Does anyone know much about this product?
It claims to be 30% colder than R-12, 60% colder than HF-134A, 50% lower head pressure than 134-A. It's cheaper than the 134-A. ($1.99/12 oz.) So what gives? Should I consider switching over to this at my shop, or just stick to 134-A? http://maxifrig.com
Thanks for any advise!
Sarge

I looked at the site, and it does not give me enough information, BUT.............

All R12 subtitutes that I know of are based on propane and butane. These are cheap, and work very well. They are everything and do everything they claim.
RUN AWAY

These are Explosive. In a collision they can be rapidly released and ignited. BOOM goes your car!
Picture 250 PSI of propane in a restricted area suddenly ignited.
One of the news TV magazines did a test and placed 3 oz of one of these subs in a 10 psi cannister, placed it in a Camaro, and set it off. It incinerated the interior of the car almost instantly. The average car hold 2.5 to 3.5 lbs. Some older ones hold over 4 lbs.
Think it's worth the chance?

Many states, including Ohio, have outlawed these. Too dangerous in an accident.

I would NEVER recommend anyone use them. If the company can confirm they are non-explosive it could be different. So far all I have checked into are explosive. If this one is not, I would like to know. And then I would like the specs. But I doubt it.

I have to agree with Ken on this one. Many of the R-12 replacements are based on pentane, butane, propane, etc. They will work, and the odds of a fire or explosion are quite remote, You need a source of ignition, and a mix reasonably close to 1 part propane, 10 parts of air. I don't believe any of the replacements other then 134A are DOT approved. I personally like the real R-12 over the 134A because of lower head pressures with relatively high underhood temperatures in the C-3's. Different body style cars are a different situation.

Found this on the Federal Register.....

II. Request for Information on Refrigerants for Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioners
EPA requests information on the refrigerants Enviro-Safe, Red Tek, Maxi-Frig, ES-12A, and Auto Cool. EPA has received numerous inquiries regarding the SNAP acceptability of the above refrigerants for use in motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs). Materials disseminated through mailings and the internet (Air Docket A-91-42, item IX-B-60) have made consumers question whether the products listed above are acceptable substitutes under the SNAP program for CFC-12 (R12 or freon) and other ozone-depleting CFC-12 substitutes. Under Section 612(e) of the CAA, any person who produces a substitute for a CFC is required to submit information to EPA at least 90 days before the substitute is introduced into interstate commerce.
The refrigerants listed above have not been submitted to EPA for review under the SNAP program. Therefore, the Agency believes that they cannot be sold as replacements for CFC-12 or other ozone-depleting CFC substitutes in MVACs.
Additionally, based on advertising materials, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and independent laboratory testing (Air Docket A-91-42, item IX-B-60), EPA believes the refrigerants listed above may be flammable hydrocarbon-based blends. In June 1995, flammable refrigerants were listed as unacceptable as substitutes for CFC- 12 in MVACs because a comprehensive risk assessment on the use of flammable refrigerants had not
been submitted to EPA (60 FR 31092). EPA welcomes the submission of such a risk assessment.
However, until EPA receives sufficient information on the potential risks of flammable refrigerants in MVACs, all flammable refrigerants are unacceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 and ozone-depleting freon substitutes in MVACs, unless specifically listed as acceptable.
Consumers should also be aware that the following 19 states ban the use of flammable refrigerants in MVACs:
Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, and the District of Columbia. For further information about flammable refrigerants, see EPA's web site
(http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/snap/hc12alng.html).


Since ES12a is not listed on the EPA approved site I would assume that it has not been submitted for testing, thus making it illegal to use as an R12 replacement

Thanks for the info fella's!
I think that I'll steer clear of that stuff. I don't need a lawsuit right now..or ever.
Sarge