9000 air-conditioning service?

Check how cold the air is coming out of the vents. You can do this with your wife meat themo. If the air coming out is 62-66 degrees and its 95 out your ok . If degree is lower say 85 air in vents should come out a litter cooler. So I guess it depends how hot is is outside. good luck papa

A 9000 most likely uses R-12, so unless you get it converted to R-134a, re-gassing is a rather expensive proposition, about $200 at current prices, more than the parts to convert.

As far back as 1993, SAAB 9000's US model use r-134a already. For sure

1996 9000 cde uses r-134a. Recharge doesn't cost $200 either. Let me guess. You live in the UK, correct? Divide everything you pay in the UK by 2 to 4, depending on the item, that's what you pay for in the US.

I didn't realize they made 9K's much after '93 so my comment was based on an older car.

No I don't live in the UK, I live in the US, and recycled R-12 is running about $70/lb or about $200 to recharge an old system. That's why I advocated R-134a if it was not already made to use it, as it's only about $2/lb in 30 lb cylinders or $5-$6/lb in the little cans you can get anywhere. It's still not cheap to have a shop do anything related to the A/C but if the system hasn't lost it's vacuum anyone can buy the stuff to top it off.

The hole in the sky is really making the price of r-12 like gold. Remember the gold ole days when r-12 was 99 cents a can? I'd upgrade r-12 to r-134a if I have a car which still uses it.

Nope. 9000s had R12 up through MY 1992 for sure, but I believe it was in '93 (definitely by '94) that they switched to R134. So the '96 MY car in question is definitely *not* loaded with R12

-Fred W

You mean, the theoretical effect of an unproven poorly researched theory? That "hole in the sky"?

Yup. No different to the ozone layer, but not banned and doesn't work as well. Boy, I'm glad we're concentrating on _important_ environmental things, aren't you?

I am not absolutely convinced either the hole was made by r-12. But I am comfortable with not using it. It doesn't hurt my pocket book anymore.

I am more worried about the increasing carbon dioxide emissions and the resulting green house effect, however. Apparently Exxon-Mobil disagrees.

I think you should stop breathing. You are making too much carbon dioxide and ruining the atmosphere. You should also not procreate as your progeny will only increase the CO2 output. In fact, if you would kindly go out and "take out" a couple of your neighbors before you off yourself it would be greatly appreciated.

There is no *proof* that any of the current changes in global temperature are being directly *caused* by this pollution. There is conjecture and there are studies and there are conclusions. But there is no proof of the cause and effect.

-Fred W

Among other things - as the global temperature raises, less CO2 can stay dissolved in the oceans. Maybe the CO2 levels raising are an effect of the temperature climb, rather than a cause. All we have is correlation, and a bunch of people on either side who don't look at the whole picture.

Me, I would be happy just being able to use a substance that hasn't been actually shown by scientists to be an actual problem. But I'm kinda funny that way. In the meantime, we're all stuck using an inferior product, that chemically interacts _exactly the same way_ with Ozone.

You are the kind that no amount of evidence can convince you one way or another. Because you already have your mind made up. So why bother?

Who are you talking to? You didn't provide any context.

He was replying to me, so I guess that was who he was talking to.

-Fred W

What gives you that idea? I have not seen any conclusive evidence that the one (increase in CO2) is the cause of the other(global warming). I have seen evidence that both of those things appear to be happening simultaneously, though even that evidence is not entirely conclusive. But just beciuse they are both occurring does not prove a cause and effect relationship. But I will keep an open mind about it...

OTOH, you are so convinced that this pseudo science is the only truth that you will not even consider there being other possibilities. I would say that you are the horse with the blinkers on...

-Fred W

It's so hard to tell when they don't give context. Ah well.

You know, every time the dog goes to the window and goes nuts, someone drives up the driveway. Obviously, the dog going nuts by the window causes people to drive up my driveway.

Exactly.

Me, I'd just like to be able to buy decent freon without a bunch of lawyer/lawmakers interfering, based on flawed research.

What makes you think I am convinced one way or the other? I am merely worried about global warming. The effect of what human activities over time, in particular over the last century is naturally long term therefore the ramifications are not easily ascertained. Like in the case of curtailing, or eliminating the use of R-12, I am for reducing the sources which contribute to increasing the potential for more global warming. Provided of course my worldly comforts are not affected. That's my position.

WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO? INCLUDE SOME FREAKING CONTEXT FFS.

Sure, I can understand your concern. The way I look at it, we (the entire human race) are a pestilence on the planet. Pretty much everything that we do is detrimental in one way or another.

-Fred W