Yeah the hole shocked me too---not sure how long ago it happened, oddly enough the system evacuated fairly quickly even after having been open for at least 6 months I'm guessing.

Interesting about switching from R134a to R409a---not sure that's a rabbit hole I want to go down at this time. I do have a contact in the commercial refrigerated truck biz who is a highly experienced service tech on reefer units. Since those are somewhat similar to automotive A/C he'd be my go-to guy for something like this. I'm not a fan of asking an older refrigeration system to perform to the same spec's with another refrigerant. Without all new components the residual oil will always present a problem of some sort.

 

The R-409 refrigerant is a drop in replacement for R-12 & R-134. It is one of several drop in replacements in the refrigeration world that are compatible with all three of the refrigerant oils. P.O.E, alka-benzene & the old mineral oil. I use it in both my "92" & "93" 600SEL & 600SL Benz's as well as my "94" & "03" E series vans. My "93" Jag as well. No issues whatsoever. The automotive industry is too idiotic to use it. They claim it has a 1 point higher "flammability" factor on the M.S.D.S. than the R-134. Bull****! Freon isn't flammable to begin with! The 134 takes a bit for it to cool, the 409 is instantaneous. The performance curves between the two are very different on the charts.
Anyway, 40 years of stupidity of being in the field!
Cheers!

 

Hey PBarsoum---question about substitution refrigerant in an automotive-type A/C system......

This chart by Honeywell : R-134a Substitution about alternative refrigerants under the heading "Interim HCFC Based Refrigerants" has a footnote suggesting R-409 isn't recommended for automotive applications---any thoughts on that?

Just curious why that would be and FWIW I have done my share of A/C work for about 11 years working for the original Liebert Corporation, way back in the 70's and middle 80's.

 

JWA, I imagine it goes back to the M.S.D.S. sheet about the "flammability" factor. I would have liked to see more of an elaboration on their footnote. When I purchased my "03" E-350 new, I switched it over to R-409 and 17 years later with 210,000 miles, I have had no issues at all with the a/c system. All of the original components (compressor included) and no refrigerant leaks whatsoever. And as I mentioned before, I run 409 in all 5 of my very diverse collection of vehicles. Benz's, Jag, and E series vans. One of the Benz's has 190k miles, Jag has 90k, no problems.
BTW, I love working on the Lieberts! Awesome engineering!

 

BTW, when replacing the R-134 with the R-409, you charge the system to 80% of the published R-134 charge.

 

Thanks---some of that engineering was due my personal input---being part of a "roving" Quality Control inspection I interfaced with nearly every phase of a Liebert environmental unit; could correct, change or improve the finished product long before it even left the shop. I also went on numerous field service calls across the US, could see our gear in use and make changes accordingly. Good times!

I too would have liked to see a more thorough attribution why the Honeywell R-409 isn't recommended for automotive use. I would hazard a guess and say the 80% charge fill is due to a higher efficiency of the R-409 over the R-134a? How do the head and suction pressures change with the new stuff?

What gauges or charging manifold do you use?

 

The suction pressure is almost identical between the 134 & 409 on the T/P chart and the head pressure is slightly higher with the 409 as opposed to the 134. The 80% charge is not so much the efficiency but there are more components to the 409 being a "blended" refrigerant than the 134. Therefore it takes up more "space" condenser wise. With regards to the manifold set, I use the standard 134 set with "automotive" quick connect adapters. Actually, my manifold set is so old it only has the R-22, R-12 and R-502 temperature scales on them! I carry 6 different refrigerants on my truck so the pressures and a T/P chart are all I need. There are at least a dozen or so refrigerants now on the market with them doing away with the CFC's (R-22, R-12, R-502) which were high, medium and low temperature refrigerants respectively back in the day and you really have to be on your game to know what refrigerants will cooperate with which oils (mineral, alkyl-benzene, polyolester & polyalkylene glycol). The new R-422B is a "drop in" replacement for the R-22, the R-417C is a "drop in" replacement for any medium temp systems that have R-12, R-134A, R500, R401A/B, R409A, R414B, R416A, R420A, R426A, R437 & R414A and the R-404B covers the low temp equipment. Freezers, ice machines, etc. All three of these "blends" are compatible with all of the oils. There are many other refrigerants that can be utilized as well to do the same, the difference is the multiple manufactures of the different refrigerants and the price. I don't jump right in when a new refrigerant comes on the market until it is out in the field for a few years before I trust it. Everyone in the A/C field hates the "new" R-410 that they use now in the residential A/C systems but most don't realize that it takes at least 15 minutes for the freon to stabilize in the system after start up in order to obtain the proper super-heat or sub-cooling readings. Unfortunately 75% of the guru's in the business don't even know what the hell super-heat and sub-cooling are!

 

Like so many other aspects of technically based service/repair jobs these days automation or more elaborate test equipment greatly reduces need to know how something works or how to fix it without a lot of fancy stuff. Take a calculator or "smart" phone from a younger person today and ask them to solve a math problem, offer them pencil/pen and paper, step back and watch the confusion.

I've watched the Robinair automated charging stations for automotive use and they're amazing----sadly they can't diagnose anything inside the system or the electrical aspect of the entire system.

Thanks PBarsoum---great info!

 

I just changed the plugs a few days ago on my "03" E-350 for the second time (210k miles) which is why I ended up on here to begin with. Was poking around what everyone was torquing them to. I have the 6.8L, V-10. I had to change the C.O.P.'s about 90k miles ago because when I was washing the van, it would have a miss until it dried. So I replaced them all with the Accel's and while I was at it, I replaced the plugs with the Motorcraft Platnium's. What a huge difference! Stock I think are around 30k volts and the Accel's are 50k. Anyway, with a Magnaflow exhaust on it, it almost sounded like it was missing a cylinder. Ran just fine but was a little unnervig not to know for sure. My "Torque" app with the bluetooth OBD adapter doesn't really show that detail but it wasn't throwing any faults either. I ran over to my buddy's auto shop and he plugged in his "Snap On" magic wand and the technology in that thing was amazing! Short of saying what color the interior is, it pretty much shows everything going on with the engine. No misfires. All is good! Best vehicle I've ever owned. It's been mechanically solid all of it's life. Can't say the same about the body though. Garage kept in western Pa. but have dumped a small fortune in the bodywork!
I had no idea until the other day that Ford stopped making the E series in 2016. You wouldn't catch me dead in one of those ugly Transit's.
I'll have to see if I can get 300k out of the one I have.

 

Not necessarily the thread for plugs, COP's etc but you want to change the plugs at 50K using Motorcraft SP479;s (??) and carefully inspect the boots, replace as/if needed. Accel COP's aren't recommended as their longer term durability is questionable (I've had my own problems with cheap aftermarket COP's) so its nothing but Motorcraft DG-508's (come with new boots & springs) for me. You can find them all over the internerd for about $25 each.

Use nickel-based anti-seize on the plug threads, torque with a torque wrench to 25-26 ft/lbs and you should be good to go. I have two E-Series with over 290K miles running strong so 300+ isn't difficult to achieve. Good quality oil of the proper viscosity and high quality filters, change at 3K as I've done with all my 5.4 motors.

 

Well, Ford recommended every 100k on the plugs and when I pulled the SP479 Motorcraft Platnium's out this time that I changed at the first 100k, there was only .002 difference between the new ones and the old. Pretty impressive. And I did torque them to 25 ft/lbs with the anti-seize. They claim the platnium's last 2x longer than the copper. I have been religious about changing the oil at every 3k miles. Been using the Valvoline full synthetic most of it's life. I also change the rear diff. every 15k miles. The XL-3 friction modifier tends to break down around 20k and the clutches start "grabbing". Makes a horrendous crunching noise. When I bought it new, around 20k the rear diff. started doing that and I thought the rear end was defective. That's when the Ford service manager asked me if I had changed the gear oil and added the modifier and that with the weight I'm carrying should be done at every 15k. I've been doing it all along and never had a problem since. I was on the "spark plug" thread btw, and some folks were saying 11 ft/lbs, 20 ft/lbs, depends on how many threads in the head, use anti-seize, don't use anti-seize, blah, blah, blah. Are your 5.4's the Triton's? Because my 6.8 is and it's a 4 hour job changing the plugs on that thing! The V-12's on my Benz's only take me an hour! German engineering.

 

When you're reading posts about spark plugs or COP's do yourself a favor and pay attention to what vehicles are under discussion---some contain information about the 3V heads which were only used in the F-Series trucks.

All Modular Motors are considered "triton" as that's just a trade name, it doesn't signify anything special about the engine family. The E-Series never received the dreaded 3 valve heads so from 1997 to the EOL with the Modular Motors and used the same factory recommended SP479 plugs and DG-508 COP's..

We can debate the spark plug issue to death--as you've already seen but I'm one who refuses to believe they're just as effective at 100K as at 50K. While the gap might not seem affected carbon build up etc etc all affect their efficiency. Changing at the 50K interval somewhat forces us to check the boots which can introduce problems of their own that's age and use related. We're also forced to check torque which if not done to a good setting allows the plugs to back out leading to an ejected plug damaging the heads on their way out.

There's no known problem with using nickel based anti-seize and it does allow easy removal when time to change. Plugs galling in the heads can make an "easy" plug change far, far more difficult than it need be. Proper torque is paramount to these engines, most of us have found up to 26 ft/lbs max works best.

Changing plugs is made a bit "easier" by removing one of the front seats and accessing as many as you can from inside the cabin. I also remove the air filter housing and all duct work leading into the throttle body for maximum clearance and ease of working under the hood. Sure its a 4-6 hour job but IMHO its time well spent to assure a reliable and mostly trouble-free engine.

And I always say my advice is how I do this task; since its not my van its not my decision what to do, what to use and so on.

 

OK, the plot thickens....

I just tore the system apart and to my surprise, when going to remove the restricting orifice, i confirmed that it was actually missing! I am certain I am looking in the correct place because I see a "pinched" line just upstream of the inlet to the evaporator where the orifice should be inserted. As I understand it, the system/compressor relies on this restriction to build pressure. It would make sense that a missing orifice would prevent the compressor from building pressure and the high and low side pressures would perhaps stay the same?

My questions now are:
1) is it possible that the orifice was damaged to point it was pushed through the system and is now lodged in the evaporator?
2) I am afraid I overcharged the system because when I went to evacuate it, there was no refrigerant left in the system (no pressure). It would appear that I overpressurized the system and created a leak somewhere. What should I do next? I planned on purchasing a new compressor, condenser, accumulator, and orifice. I am inclined to just go forward with replacing it all since the vehicle has 200k miles on it and I think the existing A/C system is original. But I am afraid that if I replace it all and have a charge put in it, there will be a leak and I will have to pay to have it recharged again after addressing the leak.

Any suggestions??

 

Well.... you are definitely on the right trail. The orifice is incorporated together with a filtering screen and someone prior to you probably removed it because the screen was plugged thinking they were removing a "restriction". Refrigeration 101 is now in progress! The compressor "compresses the refrigerant into a high pressure/high temperature gas and "discharges it to the condenser. A.K.A. the "high side". As the high pressure/high temperature gas passes through the condenser, about half way into the condenser the gas is cooled and condenses into a high pressure liquid. That line that exits the condenser carrying the liquid goes up to the orifice/screen and as the liquid exits through the orifice is now a low pressure/low temperature liquid. A.k.A. the "low side". The low temperature/low pressure liquid then enters the evaporator where about half to 3/4 of the way into the evaporator it is "boiled off" from picking up the heat from the inside cabin air blowing across it back into a vapor again and back to the compressor where it starts all over again. Compressors can only compress vapor and NEVER liquid. I find it difficult to believe that the screen/orifice got past the pinched part of the tube. Step 1: Install the screen/orifice. Step 2: pressurize the system with either refrigerant or nitrogen. ABSOLUTELY NOT OXYGEN!!! Just put in enough gas until you have 40-60 psi on the gauges. Step 3: Go crazy with a spray bottle of half liquid soap (I use Dawn) and half water and spray every line connection, nut, around the condenser and compressor connections, the whole system and start looking for bubbles! Bingo! That's obviously your leak! Pay special attention to inspect the condenser to make sure it didn't get punctured from any road debris. Repair the leak, evacuate the system and it is a must that you weigh in the published refrigerant charge. Guessing the charge just won't give you any idea of a further diagnosis as to weather the compressor is operating properly or not. It is quite possible that running the system without the orifice, the compressor could have possibly sucked in liquid and trashed it. You won't know until you do what I said as far as repairs and recharge.
My "03" E-350 has all of the original a/c components with 212k miles. I started to loose performance, put the gauges on it (this was a few years back btw) and had a very high pressure on the high side. Tell tale sign of a restriction. That's when I discovered the screen/orifice was plugged. I cleaned it with brake cleaner, dried it off, reinstalled it, recharged it and it works beautifully. The orifice is the actual "metering device". The size of the orifice dictates how much liquid is supposed to enter the evaporator. It is not a mechanism used to "build" the pressure in the system. BTW... you MUST use a a vacuum pump to evacuate the system into a negative pressure! 29in/hg vacuum. Air is a non-condensable. You can compress it, but it won't condense in the condenser and will do serious damage. Don't go wasting your money by changing parts you really don't need and with a little luck, you'll have a few bucks into the screen/orifice and hopefully the compressor will be ok. Let me know how it works out and if you need anymore assistance, don't hesitate to reach out to me again! Happy to help!

 

thanks again! My concern is the cost of charging the system twice (once to find the leak and a second time after the leak is addressed). I think it will run me $200-300 each time. That being the case, I would almost rather spend the extra couple hundred on new components (currently in RockAuto shopping cart for $600) and just one charge. Is that bad logic? Is there a cheap way of charging these things?