What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never done?

Xeno wrote:

>> That's not the measure of warp.
>> Warp is measured on a flat bench.
>> Just like head warp is measured.
>
> Or with a dial indicator - on both sides - for comparison.

You *can* measure warp with a dial indicator if you control the centerline
precisely, but nobody sane would do it that way.

I'm only speaking logic. If you have a head that you need to know if it's
warped, would you use
a. a dial gauge or
b. a flat benchtop with a feeler gauge?

Pick one.

> Use to check for warp every time.

With a dial gauge?
Or a flat bench and feeler gauge?

I'm not saying it's hard to check warp (heck, people do it for heads all
the time I suppose). I'm just saying that warp doesn't happen for the most
part in street cars (I already have a half dozen references) and yet
*every* idiot out there *thinks* his rotors warped.

Every time I asked anyone to prove it, they *said* all sorts of bull****,
but they can't even tell me *how* they'd prove it. If they use a dial
gauge, for example, while the rotor is on the vehicle for example, then I
have to wonder how to respond because that just proves my point.

Nobody who ever said their street rotors warped ever supplied proof.
They all are bull**** artists.

>>
>> If they haven't measured it, it's not happening.
>> And nobody measures it.
>> So it didn't happen.
>
> Some do. I did. I also taught apprentices to measure for it.

Measuring it is trivial if you have a bench and a feeler gauge.

But show me a single picture on the entire Internet that shows someone
measuring a street rotor for warp.

Just one.

Now show me the bull**** of someone saying they measure warp all the time.
(HINT: We don't enough space on the Internet for the bull**** references.)

There has never been a topic more filled with bull**** than rotor warp, and
all the "experts" who claim they measure it and yet can't show a single
picture of anyone on the planet doing that (not themselves either) for a
street rotor.

>> It "could" happen. But it doesn't (on street cars).
>> The problem is the temperature never gets hot enough.
>
> It can under specific circumstances. See it most often on autos in very
> hilly country.

I give up.

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> There is more than just mass involved with rotor thickness. There is
>> also the fact a thicker rotor has more strength and wont - get this -
>> WARP when it gets hot.
>
> Not gonna argue ad infinitum.
>
> Just show a single reference on the Internet that shows, for street
> vehicles driven normally, that braking is appreciably better with
> drilled/slotted rotors versus solid rotors all else being equal.
>
> Just one reliable reference on the entire Internet that proves your point.
> And I'll read it.
>
> First, you read this:
> Rotors: Blank vs Cross Drilled vs Slotted and Warping
> <http://automotivethinker.com/brakes-2/rotors-blank-vs-cross-drilled-vs-slotted-and-warping/>

I did and they agree with me on why rotors are slotted. BTW, I don't
agree with cross drilled rotors anytime.
>
> BTW, I'm not talking about 124mph fade tests as shown here by GM engineers:
> <http://www.ebay.com/gds/Drilled-vs-slotted-rotors-what-is-better-/10000000005243690/g.html?rmvSB=ue?>
>
> I'm talking legal normal street driving speeds because we're not talking
> racing here.
>
In the old days of asbestos in brakes, brake fade was valid even in
street cars. These days asbestos is no longer used so fade is much less
a problem on street cars driven normally. Again, your link agrees with me.

The pads on my Toyotas are good for 60k miles so they definitely arent
the asbestos pads of old. For sure you don't get the smell of fried
Ferodo like you once did.

--

Xeno

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Not as simple as you would make it sound. They might only last 5000
>> miles, or they might last 50,000 miles. Same friction ratingf.
>
> We don't disagree.
> In fact, I already said that in a different post in this thread.
> Let me cut and paste what I said.
> ------ start cut and paste what I said -------
> Life is one thing but the *primary* factor in brake pads is friction.
>
> I buy $35 PBR pads with FF or GG friction ratings which last 30K miles or
> so and the dust isn't objectionable.
>
> So my factors a
> a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless)
> b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners)
> c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners)
>
> Friction Coefficient Identification System for Brake Linings
> <http://standards.sae.org/j866_200204/>
> ------ end cut and paste what I said -------
>
> Still, the MOST IMPORTANT reason for buying pads is friction coefficient.
> If you had excellent life and lousy stopping power - would you buy them?
>
>> They might squal like a banshee - they might be totally quiet - same
>> friction rating.
>
> Good point that a lot of brake installations squeal, but we've researched
> this and it seems more depending on "situation" than on application.
>
> By that I mean that you can put the same pads on two similar cars, and some
> people complain of noise while others don't.
>
> There is a reason, for example, they have those padded shims.
> But again, my point is that you can give me all the bull**** you want to
> tell me that you can't choose pads wisely and I will only counter you with
> logic.
>
> If we add noise, it doesn't change the logic one bit.
> It only repeats a step.
>
> The factors would just be:
> a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless)
> b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners)
> c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners)
> d. Noise (the only way to know is to ask owners)

The pads on my car(s) have both long life and good braking ability. Did
I mention they don't squeal too. They are the OEM Toyota pads that came
with the car and that's what they will be replaced with.
>
>> The linings might fall off the backing plates il less than a yeat.
>> They might wear brake rotors like a grind-stone.
>> They might promote uneven material transfer - making brakes "thump"
>
> More of the same above.
>
> What you're completely whooshing on is that you have no way of knowing that
> crap unless you ask someone - and - even then - you have no way of knowing
> if you'll get that crap on your application.
>
> Worse ... it's NOT at all what brakes do.
>
> If you have an EE pad that meets all your bull**** requirements, then it's
> still a worthless pad, even though it
> a. Has an EE rating (which makes it almost worthless as a brake pad)
> b. Yet, it has no dust
> c. And it lasts forever (and so does the rotor!)
> d. And it's as quiet as a whisper
>
> If I was going to market that bull**** pad above, I'd say:
> "Quietest, most dustless, longest lasting pads in the business!"
>
> That's marketing bull**** for you.
> If it doesn't stop the vehicle - all that other crap is useless.
>
>> Actually GG is pretty UNCOMMON. - and many OEM pad sets have
>> different frictiom material on the inner and outer pads..
>
> For my bimmer, FF and GG are pretty common.
> But maybe it's different for other makes.
> I haven't seen anything better than G in the real world.
> But I'm sure we can look up what exists.
>
>> The FG Thermoquiets on my Ranger work pretty good - - - and they are
>> different inside to outside.
>
> FG is fine as long as that's as good or better than OEM.
>


--

Xeno

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> But isn't the alignment spec with the tires weighted with full load?
>>
>> Normal load, not full load.
>
> I know what you mean, which isn't technically correct, but I know what you
> meant anyway.
>
> I was talking about the guy who jacked the car up to adjust the toe, but he
> already explained he uses a process which is basically:
>
> a) measure
> b) raise jack
> c) adjust
> d) lower jack
> e) go to a and repeat until the measurement is correct.
>
> As for why you're not technically correct, "normal" load means different
> things depending on the vehicle manufacturer.

I know but I adjust for the load the driver usually has in the car. For
a traveling salesman, for instance, his car might be fully loaded all
the time. Adjust wheel alignment in that situation.
>
> For the example I know best, on my bimmer, you load with as many pounds as
> it takes to get the desired measurement of the vehicle suspension to be
> such that the center of the hubcap to the center of the fender flare above
> the wheel is so many centimeters.
>
> That can take *any* number of pounds spread evenly between each seat and
> the trunk, where 500 pounds total added weight is not at all abnormal.
>
> If you're calling that 500 pounds the "normal" load, then you're
> technically correct for that vehicle. But it's different for every vehicle,
> where, for example, the sport suspension takes a different weight than the
> M suspension which is different weight than the non-sport suspension.
>
>> You ask the customer how they use the vehicle and adjust loading
>> accordingly. Load will alter camber readings hence also toe. Set the
>> vehicle up with the load the owner normally places in it and you wont go
>> wrong.
>
> I think we're talking different things.
> I know what you're talking about.
> I don't know that you know what I'm talking about.
>
> Do you need me to give you a reference for what I'm talking about?
>


--

Xeno

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:50:30 +1100, Xeno >
wrote:

>On 6/11/2017 1:10 PM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:23:33 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>>> GDI makes it almost an order of magnitude better
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>> Bzzztt. GDI has brought the scourge of carbon buildup back.
>>>
>>> Googling for what you mean by "GDI"...
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection>
>>>
>>> Pros and cons of gasoline direct injection...
>>> <https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/02/pros-and-cons-of-direct-injection-engines/index.htm>
>>>
>>> What's so great about gasoline direct injection anyway?
>>> <https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/whats-so-great-about-direct-injection-abcs-of-car-tech/>
>> The biggest advantage is the fuel is injected after initial
>> compression, just before the spark - so the fuel is not "dwelling" in
>> the combustion chamber under high heat and pressure, dissassociating
>> and causing detonation. Can run much higher compression ratio on
>> regular gas.
>>
>I suggest you read up on the topic. You can have stratified charge and
>homogeneous charge in the same engine and these are the two different
>strategies employed. Typically, in the higher load range the charge is
>homogeneous in composition and the fuel is introduced into the
>combustion chamber during the intake stroke. Under part load conditions
>the engine uses charge stratification with the throttle valve fully open
>and fuel is injected during the compression stroke.
Detonation is generally not an issue at higher speed, so the
stratified charge provides the advantage I ststed. Under full throttle
at speed homogenous charge is not a problem.

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>> You haven't worked on earthmoving machinery, that much is clear.
>
> I am assuming we're talking only street vehicles here.
>
> On street engines, an adjustable wrench often won't fit, and just as often
> will damage the bolt.
>
> Do you disagree?
>
Up to a point, I agree with you. Where I disagree is that most people
use them incorrectly (backwards) or size them inappropriately. They are
no different to an open end spanner when used correctly and, need it be
said, they are of a decent quality. When working on earthmoving
equipment, the most common adjustables I used were 15". 18" and 24". You
have no idea how many different spanners those three adjustables
replaced. In field work you need to cart *all your tools* with you. You
always look to minimise that load.

--

Xeno

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:51:59 +1100, Xeno >
wrote:

>On 6/11/2017 1:16 PM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:36:18 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If toe is last, then unloading, adjusting, reloading makes more sense.
>>>>>
>>>> Toe is last. Adjustments to camber will alter toe. Adjustments to toe
>>>> will not alter camber.
>>>
>>> Thanks. The way I'll remember it is Caster -> Camber -> Toe.
>> Caster and camber are pretty well inter-related - changing one
>> changes the other on most non-strut suspensions. Struts are a whole
>> lot simpler.
>>
>Changing camber on a strut still changes toe.
I didn't say it didn't. camber has a lot less effect on camber, and
vice versa on a strut system than on a double wishbone system

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>> I consider my *time* as being valuable and I have many better things to
>> do with it than work on servicing my own car.
>
> We all spend time differently.
> For example, I haven't owned a TV in many decades.
> Hence I know I spent zero hours watching TV in the past 30 years.
>
> How much time did you spend watching TV in the past 30 years?
>
Fractionally more than you. I watch the news on TV. That's it.

--

Xeno

On 6/11/2017 5:18 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> RS Wood wrote:
>
>> I just am saying that nobody in this thread has given any logical reason
>> why rings would be "better" today than in the days of yore.
>
> I think I got cranky.
> Apologies.
>
It does tend to deter people from responding when you do that.

--

Xeno

On 6/11/2017 5:21 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> But I don't understand UV protection for car tires.
>>
>> They have UV protection built in at manufacture.
>
> Makes sense since they are rated for longer than it takes me to wear them
> out.

That is precisely the idea.
>
>>>
>>> I have nothing against adding UV protection for car tires.
>>> But I have never had a cracked-sidewall car tire in recent years.
>>
>> If you don't keep them for longer than 10 years or, alternately, always
>> park in a garage, you won't.
>
> I forgot about the garage. Good point. Yes. I garage mine.
> So UV protection is not for me.

You just have ozone issues in the garage. Look that one up, it's very
interesting.
>
>> the inbuilt tyre UV protection is typically good for 5 to 7 years.
>
> That's more than twice the time I need!
>
That's the allowance for low mileage drivers.
>
>> Ordinary glass has a degree of UV protection anyway. Same as the
>> untinted windows on your car - up to 80% I believe.
>
> It's a little more complex than that (last I spoke to my eye doctor), but
> you're right, that ordinary glasses "usually" block a lot of UV.

I have worn glasses since I was 8 years old. I know all about it. Lots
of my non glasses wearing friends are now suffering from cataracts but,
so far so good, I'm not at 65.
>
> The details are that they recommend a UV coating for *some* of the
> materials, but they know all that so when I'm buying glasses, that's when I
> ask (because I don't remember without looking it up).
>


--

Xeno