Is air conditioning not a standard feature in cars? Should it be?

JoeA3

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Whilst we all realise the differences between having a/c and not having it there's still confusion between what exactly manual a/c and cc systems do.

My point is they do exactly the same thing i.e. they use a compressor and a condensor and associated gubbins to dehumidify the air going into the cabin. They both make it comfortable inside, and they can warm passengers on a cold day and keep them cool when it's warm.

Their function and the mechanicals they use are therefore identical.

The user interface is the only difference. With manual a/c you adjust the temperature with a rotary knob. With CC you set the temperature. Crucially if you are too hot or too cold with either system you simply adjust it.

Haven't you missed the main point then? I never need to adjust it, whether its the temperature, the fan speed, the air direction. Nothing. Ever. On a hot day the car auto cools. The fan speed and air direction also sets itself automatically. On a cold day the car does the opposite. Until it reaches the approx set temp. I would have thought this is simple to understand but maybe I'm not explaining it very well.

Manual aircon does not give you this functionality, no matter how you try to spin it as being "the same thing". If you're OK with having to frequently adjust all those settings, then more power to you. But to dismiss the more sophisticated system as "essentially the same thing" is quite plainly wrong.

JoeA3

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

It does, I have tried them. After 3 months or so they get full but all you have to do to regenerate them is to put them on the radiator overnight and away you go again.

You seem to think that they don't work, have you experience of them?

Fortunately no, I haven't... but I'll bookmark the link in the highly unlikely event I should need to buy one lol.

pajo1981

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The user interface is the only difference. With manual a/c you adjust the temperature with a rotary knob. With CC you set the temperature. Crucially if you are too hot or too cold with either system you simply adjust it.

One is thermostatic and the other is not. You dont seem to get that.

Henry Ford III

JoeA3 wrote: »

Haven't you missed the main point then? I never need to adjust it, whether its the temperature, the fan speed, the air direction. Nothing. Ever. On a hot day the car auto cools. The fan speed and air direction also sets itself automatically. On a cold day the car does the opposite. Until it reaches the approx set temp. I would have thought this is simple to understand but maybe I'm not explaining it very well.

Manual aircon does not give you this functionality, no matter how you try to spin it as being "the same thing". If you're OK with having to frequently adjust all those settings, then more power to you. But to dismiss the more sophisticated system as "essentially the same thing" is quite plainly wrong.

I understand the point you are trying to make.

What differences (aside from the interface as I've already mentioned) are there between the 2 systems?

p.s. What happens if you are either too warm too too cold on a particular day? Do you smile and say to yourself "it's 22 degrees in here so I don't need to change a thing"?

JoeA3

pajo1981 wrote: »

One is thermostatic and the other is not. You dont seem to get that.

Yeah, exactly that. I think you've explained it better than me lol...

It's akin to modern central heating systems in your home. I've thermostats in several locations in the house which help to auto-regulate the temp / rads all over the house. Works pretty well, saves on oil too. Doesn't work as well as a car's climate system mind you, but regulating the temp in a house is a slightly bigger challenge!

pajo1981

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I understand the point you are trying to make.

What differences (aside from the interface as I've already mentioned) are there between the 2 systems?

p.s. What happens if you are either too warm too too cold on a particular day? Do you smile and say to yourself "it's 22 degrees in here so I don't need to change a thing"?

22 degrees will feel the same no matter what day it is. Unless you are sick or something you wont need to change it. The big difference is getting the car to that 22 degrees quickly. With manual controls that involves a lot of fuss, with CC you dont even think about it, you just drive.

Alun

Henry Ford III wrote: »

p.s. What happens if you are either too warm too too cold on a particular day? Do you smile and say to yourself "it's 22 degrees in here so I don't need to change a thing"?

I agree. On a miserable, cold, drizzly Irish winter's day, I often feel the need to crank up the temperature a bit to 25 or so, for a bit at least, conversely if the sun is splitting stones outside I'll wind it down to 16 or so, again for a short while. There's a psychological aspect to feeling comfortable temperature wise, in addition to the mere physical one.

pajo1981

Alun wrote: »

I agree. On a miserable, cold, drizzly Irish winter's day, I often feel the need to crank up the temperature a bit to 25 or so, for a bit at least, conversely if the sun is splitting stones outside I'll wind it down to 16 or so, again for a short while. There's a psychological aspect to feeling comfortable temperature wise, in addition to the mere physical one.

Its all in your head. I leave my 750i at 21.5 all year round.

Like a ****in boss.

JoeA3

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I understand the point you are trying to make.

What differences (aside from the interface as I've already mentioned) are there between the 2 systems?

p.s. What happens if you are either too warm too too cold on a particular day? Do you smile and say to yourself "it's 22 degrees in here so I don't need to change a thing"?

That has never happened. 21-22 degrees all year round seems to keep the car at a fairly optimal comfortable setting regardless of outdoor conditions. That's the whole point of the system. On a roasting day, it'll pump out cold air for the first minute or two of the drive and then auto regulate back. The opposite on a cold day...

frozenfrozen

the humidity will stay around the same in there with A/c on whether it's a cold day or a hot day so if you like 22 degrees in there while it's 0 outside you'll like it when it's 25 outside

Voodoomelon

I have to say, i've had automatic climate control for 9 years and never set it to Auto until 6 months ago. I always hated the high speed that the fans run at to get the car up to temperature. But after using it for a while, I see it's quite intelligent and doesn't blast you with cool air to start with, it waits until the heater core has a reasonable temperature before upping the fan speeds. Now I have it set to 21.0C year round, after years of twiddling. Or just hit Off if the windows are down.

Henry Ford III

pajo1981 wrote: »

One is thermostatic and the other is not. You dont seem to get that.

I did mention the interface more than once.

JohnBoy26

JoeA3 wrote: »

Fortunately no, I haven't... but I'll bookmark the link in the highly unlikely event I should need to buy one lol.

Well that was the whole argument that A/C is vital in this country because it de-mists the windows quickly and is essential for this purpose.

Not that I think a/c is vital in any event but these dehumidifiers show that the whole argument that a/c is a must have for de-misting windows as just not being true.

You seem to be looking down on my posts about these dehumidifiers which is a bit rich when you haven't even tried them. I have used them for a variety of purposes and they do a good job at keeping moisture at bay.

Alun

pajo1981 wrote: »

Its all in your head.

Exactly, that was kind of my point ... feeling comfortable isn't all about just temperature, it has a psychological aspect too.

pajo1981

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I did mention the interface more than once.

They're not the same thing.

I can't read your nut ball mind.

JoeA3

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Well that was the whole argument that A/C is vital in this country because it de-mists the windows quickly and is essential for this purpose.

Not that I think a/c is vital in any event but these dehumidifiers show that the whole argument that a/c is a must have for de-misting windows as just not being true.

You seem to be looking down on my posts about these dehumidifiers which is a bit rich when you haven't even tried them. I have used them for a variety of purposes and they do a good job at keeping moisture at bay.

No seem about it. I am. Because I think they are trolling nonsense.

JoeA3

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I did mention the interface more than once.

Maybe it's my software background but to me, "Interface" and the fact that the system is thermostatically computer controlled (without any user interaction) are fundamentally 2 different things.

Henry Ford III

JoeA3 wrote: »

Maybe it's my software background but to me, "Interface" and the fact that the system is thermostatically computer controlled (without any user interaction) are fundamentally 2 different things.

A thermostat and a chip - big deal. If 3/4 to hot makes me comfortable and I leave it that way what's the difference? Ok I don't know the exact temperature but why is that important?

p.s. I note that you didn't answer my question on the hardware side of things

frozenfrozen

3/4 to hot is different on a cold day compared to 3/4 to hot on a hot day

what's the point being obtuse about the benefits of there being a thermostat that lets you keep it at a given temperature

Henry Ford III

pajo1981 wrote: »

They're not the same thing.....

What differences (other than the ability to select a temperature) are there?

How do the systems differ mechanically?

JoeA3

Henry Ford III wrote: »

A thermostat and a chip - big deal. If 3/4 to hot makes me comfortable and I leave it that way what's the difference? Ok I don't know the exact temperature but why is that important?

p.s. I note that you didn't answer my question on the hardware side of things

Ok, deep breath...

You are not wrong (afaik) in terms of the similarities in how the 2 systems are plumbed and all that stuff.

But one system is largely completely manual, requiring manual user input and the other is computer controlled, extra temp sensors, thermostats, resistors, etc.

In VAG cars, which I'm more familiar with... the climate system has a completely different heater box than manual a/c, with 2 separate temp zones where manual climatic has just one zone. A big wiring difference is how the motor is controlled and powered. On manual system an ignition switched feed goes through the heater controls. This then switches it to different on the blower motor resistor which controls speed.

Climate control fans get a permanent live feed. It just gets a signal wire from the heater controls. The fan regulates the speed itself. This is why there are way more speed options on the climate system.

I know of guys who have retro fitted climate control systems to their cars / vans and its an enormous job! The extra gear and gubbins required to get it to work is incredible.

Is that enough detail for you?

Henry Ford III

Dual zone cc cannot work properly in a small shared cabin. In reality the air mixes in the centre. Surely you can appreciate that?


p.s. I had a Focus Titanium which had it. It's no handier to use. Digital display looks a little more upmarket granted.

Brian Scan

JoeA3 and Henry Ford III, get a room. You know you want to.

JoeA3

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Dual zone cc cannot work properly in a small shared cabin. In reality the air mixes in the centre. Surely you can appreciate that?

In a super mini perhaps? I don't know.

But in my own car, my wife (like many women) is always "cold". So when she's an occasional passenger in my car she bumps up her side to 25-26 degrees. No amount of persuasion on my part will convince her that this won't make the car warm up any faster... but anyway, some arguments, just like the one we're having now will never be won!

But yes, in my car, when she does this, it is very noticeable that the air coming from the furthest vent on her side and in her footwell is much warmer than on my side. Obviously as you say, the difference isn't too apparent down the middle. But it's pretty effective for your feet for sure.

pajo1981

Henry Ford III wrote: »

What differences (other than the ability to select a temperature) are there?

How do the systems differ mechanically?

Ome has to be fidgeted with constantly the other doesnt. Mechanically, who cares?

Henry Ford III

pajo1981 wrote: »

Ome has to be fidgeted with constantly the other doesnt. Mechanically, who cares?

Matter of opinion. Mine requires very little constant adjustment. It's no big deal.

Mechanically, as I've said and JoeA3 eventually acknowledged, the systems are the same. Pity you don't have that ability.

JoeA3

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Matter of opinion. Mine requires very little constant adjustment. It's no big deal.

Mechanically, as I've said and JoeA3 eventually acknowledged, the systems are the same. Pity you don't have that ability.

I didn't :pac:

I said parts of the system are similar but didn't you read the several paragraphs following that bit, no?

I give up...

pajo1981

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Matter of opinion. Mine requires very little constant adjustment. It's no big deal.

Mechanically, as I've said and JoeA3 eventually acknowledged, the systems are the same. Pity you don't have that ability.

Pity your ass is being owned! To get one to perform on par with the requires more than a little adjustment.

Henry Ford III

JoeA3 wrote: »

I didn't :pac:

I said parts of the system are similar but didn't you read the several paragraphs following that bit, no?

I give up...

I did.

I'm also done here. We're going around and around........

Henry Ford III

pajo1981 wrote: »

Pity your ass is being owned! To get one to perform on par with the requires more than a little adjustment.

For you to tell me how I use equipment on my own car is actually a bit odd.

I'll ignore the abusive stuff.

JoeA3

So, to summarise, the 2 systems are identical in the same way as a horse+cart and a car are the same, right. I mean, both systems have wheels. Both systems will get you from A->B. Just one of them requires a bit more manual input and effort.

pajo1981

Henry Ford III wrote: »

For you to tell me how I use equipment on my own car is actually a bit odd.

I didn't.

JohnBoy26

JoeA3 wrote: »

No seem about it. I am. Because I think they are trolling nonsense.

You need to look up the definition of a troll.

Leonard Hofstadter

No comparison between basic air conditioning and climate control.

Anyone who doesn't think climate control is good doesn't know how to use it.

As Joe has so simply put it, climate control means you set one temperature (20 degrees in my case), press the Auto button, and leave it alone. It heats or cools the car as necessary, I don't have to do anything. Only times I ever need to do something about it are alternate between having the a/c on and off (I tend to keep it off because it saves fuel) and pressing the windscreen demister button on a cold morning to get rid of condensation. Rest of the time I leave it alone.

r3nu4l

Henry Ford III wrote: »

What differences (other than the ability to select a temperature) are there?

How do the systems differ mechanically?

That's the same as saying there is no difference between an unmapped engine and a mapped engine because the mechanical parts are the same, despite the change in power outputs. You are either incredibly naive or just being facetious.

Odyssey 2005

acequion wrote: »

I don't know if this is a stupid question or not as I must confess to an almost total ignorance about cars.But like probably most of the adult population,I drive one.

So my question arises because I've just traded in my 2009 air conditioned Nissan Note for an unairconditioned 2014 model. Now I was aware of what I was buying and apart from that one issue, everything else is great and I'm delighted with the newer car.

However I was quite astonished that air conditioning was not a standard feature in a good car like a Nissan Note. I assumed it would be as standard as central locking. Now,I'm well aware that it's mostly unnecessary in our climate,especially where I live in the rainy south west. And anyway I live quite close to where I work so am not often stuck in traffic or making long journeys. Still, the handful of times I used the air con in the last car, I found it really great.And we Irish are using it more and more and enjoying its cool comfort even in our chilly climate.

What do those of you more in the know on such matters think about my question? Is my car in the minority? Is air con a standard of most Irish registered cars nowadays and if not, should it be?

I hope your happy.!!:):):)

TheRiverman

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Can you not just wind down the window and stick the foot down a bit on the 6 or so days a year this will be an issue?

Air conditioning is not only for hot weather.It is extremely useful for clearing fogged up/frosted windows during this crap weather we have at present or at any time windows are fogged up.

JoeA3

TheRiverman wrote: »

Air conditioning is not only for hot weather.It is extremely useful for clearing fogged up/frosted windows during this crap weather we have at present or at any time windows are fogged up.

Pffft... head down to Halfords with a crisp €10. That's all you need to sort that problem.

Jack the Stripper

Had to service a 161 caddy van earlier for a neighbour, manual windows and no remote locking.

TheRiverman

JoeA3 wrote: »

Pffft... head down to Halfords with a crisp €10. That's all you need to sort that problem.

For what? De-Icer.No good for clearing inside of windows.

acequion

bazz26 wrote: »

Reality is cars are fitted with equipment levels based on a price point. The more you pay for a new car the better standard equipment generally is. Some people buy base or entry level models because it suits their pockets and needs. Car manufacturers also strip certain things not seen as essential from certain models to make them cheaper and more affordable to people who don't want or care about those features.

Fitting air conditioning still costs the manufacturer money, fitting it as standard to a model just means that cost is already incorporated into the price. For example if the Note that the OP bought had a/c fitted but the car cost €400 more then the OP most probably would not have given it a second thought. The same way you pay big money for a luxury car and it comes with certain things as standard but you cannot expect those things to be standard on cheaper brands costing a fraction of the price.

But I wouldn't consider the Nissan Note to be a cheap car! I've driven Nissan cars for years and find them excellent. Now you're right I certainly would have been happy to pay more for AC if I'd had that option but the bottom line for me is a well functioning vehicle.

However I agree with the poster who was also amazed that a 2014 car doesn't have AC. It seems that Nissan did have it as standard in the Note up to 2012 but then discontinued it. The mind boggles as to why because this model didn't get cheaper.

Might I ask those of you who say you wouldn't be without it if you always buy new cars? Because if like me,you always trade in, then are your options not limited? Perhaps not so in the bigger cities but in rural parts it can be hard enough and time consuming to find what you want. And when you do there may often be some feature missing. And if this is a non essential in an otherwise good car, then it's foolish to pass it up.

JoeA3

TheRiverman wrote: »

For what? De-Icer.No good for clearing inside of windows.

I was kidding. Read back the previous x pages in this thread....

JoeA3

acequion wrote: »

But I wouldn't consider the Nissan Note to be a cheap car! I've driven Nissan cars for years and find them excellent. Now you're right I certainly would have been happy to pay more for AC if I'd had that option but the bottom line for me is a well functioning vehicle.

However I agree with the poster who was also amazed that a 2014 car doesn't have AC. It seems that Nissan did have it as standard in the Note up to 2012 but then discontinued it. The mind boggles as to why because this model didn't get cheaper.

Might I ask those of you who say you wouldn't be without it if you always buy new cars? Because if like me,you always trade in, then are your options not limited? Perhaps not so in the bigger cities but in rural parts it can be hard enough and time consuming to find what you want. And when you do there may often be some feature missing. And if this is a non essential in an otherwise good car, then it's foolish to pass it up.

Unless you're really at the bottom end of the market (entry level super minis perhaps) or cars 10+ years old, then there can't be many cars that don't have a/c. Full climate a bit rarer but getting much more common, standard now on Highline VW Golf's for the last couple of years. It's been standard on most larger saloons for years now too.

Jack the Stripper

I have climate control on 91 pajero jdm. Air con too.

colm_mcm

Climate control is thermostatically controlled. That's the difference. The end.

JoeA3

Dare I say if the Henry Ford had a similar perspective as his 21st century heir on technology and progression, then our friend Henry Ford III would be just be plain old Henry Ford.

Henry Ford III

r3nu4l wrote: »

That's the same as saying there is no difference between an unmapped engine and a mapped engine because the mechanical parts are the same, despite the change in power outputs. You are either incredibly naive or just being facetious.

It's not.

There's potentially a big difference in engine outputs in your example whereas in the a/c vs c/c debate the treated air is exactly the same in quality temperature and humidity. The only difference is how the controls work. One is manual and the other is electronic.

bazz26

acequion wrote: »

But I wouldn't consider the Nissan Note to be a cheap car! I've driven Nissan cars for years and find them excellent. Now you're right I certainly would have been happy to pay more for AC if I'd had that option but the bottom line for me is a well functioning vehicle.

The point I'm making is that the Note model you bought was priced by Nissan as an entry level model so they took stuff like a/c out to keep the price down. Things like a/c are not fitted for free and they also attract VRT.

Looking at the Nissan Note configurator site, a/c is an optional extra on the Note XE trim which I assume you bought. It is standard along with a few other extras on the next up Note SV trim which costs €800 more. Some people would rather save that €800, be happy with the XE trim and no a/c. Those that want a/c and the other extras have to pay €800 more for the SV model. Just because other car makers might fit a/c as standard doesn't mean the customer isn't paying for it. It's just included in the base price of the car rather than an extra.

CalamariFritti

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Bluetooth should be standard equipment before aircon imo .

But you can only lead the horse to water...

The other day I saw a guy driving a new 3 series and he still had the phone pressed to the ear in that right hand to the left ear around the head wrestling move. As far as I know you cant get a 3 series without bluetooth. Should be double points for him.

Irish Steve

Talk about a trolling thread, the number of people who have swallowed the sales bullcr*p about Air Conditioning is incredible.

Air conditioning is a complete mis description of the function. Air Chilling would be more appropriate, and it is so often misused it's not even funny.

If the A/C only is on, then air coming into the vehicle is cooled, (which also reduces the humidity of that air) and that's ALL that A/C can ever do. The air is chilled, which is costing the owner/Driver a specific sum to do that, due to the use of additional energy to drive the compressor that produces the air conditioning effect (its exactly the same as a domestic refrigerator in terms of how it works). To make it worse, the chilled air is LESS able to remove ice or mist or condensation from the windows, as the colder air is, the less moisture it can absorb.

So, to defrost, or demist the windows, heat is required, which can ONLY be provided by the use of a separate radiator that is in the air flow line, and which is heated by the water from the radiator (with the exception of modern electric powered vehicles), which requires that the engine is running, and producing heat. The warmer the air is, the more moisture it can absorb, which helps the process of clearing the windows. To confuse the equation even more, when water freezes, (transitions from vapour to ice) energy is released. So, if the A/C is on, the air entering the cabin may be less humid than the air outside, but it will also be cooler than it would otherwise have been, as the heat side has to warm the air more than if the A/C was off.

The exact physics of the energy required or released in the process of condensing or evaporating moisture is a lot more complex than that, so probably not appropriate here, I can remember some of it still, as it was required learning in the meteorology part of commercial aviation training, as part of understanding clouds and their formation, and it was a severe brain strain at the time. This whole subject is the explanation of why it doesn't often rain hard when the air is cold, as there's not the same amount of water vapour in the air as there is when it's hot.

As for climate control, or manual control, all that is doing is regulating the exact mix of air temperatures and cooling from the air conditioning and heating systems to provide air into the cabin at the temperature desired by the operator, with climate control doing the job automatically.