AC compressor removal

[Seadragon]

Hi everyone, I have a 2003 IC 3000 DT466E. I am in the process of removing the AC system and tracing hoses back up to the AC compressors. I believe I have (2) of them. I wanted to double check if it's necessary to remove the compressors or can I just cut it from the hoses? Or is better to remove them? If removal is required will it mess anything up with my current setup (belts, pulleys, engine function) It looks separate- but I wanted to get some advice before proceeding.

Attaching pictures. Thanks!

 

[Cheezewhiz]

So it looks like your AC compressor is driven by your serpentine belt.

Which, I'm honestly a fan of serpentines, usually really easy to swap-as long as you know your routing as they can get complex. But they generally rub against the pulleys in a grooved-ungrooved-grooved-ungrooved pattern. Since grooved side is inside, sometimes you get a few grooved pulleys in a row.

So if you're striking your AC system, the easy answer is to just pull the hoses and leave the compressor for now.

Eventually, the pulley will probably fail, and you'll need to strike the compressor. Maybe it's situated so you can just use a shorter serpentine, or maybe you'll need to stick a different pulley in its place.

If my rig is any indication, you'll have ten thousand other failures occour before then, and have completely forgotten about the whole situation by the time it goes.

Also, it's worth leaving it alone if it works. Doesn't add drag when it's off. Weight isn't much. We kept our factory system and currently pretty stoked about the choice.
Climate change is making the weather conditions shittier faster, so having solid heating and cooling options and backups for them is wise.

If it don't work, I ain't an AC tech, screw it

 

[ewo1]

Hi everyone, I have a 2003 IC 3000 DT466E. I am in the process of removing the AC system and tracing hoses back up to the AC compressors. I believe I have (2) of them. I wanted to double check if it's necessary to remove the compressors or can I just cut it from the hoses? Or is better to remove them? If removal is required will it mess anything up with my current setup (belts, pulleys, engine function) It looks separate- but I wanted to get some advice before proceeding.

Attaching pictures. Thanks!

Why are you even considering removing them?
Mini splits will not keep up while driving and I can tell you, on my 2005 Amtran RE is gets nice and chilly while driving on a hot 100 degree day !

If you are in TX I would be happy to remove it for you, I need one for my '99 RE 300!

 

[Seadragon]

So it looks like your AC compressor is driven by your serpentine belt.

Which, I'm honestly a fan of serpentines, usually really easy to swap-as long as you know your routing as they can get complex. But they generally rub against the pulleys in a grooved-ungrooved-grooved-ungrooved pattern. Since grooved side is inside, sometimes you get a few grooved pulleys in a row.

So if you're striking your AC system, the easy answer is to just pull the hoses and leave the compressor for now.

Eventually, the pulley will probably fail, and you'll need to strike the compressor. Maybe it's situated so you can just use a shorter serpentine, or maybe you'll need to stick a different pulley in its place.

If my rig is any indication, you'll have ten thousand other failures occour before then, and have completely forgotten about the whole situation by the time it goes.

Also, it's worth leaving it alone if it works. Doesn't add drag when it's off. Weight isn't much. We kept our factory system and currently pretty stoked about the choice.
Climate change is making the weather conditions shittier faster, so having solid heating and cooling options and backups for them is wise.

If it don't work, I ain't an AC tech, screw it

Thanks Cheezewhiz, all your insight is very helpful!

 

[Mr P]

So it looks like your AC compressor is driven by your serpentine belt.


Climate change is making the weather conditions shittier faster, so having solid heating and cooling options and backups for them is wise.

I'm in favor of keeping any functioning AC unit. Climate change...dinosaurs used to live in Canada, and Illinois was one covered in glaciers. Which one is considered "normal" (before this "change" you speak of)?

 

[Cheezewhiz]

Earth Temperature Timeline

xkcd.com

 

[Mr P]

Interesting link Cheezewhiz. At first glance, the link shows a mile of ice on Boston, yet claims the average temp is only 4 degrees C lower than the "average" (which is arbitrarily appointed as the temp during the years 1961-1990).

Why start the timeline there, during an ice age? Why not before, when it was tropical? If we start at ice, we have become warmer. Start at tropical, we have become cooler. Why is the temp during 1961-1990 considered the "goal" temp (or like "grade" during construction)?

 

[AlphaHare]

It wouldn't matter. It would show warm, to cold, to warming again. That's the whole point, when the world was as warm as it's going to get, there was no ice at the poles, and the water was 100 feet ish higher than today.

The only scientific debate is how fast it will change.

 

[Mr P]

Your reply addressed none of my three questions, all of which are foundational to the chart.

 

[nikitis]

It's all political. Ice shelfs melt but then new ones form and freeze under then and float up. I've personally watched satellite glacier maps of them shrinking and then next winter, in those areas, they reform. They break off, float towards the middle of the earth cooling the oceans properly. The earth is a self regulating refrigerator.

Man is not even close to being able to truly effect the earth in any significant way. The only thing man made objects that could do this currently with todays tech is if we launched nukes across the whole of the earth at the same time.

If the earth's axis were to change that can cause issues, but it would be a shift, Some hot areas would become the new antarctica, and colder areas would become the new sunny beaches. Some of us would have to move, but that's be the worst of it. Earth isn't going to change it's axis overnight even if that were to occur so no worries there.

Some areas like Utah salt lake area can trap smog and there's no trees cause it's desert like to absorb smog with mountains on both sides to trap it, it can be problem some, but today you don't even see the smog there like you used to in the 90's because cars have become so clean. Anything we do today short of nuking the whole world will self correct. I already know people will call me out on this and say bullshit, but this is the believe of many people on the earth. Smog is never a thing here in the South East because we have trees and forests that eat up the emissions. Trees like CO2. I would agree to a little regulation if I lived in an area like a desert with mountains, but I will use my freedom of speech and do my own science. I refuse to spend tax dollars on climate agendas and I hope the current administration abolishes diesel emissions regulations.

 

[PorchDog]

Down here in hot and humid Alabama, I would choose a bus with factory AC that worked and would not move over a bus that would move with no AC.... but I'm old and fat.... ;-)

 

[AlphaHare]

Yup. Nikitis, I respectfully call BS. It's not personal and I'm sure we have way more in common than we would disagree on. I find that to true of most people.

Science can be politicized, no doubt, but the facts stubbornly remain. Phillip Morris funded a lot of pro-smoking research, DuPont funded refrigerant research, Exxon Mobile funded a lot of climate research. In the end, they have all admitted to skewing the science to support their businesses.

Atlanta is one of the smoggiest cities in the south east. Smog isn't CO2, it's usually ground level ozone created from vehicle emissions and sunlight, and often particulate pollution as well.

We created ozone holes over both the arctic and antarctic from chlorinated fluorocarbons - I think that counts as changing the planet.

We've put a layer of microplastics all over the globe, and likely in most living organisms. Interestingly, I believe mostly the dust from tires - I think that counts as changing the planet.

We poisoned a generation or two of children with lead from gasoline, impacting IQs and correlated to violent crime. Many cities soils are toxic to this day - I think that counts as changing the planet.

Global warming is real and will impact us in our lifetime. I am genuinely scared for my kids. When we start having major crop failures there is going to be a global reckoning.

We landed on the moon, several times, and the pictures and video is real.

The earth is not flat.

And now back to air conditioning! I had a Ford dealer return my E350 to factory AC. But I'll probably end up with a Pioneer or something eventually for the back of the bus.

 

[nikitis]

None taken. You have your beliefs I have mine. You know Ozone is basically O3 Oxygen with 3 molecules.
From ChatGPT:
Ozone (O₃) is not directly emitted from cars but is formed in the atmosphere through a complex set of chemical reactions involving hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and sunlight. So the NOX and VOCs created from our cars do create a ground OZONE.

Ground Ozone is in fact not Ozone, but Nox and VOC's. The Nox and VOC's turn into OZONE in the upper atmosphere.

O3 can break down into O2 when ultraviolet rays hit it which then becomes breathable atmosphere. So by driving cars we can actually create O2.

Now the NOX and VOC's are harmful in concentration, and are often misconstrued with OZONE, but it's not OZONE until it reaches the top of the earths sky. The Sun turns the NOX and VOC's into O3, and then it breaks down into O2. And it certainly doesn't hurt the earth.

Trees and other plant life like CO2 Carbon Dioxide but they also like CO, Carbon Monoxide which is the VOC emitted by our cars.

Here's what ChatGPT says about Carbon Monoxide and how it affects plant life:
"Recent research indicates that carbon monoxide can act as a signaling molecule in plants, influencing various physiological processes including growth, development, and stress responses.5 For example, CO can alleviate salt-induced oxidative damage in wheat seedlings and can mimic some of the effects of nitric oxide (NO) in inducing stomatal closure.5

Therefore, while trees do not "like" or utilize carbon monoxide in the same manner as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide can still play a role in plant biology through its signaling functions."

Now that was stated:
Regarding soil poisoning. Aluminium and Barium are dropped from geoengineering by our Military daily, and is getting into the soil. This is man made, and is killing plant life. Barium is slightly radioactive, and Aluminium doesn't occur naturally in nature but today you can take a soil sample nearly anywhere and find aluminium in it, but that's not you and I causing harm to the earth, thats our governments running amok and that needs to stop. The people don't want it.

As far as particles released into the earth. If you took all the cars buses trucks ever made you wouldn't even come close to the amount of pure clean oxygen in the earth. It does fall to the ground eventually and plants absorb it. It's pretty ignorant to think we can even produce enough smog to permanently pollute the earth.

Using terms like "Volitile Organic Compounds", (VOCs) the word volitile is obvious propaganda to begin programming the population into being scared about how we affect the world. It's simply carbon, and one oxygen molecule together, Same for Nox. Nitrogen and Oxygen. Humans breath 78% nitrogen, and 21% Oxygen btw.

Don't fall for the propeganda. And I've lived in Atlanta, and it's not that bad imo. While there is a smog presence there due to high and tall buildings. Same effects as Mountains, entrapping it, there are plenty of Greenery in Atlanta which does absorb most of it. As i stated before any crowded area I'd be fine with some regulation, but people who live out in the country will never produce enough smog to even be noticed.

 

[Mr P]

I'm told by the same science book that the earth is 4.X billion years old, that dinosaurs lived in a warm, tropical environment, and glaciers once covered land not far from where I live...which is south of the dinosaurs. In other words, where the "timeline" is started dictates whether current temps are warmer or colder than the beginning of that timeline. My three questions remain unanswered.

And Caddilackid isn't around as of late, but I recall him being a big supporter of keeping bus AC systems intact and operational.

 

[nikitis]

Yes we're all supporters of keeping your existing AC. It's far cheaper to fix a broken AC in most cases than it is to try to retrofit one. Retrofitted ones work okay but not as good as the factory ones.

 

[ewo1]

Everybody seems to seek more power...Bus a/c units will pump out upto 80-90k BTU.
A one ton mini split will push approx 12k BTU.

there is no comparison!

why remove the factory a/c ? Looks ugly ???

 

[Busjamin]

Science can be politicized, no doubt, but the facts stubbornly remain.

Some concepts are too complex to reasonably expect the general public to learn and understand...seems obvious but somehow it's become a controversial thing. I think entirely too many people out there never learned to say "I don't know."

For example, it would be silly to suggest an untrained person could manage triage in an Hospital ER, but I'd bet 1-in-10 random people would say they could probably do it.

I myself haven't studied the many contributing factors to climate change in enough depth to assert my thoughts above those of an expert (and I majored in environmental science in undergrad.........). But alas, there seem to be way more than 1-in-10 people who think they are expert chemists, biologists, climatologists, epidemiologists, etc. Way less than 1-in-10 people actually are experts. If the vast majority of experts agree globally you can be reasonably safe believing their conclusions. In many cases, mistrusting them is unsafe. But people have always loved a witch-hunt.

Experts agree on a great deal about climate change, and have for decades now. I think making scientific facts "political" has been an avenue to make room for non-experts to exert an opinion, usually to serve some personal agenda. That agenda could be as simple as avoiding embarrassment for being wrong, or as diabolical as total corruption. It's not to say humanity can't make mistakes, but these days we're pushing the boundaries of physics itself in insane ways. We have moved well past any real scientific debate about the fundamental truths of climate change.

We really only politically debate climate science because some politicians make a LOT of money, like A LOT A LOT of money by looking the other way. We let them do it to us with the Citizens United ruling. Now Exxon has more money than god and can fund a bunch of bad-faith "research", spend even more on political lobbying and wide-scale SEO, put these "studies" all over facebook and Voila! The public believes climate change is an individual responsibility, turning a blind eye to the real problem: corporate greed. We bicker amongst ourselves about Diesel regulations and EVs, meanwhile Exxon still has more money than god and we keep filling our gas tanks at Exxon stations like good little economic consumers.

The real conspiracy is plain to see. Some don't want to believe it because it's inconvenient truth... I dream of a world where conspiracists put as much time and energy into TAXING. THE. RICH. so we can actually solve the problem ffs.

EDIT: Changed "of another expert" to "of an expert"

 

[Cheezewhiz]

Interesting link Cheezewhiz. At first glance, the link shows a mile of ice on Boston, yet claims the average temp is only 4 degrees C lower than the "average" (which is arbitrarily appointed as the temp during the years 1961-1990).

Why start the timeline there, during an ice age? Why not before, when it was tropical? If we start at ice, we have become warmer. Start at tropical, we have become cooler. Why is the temp during 1961-1990 considered the "goal" temp (or like "grade" during construction)?

So I didn't make the comic. I can't say why the author chose that particular mark.

But if I had to hazard two guesses, one, being the point of the comic:

Earth's average temp doesn't change that fast. Or very fast at all. Pick a global average temp, it'll be within a few decimal points of that for Centuries.

The Year Without a Summer, was largely that, a year, and then temps and precipitation were back to normal shortly after. Balance!
Even with throwing enough ash in the air to absolutely count as a massive thermonuclear exchange.

My second guess as to why the author chose that temp for average is twofold:

One, maybe they did a deep, deep dive and that's the actual average across the entire time we have data for across the entire time the world's been habitable, and
Two, maybe that's the happy medium between industrialization and a farmable biosphere.

Because I'm sure you've heard of the syrian refugee crisis, yes? Caused by their civil war, yes?
Their entire agricultural industry completely failed. Famine. For years. Because of the weather. Not bad farming practices, not a cultural revolution, just the ****ing weather stopped doing what it's done for hundreds of years and now everyone is starving.


We visited a winery some years ago. A local came by and brought up the 'unseasonably warm weather' they were having, and they hoped the grapes were okay.

The lady running the counter explained this was the fifth year running with these 'heat waves' and they were projected to get worse. Therefore, they'd been planting new strains of grapes, more resilient to temperature swings, and they were doing fiiiiiine.

I asked what their actual plans were about the elephant in the room, and she explained that since the grapes that made the wine the owners liked best were no longer thriving at this location, they were looking at buying more properties further north.

And I mean, Mister P, you straight up come across like you're trying to argue about ****, for the sake of arguing. You want my number baby? I'll argue with you till your inevitable heart failure.

Hopefully I can squeeze some mechanical knowledge of you first, cuz you sound like a decent mechanic

 

[Cheezewhiz]

Some concepts are too complex to reasonably expect the general public to learn and understand...seems obvious but somehow it's become a controversial thing. I think entirely too many people out there never learned to say "I don't know."

For example, it would be silly to suggest an untrained person could manage triage in an Hospital ER, but I'd bet 1-in-10 random people would say they could probably do it.

I myself haven't studied the many contributing factors to climate change in enough depth to assert my thoughts above those of another expert (and I majored in environmental science in undergrad.........). But alas, there seem to be way more than 1-in-10 people who think they are expert chemists, biologists, climatologists, epidemiologists, etc. Way less than 1-in-10 people actually are experts. If the vast majority of experts agree globally you can be reasonably safe believing their conclusions. In many cases, mistrusting them is unsafe. But people have always loved a witch-hunt.

Experts agree on a great deal about climate change, and have for decades now. I think making scientific facts "political" has been an avenue to make room for non-experts to exert an opinion, usually to serve some personal agenda. That agenda could be as simple as avoiding embarrassment for being wrong, or as diabolical as total corruption. It's not to say humanity can't make mistakes, but these days we're pushing the boundaries of physics itself in insane ways. We have moved well past any real scientific debate about the fundamental truths of climate change.

We really only politically debate climate science because some politicians make a LOT of money, like A LOT A LOT of money by looking the other way. We let them do it to us with the Citizens United ruling. Now Exxon has more money than god and can fund a bunch of bad-faith "research", spend even more on political lobbying and wide-scale SEO, put these "studies" all over facebook and Voila! The public believes climate change is an individual responsibility, turning a blind eye to the real problem: corporate greed. We bicker amongst ourselves about Diesel regulations and EVs, meanwhile Exxon still has more money than god and we keep filling our gas tanks at Exxon stations like good little economic consumers.

The real conspiracy is plain to see. Some don't want to believe it because it's inconvenient truth... I dream of a world where conspiracists put as much time and energy into TAXING. THE. RICH. so we can actually solve the problem ffs.

GODDAMN RIGHT

 

[Busjamin]

AS FOR AC I think OP had their question answered decently lol

That said, I'm just diving deep into this part of my build so I'm cruising for info. Everyone here and elsewhere says leave the factory OTR AC if it is serviceable. Mine works well but the huge return ducting is a bummer so I was hoping there was a good alternative. "The juice is not worth the squeeze" as Chuck Cassady might say.

I'm interested in knowing more about why the mini-split is problematic while underway. I can't seem to find a full answer. Sure they are less powerful, but is it really that difficult to mitigate the issues? Mounting dampers for vibration? Shrouding engineered to allow air but not turbulence?