Dont need ac

I have a 88 ranger with a 2.9 and dont use the ac infact I dont even have the belt on it. I want to pull it all out inorder to ease working on it. What do I need to do to get rid of it? I still want my heater thought this is my hunting/play truck.

keep it

and reuse it as an air compressor. read an article somewhere in the tech library about switching it over fo such use.

just my $.02

converting to OBA takes up even more space then the stock a/c.

if you want to delete your a/c, then have a shop drain the system for you (refrigerant is poisonous, not to mention bad for the environment), then have at it.

you can get rid of the compressor, accumulator and lines, which take up the most room and are easy to get to. removing the evaporator wont do you any good unless you scavenge the blower housing from a non-a/c truck or hack yours up and fiberglass over the hole. if your condenser is in good shape, i'd leave it in place to help protect your radiator from debris.

You'll find that AC useful during those Yuma thunderstorms, and just about anytime above freezing in Virginia.

Use the A/C whenever the defogger is on, and it actually works in wet conditions....

I wish people would stop mentioning "remove the referigerant" when someone says they want to remove their DEAD air conditioning.... HELLO!!!!

If the A/C is dead the chances are 991 out of a Thousand that the
reason it doesn't work is because the referigerant is already GONE!

Usually because there is already a HOLE in the condenser,
a bad O-ring in one connection or another, an aged A/C hose
or a bad compressor shaft seal.

The other ten? those are split up between a bad low
pressure cutoff switch and a dead A/C compressor clutch.

That being said?

the factory A/C compressor is not the best design for an onboard
compressed air system, it'll work, but the compressor needs a certain
ammount of oil to work well or for any length of time....

as for "working room" on the engine? even with the AC removed from a 2.9
or 4.0 ranger it's Still easier to replace the passenger side spark (#2 & #3)
plugs through the left front wheel well

and frankly there's nothing else over there you really need to work on.

AD

Allan, he didn't say it doesn't work. He said he doesn't use it, and bypassed the pulley.

its simple enough to provide oil for the compressor if you want to convert it to OBA...and these compressors perform quite well in this application actually.

and low pressure doesnt mean no pressure. even in a system that wont run due to low pressure, there is still refrigerant present.

Systems that leak tend to continue leaking until there is negligble pressure present.

Commercial recovery systems can only recover referigerant down to 5psi or
so and most won't START "Recovery" unless here is atleast 15-20psi in the system.
(Some as high as 30psi)

So once the pressure drops to just above atmospheric pressure the
system "switches gears" and starts pumping the system down to vacuum
and when it does this it pumps everything to out into the atmosphere.

So whatever residual pressure is in the system is gonna wind up in
the atmposphere ANYWAY even if it IS "recovered properly"

Besides most systems have been "Retrofitted" with R134a or some R12 substitute
and except for commiefornia nobody gives a rat's ass if you dump the system to atmosphere.

Do you really think the EPA has sipes watching every old truck in each of the 50 states?

Oh and BTW, the big scare about R-12 and Ozone? it's complete bullshit.
It is/was all a big SCAM, perpetuated by alarmist enviro-nuts.

I say find R-12 vehicles in the junkyard, let the referigerant blast out
into the sky accompanied by the cry "Earth Day!!!"

Read my signature and ponder how "politically correct" you
should expect me to be?

AD

Allan, don't call NASA folks "commies" without evidence or I'll call you a right wing wacko. And go look up the TOMS satellite while you're at it. Though you may not want to admit it, it happened and there is a LOT of evidence for it.

Mike,

Two UNCONNECTED facts don't make them related.

NOBODY has come anywhere close to proving that R12 (or rather it's decomposition products) made the hole in the ozone layer.

In point of fact there is no proof that the hole hasn't bene there for 10,000 years or for that matter 10,000,000 years. NONE.

The hole appears and disappears randomly and NOBODY can approach being able to say WHY.

I don't debate that the "hole" is there.

I don't NEED to debate the lack of a proven link.

My Reference to commieforia was not in regard to ozone or r-12
Itwas in regards to releasing any of the substitute referigerants,
because last I heard ONLY california bothered to legislte against
the release of the "NON-ozone depleting" (their description, not mine)
substitute referigerants.

Facts, Mike, not hyperbole.

The whole idea that R-12 was responsible for ozone depletion was based
not on supposition, but a chain of atleast three suppositions NONE of
which have been proven outside of artificial conditions in a laboratory.

1)that R12 will break down and release elemental chlorine
Fact, only under UV flux levels in the upper atmosphere
(actually in the Ozone layer) will R12 reak down.
2)That the chlorine Will break down the ozone
Yeah, kinda... but the reaction is slow even at sea level pressures
3)the completely FALSE idea that enough R12 was ever made to
achieve the claimed effect (Uhhh.... No.)

And this ignores that even with the "mixing of gasses" that R12 has about as much chance of floating into the upper atmposphere as do the patio stones under your picnic table.
R12 Agressively settles into low places.

It has about as much real honest scientific objectivity as cigarette
companies claiming that tobacco isn't harmful

The "inconvenient truth" is that people with an agenda go searching for "Facts" that "prove" their theories while systematically IGNORING any "inconvenient Data".

There are repeated accounts where it is stated that if data
doesn't fit their "model" the data is burried.

I'll continue to be "inconvenient" by refusing to believe, repeat or tolerate LIES.

Global warming? mabey, but nothing about the CAUSE has been proven.
Anyone who says different is LYING.
There isn't even a preponderance of data indicating that man is responsible
because temps have been warming since well before the industrial revolution.
and the rate of increase is NOT commensurate with the increase in CO2 output since. unless it's unaccounted for hot air from various politicians who want the votes

How many times have you heard that global temps are at an all time high? This is a barefaced LIE on the part of whoever says it, and people keep saying it.

Gobal temps aren't NEARLY as high as they have been even in historical times.

Repeat after me: "Lemon trees growing in Britain"
Until you can say that without laughing because you are SUCKING on a lemon grown OUTDOORS in Britain I don't want to HEAR the phrase "global warming" again....



AD

OK, you're a right wing wacko.

You're wrong on almost every count. Read the IPCC report to find out why.

Why is it that almost every climate scientist disagrees with you? Chlorates ARE known to be a serious problem, mixing DOES occur into the lower stratosphere, most obviously in large storms (just not continuously like it does in the troposphere), and in observed Antarctic wind patters (in a nutshell, the south pole is essentially stratospheric on the ground due to high altitude and extreme cold). And R12 is known to decompose into chlorates in the presence of UV and harder radiation and functions AS A CATALYST to decompse O3. This is from laboratory experiments.

Your argument is EXACTLY like saying you can't tell how hot an object (say, the sun) is without touching it. As you know from oxy welding, this is not true; you can tell from an arbitrary distance by the color it glows (and this works at any temperature provided you look at the right wavelength -- at room temperature, it's infrared; at deep-space temperatures, it's microwave). All the pieces are there; it's known science. It's not a conspiracy. What would ANYONE gain from that that they wouldn't also gain from turning it over?

No, scientists are not en-masse liars and thieves. You on the other hand aren't nearly as informed on these issues as you think you are.

And the hole appears and disappears on a CYCLE, much like El Nino. It's not at all random.

That the material released by man "Caused" the hole in the ozone layer is NOT proven.

That however many scientists have a consensus is not NEARLY the same thing.

anymore than asking a jury to decide the exsistance of "god" or not.
(which god they decide exsists... or not... is a completely seperate issue)

They have a group of rungs but that doesn't mean they have a ladder.

I understand the scientific method.
I have lost faith that it is even something they teach these days.

I have seen too much "inductive logic", searching for evidence to support
a conclusion that's already been made....

Not searching for evidence with an open mind

Minds, doors, books and resturants are useless when closed
They must be opened to work....

And BTW it's typical liberal bullshit to immediatly call me a "right wing wacko"
because I dare to disagree with a bunch of left wing wacko's

AD

Unfortunately, it's also typical conservative BS to call someone who disagrees with what you believe a "liberal" as if its an insult. How about all those conservatives immediately after 9/11 that went around ranting about how un-american it is to protest the war, and that if you don't agree with it you should get out? Both sides are guilty of the same damn thing.

I honestly wish that in my lifetime I could see that tangible effects of global warming and see Boston underwater for the sheer purpose of saying "told you so". Whether we affect it or not, there are some massive changes happening on this planet. Why is it that marine life are migrating (for lack of better words) to places they never did? Why is desertification in Africa happening at a faster rate than ever recorded? Why are some people struggling with drought that have never been recorded to in human history? While that history is short, it doesn't mean this is a new phenomenon. Believe what you want, but things are changing and people's lives are changing with it.

Also, I want to clarify something. I've never had an experience where I was force fed some methodology in my time at college. The point of college is to look at everything with a critical eye. That is what they teach, or at least should teach, at a typical 4 year college. Looking at everything with a critical eye and not accepting it because it's been that way forever is antithetical to modern conservatism which seeks to maintain the status quo because it's convenient and its been that way forever and it works, so why change it? I don't know what students you are referring to, but I for one love to listen to opposing arguments and base my decisions and opinions on the arguments that have a better base of empirical evidence.

4x4RangerGuy said:

Unfortunately, it's also typical conservative BS to call someone who disagrees with what you believe a "liberal" as if its an insult. How about all those conservatives immediately after 9/11 that went around ranting about how un-american it is to protest the war, and that if you don't agree with it you should get out? Both sides are guilty of the same damn thing.

I honestly wish that in my lifetime I could see that tangible effects of global warming and see Boston underwater for the sheer purpose of saying "told you so". Whether we affect it or not, there are some massive changes happening on this planet. Why is it that marine life are migrating (for lack of better words) to places they never did? Why is desertification in Africa happening at a faster rate than ever recorded? Why are some people struggling with drought that have never been recorded to in human history? While that history is short, it doesn't mean this is a new phenomenon. Believe what you want, but things are changing and people's lives are changing with it.

Click to expand...

Some people just refuse to see the obvious.

Keith,

Methodology is the PRIMARY thing they should be teaching you.
Methodology is HOW to think.

So if they werent "force feeding" you methodology I worry about what they were force feeding you instead....

In the modern education system they spend their time indoctrinating students
with WHAT to think.
And them NOT teaching you HOW to think allows them to get away with it!

should I tell you what my brother wanted to do when his 10 year old
daughter came home and told him her teacher told her than eating
meat was evil?

Do you even know the difference between inductive logic and deductive logic?

Or the great trap of inductive logic thinking?

Or how to recognise a circular arguement when you hear one?


Yeah they show you two opposing view points, but it's pretty easy to
manipulate those "contests" to provide their predetermined result.

"indoctrination" when done correctly produces people that will deny
to their dying breath that they were indoctrinated at all... while they
repeat the party line word for word

Telling you to Suspect everything? you know there was a reason they
made socrates drink poison... and their doing so wasn't entirely unjustified....

What I always ask is "what is their motivation for telling me that"?
I suspect motives.

Desertification in africa? Simple. over Population.
Native grasslands are plowed for crops that don't grow well then the
wind blows the topsoil away. Either that or the people try to raise cattle
that eat the grass too low and it dies and blows away.

that isn't "climate change" causing the "Desertification" that is
"Desertification causing the climate change"

Why is Africa overpopulated? for the same reason AIDS is EXPLODING in africa,
Because NOBODY there will practice "Safe sex", let alone birth control.
and people must eat.... that means cattle and crops
unless someone wants to teach the Masai to be vegetarians?
(If you want to try I want to watch, should be a good show...

Cattle are not "designed" for the much dryer african climate.
Most of africa makes the high northern plains and sage flats
of Colorado, Wyoming & Montana look like the garden of eden.

******************

As for the name calling? I didn't start it Na NA NaNa Na NA NAAAAH
If someone accuses me of being "Conservative", then by definition they consider "conservative" to be an insult.
The logical retort then is accusing them of being a liberal, because
only a liberal would consider calling someone a conservative as an accusation

****************************

frankly the only effect all this mad scrambling to "do something" will likely
hurt more because the places where "something" is being done are
responsible for a small fraction of the polution that they claim is
responsible for the problem...

Ever hear of a place called China?

You think China is going to stop burning coal without even rudimentary
emmissions controls? If you do you have been spending too much time
with your opium pipe.

Go protest in China and see where it gets you...
Of course the chinese have a differnet view of Conservatives and liberals.
And don't really differentiate, if you protest they shoot you.
They MAY let you choose between the left ear and the right ear.
But in either case they bill your family for the cost of the bullet.

Yet through all this the main slant of a lot of the environmental activity is geared
not to actually doing something about the "problem" but rather making people feel
guilty about just living their lives.

But the mainstream media is starting to smell the distinct scent of
"manure de homme de Bovine" as the fanatical environmentalists
contradict themselves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

Much of the things that people are racing around doing are at best ineffective
and in many cases counterproductive.

AD