to change a Honda Accord 1988 model timing belt

"TeGGeR®" > wrote
> jim beam > wrote
> > Elle wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Sorry, Jim, but you're not being fair.
> >
> > who cares? i'm just sick of the pair of you squabbling.
>
>
>
> I'm not squabbling, I'm debating. She's the one accusing me of saying that
> she lied.

You asserted I'd never actually used a torque wrench, implying I was bsing
my way through this. You pull this crap a lot.

Here's a tip for you: Don't make assertions when something someone posts
doesn't make sense to you. Ask questions.

> I said she was WRONG, not mendacious.
>
> I'm not going to suddenly say she's (or you are) right just to be nice. I
> am convinced you guys are incorrect and will continue to say so.

Obsessively, and to the detriment of your site and this newsgroup.

> (Back OT for a moment: That '91 pulley you found was undertorqued, had
> Loctite on it, and was severely galled on the back. I'd suggest that
> managed to find a car that's had unusually inept servicing.)
>
>
> > if you think
> > i'm somehow singling you out for special attention, you're mistaken -
> > you just happened to be at the end of the thread when i got home and
> > chose to reply. you are /way/ too ready to wear that "victim" teeshirt
> > your daddy gave you.
>
>
> I noticed that too. She's awful quick to get angry at somebody.

When you implicate a person as a liar (which you often do) or accuse them of
dissembling about their experience, you shouldn't be surprised that they get
a little hostile.

It's nothing like the venom that comes through your site when you insist on
posting a dispute between a few people there, unrelated to actually
repairing Hondas.

> It's just a debate, fer chrissake.

Yes, it is, and during it, you asserted as fact that I couldn't have bought
Grade 8 bolts at a local hardware store and have never used a torque wrench.
Implying I was bullsh-tting my way through a technical discussion. When I'm
wrong, I say it or note something like "Oops. John is right. What I said is
erroneous."

"Debate" like this should be reserved for Usenet, IMO.

I am very disappointed in you. IMO you need to stop posting things like,
"You may not believe this, but I have no ego whatsoever when it comes to
this site.... I have NO ego and a very thick skin." I thought you'd shaped
up since the PCV valve discussion. You have a ways to go.

>>I said she was WRONG, not mendacious.


> When you implicate a person as a liar


If I may be so bold as to point out that there is a world of difference
between lying and being wrong.

Whether he was being reasonable in saying / how he said you were wrong
is not relevant, just that saying someone is wrong, is a NOT the same as
lying. Though I know that to have ones views bluntly described as wrong
is not nice, and is often only a matter of opinion, to which we are all
entitled.

"Bozo" > wrote
> >>I said she was WRONG, not mendacious.
>
>
> > When you implicate a person as a liar
>
>
> If I may be so bold as to point out that there is a world of difference
> between lying and being wrong.

That would be fine if Tegger had merely said I was wrong.

It's when he asserts (incorrectly) as fact that I've never used a torque
wrench that the connection to an assertion that I am a liar begins.

Both statements rely on presumptions that are attempts to disparage.

Until he breaks this habit of his, the only one that will be disparaged by
such remarks is himself.

I asked Tegger to remove the link to my web site. I now ask that he remove
my name from it, as well. Another person who provided support for his web
site (re the igniter, IIRC) made the same request and was granted it. If he
won't grant my request as well, well, that's just more evidence that he's a
lot of talk when it comes to claims that he absents ego from his site.

My web site is no longer up. I don't think the world will stop turning as a
result of that, of course. I took it down because it is the cause, one way
or another, of a Usenet debate now being posted at Tegger's site. The site
is supposed to be dedicated to helping people fix their cars. It's less with
this debate on it.

I may put my site back up if anyone posts asking about ways to remove the
pulley bolt. Seems like those posts have been far and few between this past
year, compared to previous years.

Though it's not like Eric or some of the other folks couldn't throw up a
site describing these tools and it would be just as good or better as my
efforts.

No big deal. Just saying.

Tegger, it's easy to unpublish and then publish my site. Track it down if
you want if and when I do re-publish it (under different addies as I see
fit), but I will remind you again that this is inconsistent with your
agreeing not to name the guy who helped you with the igniter.

> Whether he was being reasonable in saying / how he said you were wrong
> is not relevant, just that saying someone is wrong, is a NOT the same as
> lying. Though I know that to have ones views bluntly described as wrong
> is not nice, and is often only a matter of opinion, to which we are all
> entitled.

The whole issue is "being nice." You missed the boat, AFAIC.

"Elle" > wrote in
. net:

> "TeGGeR®" > wrote

>>
>>
>> I noticed that too. She's awful quick to get angry at somebody.
>
> When you implicate a person as a liar (which you often do)



You are exhibiting signs of being unbalanced.



> or accuse
> them of dissembling about their experience, you shouldn't be surprised
> that they get a little hostile.


And unbalanced people ignore apologies.

You'll notice an apology appeared in this thread once I realized I'd
misunderstood your "multiple clicks" statment. Up to that point it did
appear to me that you were embellishing your personal experience.


>
> It's nothing like the venom that comes through your site when you
> insist on posting a dispute between a few people there, unrelated to
> actually repairing Hondas.


The debate referred to on my Web site was a PUBLIC affair, conducted in
this very PUBLIC newsgroup.

You will notice I have made absolutely no reference (until now) to the
PRIVATE emails exchanged between you and me on the subject of this thread.

You also seem to have forgotten that I PUBLICLY removed the opinion page
that you didn't like, after you raised what I thought was a reasonable
objection to it.

If you cannot tell the difference between public debate and private debate,
well...


>
>> It's just a debate, fer chrissake.
>
> Yes, it is, and during it, you asserted as fact that I couldn't have
> bought Grade 8 bolts at a local hardware store



Yes, and I corrected myself later after your revelation by saying "maybe
it's just Canada then", as I /cannot/ buy those bolts here. Did you miss
that post too?



> and have never used a
> torque wrench. Implying I was bullsh-tting my way through a technical
> discussion. When I'm wrong, I say it or note something like "Oops.
> John is right. What I said is erroneous."
>
> "Debate" like this should be reserved for Usenet, IMO.

>
> I am very disappointed in you. IMO you need to stop posting things
> like, "You may not believe this, but I have no ego whatsoever when it
> comes to this site....


And I don't. Ask my many, many contributors, who fill in for me what I
don't know.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"Elle" > wrote in
k.net:


>
> I asked Tegger to remove the link to my web site. I now ask that he
> remove my name from it, as well. Another person who provided support
> for his web site (re the igniter, IIRC) made the same request and was
> granted it. If he won't grant my request as well, well, that's just
> more evidence that he's a lot of talk when it comes to claims that he
> absents ego from his site.



Your taking your site down to spite me certainly smacks of ego.

Screw all those people who may be helped by the excellent info you had up;
it's more satisfying to thumb your nose at Tegger. Nice.

I'll remove your name and the links. And shake my head at your irrational
vindictiveness as I do it.



>
> My web site is no longer up. I don't think the world will stop turning
> as a result of that, of course. I took it down because it is the
> cause, one way or another, of a Usenet debate now being posted at
> Tegger's site. The site is supposed to be dedicated to helping people
> fix their cars. It's less with this debate on it.


If anyone cares to see the page she's referring to, it's he
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/faq.html#crankbolt

Scroll down to the bottom of the "manual methods" part (green text).


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

TeGGeR® wrote:
<snip>
>
> (Back OT for a moment: That '91 pulley you found was undertorqued,
> had Loctite on it, and was severely galled on the back. I'd suggest
> that managed to find a car that's had unusually inept servicing.)

undertorqued???

ok, let's assume this is not a flame fest and examine this statement for
what it does: it acknowledges galling. and galling /is/ the product of
movement. so we agree [finally] that the pulley wheel is experiencing
lash - there's no other way for that galling to occur.

for torque, either i did or did not have to bounce my whole 205lbs
bodyweight on the end of an 18"x3/4" breaker bar to shift that thing -
as opposed to the 92 which came off with one hand /and/ had been
loctited. i don't call that 91 undertorqued. you decide your own
position on that one. and while you're making your selection, figure
out whether it's consistent with bolt tightening in just one trip in my crx.

as for deliberately "selecting" a particular example, i'll go through
the whole junkyard and photograph every bolt & washer if that's what it
takes. i've seen bolts like that many times. metallurgy is in
substantial part analysis of situations just like this one. if you
haven't seen it before, that's your problem, not mine, and with respect,
it's not a foundation for criticism.

finally, that 91 bolt was /not/ loctited. look again at the pics - the
high res ones i sent you. i have a 20x loupe [although it won't
photograph very well] and have compared both. there's no evidence of
loctite on the 91, unlike the 92. i'll go through the junkyard again
for you if i need to. fwiw, threadlock is /not/ specified as part of
the pulley wheel re-torqe process in the 89 service manual i have to hand.

jim beam > wrote in
:

> TeGGeR® wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> (Back OT for a moment: That '91 pulley you found was undertorqued,
>> had Loctite on it, and was severely galled on the back. I'd suggest
>> that managed to find a car that's had unusually inept servicing.)
>
> undertorqued???
>
> ok, let's assume this is not a flame fest



Thank you. It's not. I rarely flame people.



> and examine this statement
> for what it does: it acknowledges galling. and galling /is/ the
> product of movement. so we agree [finally] that the pulley wheel is
> experiencing lash - there's no other way for that galling to occur.



But galling does not occur on pulleys that are properly torqued. And just
LOOK at that pulley! That level of galling is NOT normal for ANY car.
Something /real/ bad happened to that puppy.



>
> for torque, either i did or did not have to bounce my whole 205lbs
> bodyweight on the end of an 18"x3/4" breaker bar to shift that thing -
> as opposed to the 92 which came off with one hand /and/ had been
> loctited. i don't call that 91 undertorqued.



Yeah, I had them backwards. I thought it was the '91 that came off easily.

In any case, the '91's pulley has been VERY loose at one time, loose enough
to spin on the crank nose and overheat to the point that the metal moved.
This suggests it was once installed with no Woodruff key. Not necessarily
on that particular car, but somewhere.

What did the '92's pulley look like? I don't think you sent a pic of that.


> you decide your own
> position on that one. and while you're making your selection, figure
> out whether it's consistent with bolt tightening in just one trip in
> my crx.



It didn't tighten. As I said earlier, and as was explained to me by bona
fide experts at Bolt Science Ltd, there are other factors that explain the
apparent tightening.

Bolt Science categorically told me the bolt DOES NOT tighten more after
proper torque. Bolts are their business. They get paid to know about bolts.
I'd believe them before I'd believe myself.



>
> as for deliberately "selecting" a particular example,



I never said that. I think you just happened to get that one.



> i'll go through
> the whole junkyard and photograph every bolt & washer if that's what
> it takes.



Maybe check a half-dozen or so, and compare pulleys. That would be a more
rigorous test than just one or two. One or two leaves you too open to
accidentally selecting an unusual example.

It might also make sense to try and get a general idea of the sort of
servicing a particular car might have had. Might be hard to tell, though.
I'd be looking for "next service" type stickers on the doors and suchlike,
indicating the car may have had more professional servicing.



> i've seen bolts like that many times.


Me too. But I've NEVER seen a pulley galled as bad as that '91.



> metallurgy is in
> substantial part analysis of situations just like this one. if you
> haven't seen it before, that's your problem, not mine, and with
> respect, it's not a foundation for criticism.
>
> finally, that 91 bolt was /not/ loctited. look again at the pics -
> the high res ones i sent you. i have a 20x loupe [although it won't
> photograph very well] and have compared both. there's no evidence of
> loctite on the 91, unlike the 92.



Like I said, I mixed them up. Sorry about that.



> i'll go through the junkyard again
> for you if i need to. fwiw, threadlock is /not/ specified as part of
> the pulley wheel re-torqe process in the 89 service manual i have to
> hand.


It isn't specified in ANY manual I've seen for ANY manufacturer.



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>(Back OT for a moment: That '91 pulley you found was undertorqued,
>>>had Loctite on it, and was severely galled on the back. I'd suggest
>>>that managed to find a car that's had unusually inept servicing.)
>>
>>undertorqued???
>>
>>ok, let's assume this is not a flame fest
>
>
>
>
> Thank you. It's not. I rarely flame people.
>
>
>
>
>>and examine this statement
>>for what it does: it acknowledges galling. and galling /is/ the
>>product of movement. so we agree [finally] that the pulley wheel is
>>experiencing lash - there's no other way for that galling to occur.
>
>
>
>
> But galling does not occur on pulleys that are properly torqued. And just
> LOOK at that pulley! That level of galling is NOT normal for ANY car.
> Something /real/ bad happened to that puppy.
>
>
>
>
>>for torque, either i did or did not have to bounce my whole 205lbs
>>bodyweight on the end of an 18"x3/4" breaker bar to shift that thing -
>>as opposed to the 92 which came off with one hand /and/ had been
>>loctited. i don't call that 91 undertorqued.
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, I had them backwards. I thought it was the '91 that came off easily.
>
> In any case, the '91's pulley has been VERY loose at one time, loose enough
> to spin on the crank nose and overheat to the point that the metal moved.

eh? there's no overheating going on here. and it's not spun - just
fretted within a very limited range. if it had spun, it would have
looked totally different.

> This suggests it was once installed with no Woodruff key. Not necessarily
> on that particular car, but somewhere.

absolutely not. the galling is /not/ that characteristic of the pulley
having been spun.

>
> What did the '92's pulley look like? I don't think you sent a pic of that.

i didn't send a pic of either pulley. they don't tighten, just the bolt.

>
>
>
>> you decide your own
>>position on that one. and while you're making your selection, figure
>>out whether it's consistent with bolt tightening in just one trip in
>>my crx.
>
>
>
>
> It didn't tighten. As I said earlier, and as was explained to me by bona
> fide experts at Bolt Science Ltd, there are other factors that explain the
> apparent tightening.
>
> Bolt Science categorically told me the bolt DOES NOT tighten more after
> proper torque. Bolts are their business. They get paid to know about bolts.
> I'd believe them before I'd believe myself.

well, that's categorically wrong. tell them to look up lash and
precession. both can tighten bolts. if no one there knows that,
there's something /seriously/ wrong with their credibility. i gave you
examples from truck lug nuts, bike pedals and bike fixed gears, and the
circular saw example cited elsewhere is just one more. most people
don't worry about bolts that tighten because it's the ones that loosen
that cause the problems, but to say it doesn't happen is just ridiculous.

>
>
>
>
>>as for deliberately "selecting" a particular example,
>
>
>
>
> I never said that. I think you just happened to get that one.
>
>
>
>
>>i'll go through
>>the whole junkyard and photograph every bolt & washer if that's what
>>it takes.
>
>
>
>
> Maybe check a half-dozen or so, and compare pulleys. That would be a more
> rigorous test than just one or two. One or two leaves you too open to
> accidentally selecting an unusual example.
>
> It might also make sense to try and get a general idea of the sort of
> servicing a particular car might have had. Might be hard to tell, though.
> I'd be looking for "next service" type stickers on the doors and suchlike,
> indicating the car may have had more professional servicing.

like i told you, you can see how many times the bolt has been removed
from the key marks. you have the fingerprints and the ballistics from
the murder weapon, but you want a signed confession as well?

>
>
>
>
>> i've seen bolts like that many times.
>
>
>
> Me too. But I've NEVER seen a pulley galled as bad as that '91.

just because /you/ haven't seen it is no reason to deny reality!

>
>
>
>
>> metallurgy is in
>>substantial part analysis of situations just like this one. if you
>>haven't seen it before, that's your problem, not mine, and with
>>respect, it's not a foundation for criticism.
>>
>>finally, that 91 bolt was /not/ loctited. look again at the pics -
>>the high res ones i sent you. i have a 20x loupe [although it won't
>>photograph very well] and have compared both. there's no evidence of
>>loctite on the 91, unlike the 92.
>
>
>
>
> Like I said, I mixed them up. Sorry about that.
>
>
>
>
>> i'll go through the junkyard again
>>for you if i need to. fwiw, threadlock is /not/ specified as part of
>>the pulley wheel re-torqe process in the 89 service manual i have to
>>hand.
>
>
>
> It isn't specified in ANY manual I've seen for ANY manufacturer.

well, it's clearly used on the 92 in factory assembly - you have the
photo evidence. honda evidently figured out there was a problem -
that's why they splined the pulley for that model!

jim beam > wrote in
:


>
> i didn't send a pic of either pulley.


Well that explains it. I thought I was looking at a closeup of the pulley
in one photo. Now I've got to rename that directory.


Could you send pulley pics? I'd like to see them.



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
>>i didn't send a pic of either pulley.
>
>
>
> Well that explains it. I thought I was looking at a closeup of the pulley
> in one photo. Now I've got to rename that directory.
>
>
> Could you send pulley pics? I'd like to see them.

that would require another visit to the junk yard... but this:

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/...her_u-side.jpg

shows the regions of the bolt washers that have been against the
pulleys. as you might expect, features on the pulleys correspond with
resulting features on the washers, hence the keyway scars and machining
ring indentations.