WHICH vehicle will CAUSE the most damage????? That is what I thought. Yet I am being PUNISHED because I am a decent person who gives a damn about the environment; who realizes it is absurd and wasteful to drive around in a tank.
Why am I being punished, tell me this? Everyone who drives huge vehicles should be the ones to be punished, make THEM pay for the damage THEY cause, NOT ME! I can't even wrap my head around this, it is so absurd and unlogical.
Why don't we all go out and buy Excursions, then who would pay the higher premiums...the people who own the biggest most wasteful tank?
I am positive that there are tons of people out there who feel the same way, who are just as angry about this as me. This is an important issue and something needs to be done about it now, right now.
All of us who drive small cars should not be punished for doing so, our premiums should be much lower...we should not have to pay for the damage caused by someone else.
Does this make any sense to you?
I have spoken with my insurance person and he suggested I write to you because he said that insurance companies feel the same way (that those driving huge vehicles should pay higher premiums) but it is up to the lawmakers to do something about it, to change the law.
Of course, I have a feeling that many of you are probably "tank drivers" and therefor would not want to change the law. So much for representing your people...
In this case I think it is clear that bigger is not better. Maybe some could justify it by saying that their family is safer in a tank. Of course they are safer but no one else is, nor the environment. In this case the bad far outweigh the good.
But what can you expect from greedy, self-important, extravagent Americans?
It is sad, very sad.
It should be a crime.
It needs to be changed.
You need to step up to the plate.
This is getting good. Started out as a discussion on A/C effectivness and turned into a campaign against Monster SUV's.
It's good to question authority, set right what we feel is wrong, maintain equality, and improve our lifestyle.
96 Geo Prizm....My AC sucks. Never really gets 'cold'. It's cool, but not cold. Got to be driving on the freeway for a bit to get it 'cold'. My 00 Neon I had, the AC was COLD. Had to turn it down after 5-10 minutes of usage. My 01 Intrepid is the same way. Nice and cold.
Note: I'm in slc, utah
Garrett:
I am 100-percent in your wife's corner over the SUV insurance rate issue. If people with lots of money to burn want to drive enormous, wasteful, inefficient, overly-polluting SUV's like Suburbans, Excursions, Sequoias (sorry, Toyota!) etc., then they should be paying insurance rates which reflect the greater amount of damage they do when involved in collisions with smaller vehicles. Whenever a full-sized SUV has a collision with a smaller vehicle, the insurance companies should assume that the property damages incurred to the smaller vehicle are wholly the responsibility of the SUV driver. Yes, there needs to be a law -- and it needs to be a federal law.
When it comes to SUV's, I guess everyone is a communist.
Dai_Shan
If communist is the new word for intelligent....then i guess we are.
So is the "problem" with newer AC systems that they are designed with less capacity or some inherent deficiency of 134a?
Personally, I think newer cars have AC systems that are barely adequate, both to save costs for the manufacturer and to consume less power (less effect on mileage).
It's certainly possible to take 134a and design an AC system that will instantly freeze the sweat on your backside and stick you to the seat. However, you probably wouldn't want to cart it around all year in a Corolla.
From what I've seen, smaller cars like the Corolla get the short end of the stick as far as AC capacity. It's fine on the highway, but in town it can barely keep up. ('02 Corolla here, but newer small cars I've been in are about the same).
In larger vehicles, the AC is a much smaller portion of the cost and mileage penalty, and sure enough, they usually contain higher capacity AC systems. My Mom's Ford Exploder is like sitting in a meat freezer. My dearly departed '93 VW passat used 134a and cooled quite well.
Even if we still had R12, the cost and milage pressures would still exist, and small cars would continue to get marginal AC.
I have no problems with my '01. It takes 4 or 5 minutes to get really cool, but then I start feeling too cold, so I have to turn it down.
My biggest problem with a/c is that I can't get a constant, comfortable level. I turn the a/c on, and gradually it gets colder and colder until I am too cold. Then I turn the a/c down, so that it gets warmer in the car until it is too warm. Then I turn it up, and gradually it gets too cold. And so on. So I am always shifting the a/c up and down, searching for that perfect equilibrium but not being able to find it.
I don't know if the more expensive cars have systems which don't have this problem.
