Refirgerant - Page 2 - JeepForum.com

 1Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #16 of 22 Old 06-18-2017, 05:20 PM
jrallen
Registered User
2000 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Prattville
Posts: 1,136
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecumsa
Ah, but the cost of the refrigerant isn't more per unit: $850 for a 10lb tank, bring that down to 1lb and ~ $8.50.
You know $850 divided by 10 is $85, right? Can you seriously not divide by 10?

jrallen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 22 Old 06-18-2017, 05:22 PM
ronjenx
Web Wheeler
 
ronjenx's Avatar
2008 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecumsa View Post
Ah, but the cost of the refrigerant isn't more per unit: $850 for a 10lb tank, bring that down to 1lb and ~ $8.50, that's less than the R134 ($12.99/20oz, or $10.39/1lb).
Huh?

2008 JKU Rubicon
42RLE Auto
ronjenx is online now  
post #18 of 22 Old 06-18-2017, 05:33 PM Thread Starter
tecumsa
Senior Member
 
tecumsa's Avatar
2016 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Plum, Pa. 15239
Posts: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrallen View Post
You know $850 divided by 10 is $85, right? Can you seriously not divide by 10?
AUGH!!!!!!
tecumsa is offline  
 
post #19 of 22 Old 06-18-2017, 05:51 PM
jwmbishop
Accidental Obfuscator
 
jwmbishop's Avatar
2011 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Corsicana, TX
Posts: 7,413
Garage
Nope... Smaller system is because 1234 is flammable. Smaller load reduces risk. READ THE DAMN SAE and stop making opinions based on conjecture and conspiracy theories.
jwmbishop is offline  
post #20 of 22 Old 06-18-2017, 06:07 PM Thread Starter
tecumsa
Senior Member
 
tecumsa's Avatar
2016 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Plum, Pa. 15239
Posts: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwmbishop View Post
Nope... Smaller system is because 1234 is flammable. Smaller load reduces risk. READ THE DAMN SAE and stop making opinions based on conjecture and conspiracy theories.
I read it. The sole purpose of switching is because of the enviro's wanting a "friendlier" coolant that R134a. Period. So, as I said, the rest of us have to suffer their demands, paying more for less. Tell me, have they done the same due-dilligence that they did on CFC bulbs? Or, is it because they're heavily invested in the "green products" market, and stand to loose heavily if their products don't force the competition out of the market?

Sorry, but whenever the govt. tells us that it is doing something for our benefits I immediately look at the money stream. It usually turns out that the people pushing the change are invested in the new product, and the public isn't accepting it so it has to be forced on them via regulations. ex: Clintons, Gores, Obama's.
tecumsa is offline  
post #21 of 22 Old 06-18-2017, 07:52 PM
jwmbishop
Accidental Obfuscator
 
jwmbishop's Avatar
2011 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Corsicana, TX
Posts: 7,413
Garage
I do kinda agree with that. But probably not from the same conspiratorial viewpoint.

More from the golden rule perspective - he with the gold makes the rules.

Expecting the holder of the cash to spend it investing with no say, is very close to socialism or communism. No corporation, or other entity exists for any reason other than profit. WalMart does not exist so that people have jobs, their jobs exist so WalMart makes profit.

I apologize (other than the humor value) for being sharp and barbed, if we were around a campfire you would have seen the lighthearted animation in body language. if you had of read AND RETAINED you would have caught your own math error when your yield was lower cost rather than higher as that was one of the clear issues outlined. Glad we can express without hard feelings!
jwmbishop is offline  
post #22 of 22 Old 06-19-2017, 03:15 AM Thread Starter
tecumsa
Senior Member
 
tecumsa's Avatar
2016 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Plum, Pa. 15239
Posts: 856
I agree, I thing we would have had fun with the debate, adding body language, emails just aren't the same.

I do see things differently, you talk of corporations, but corporations don't make decisions, the people in charge do. Same with government, governments don't make decisions, the people in them do, and they don't do so blindly. Asking presidents to put their money into a blind trust is dumb, from that point I agree with Trump thumbing his nose at that law. Those who were in charge of the Obama trust just had to watch his decisions and speeches to know where to invest his money.

Enjoy life, it's too short to take things seriously.
tecumsa is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome