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

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 05:24:03 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood > wrote:


>
>Anyone who buys FWD for handling has already proven they can't think
>logically.
>

The only handling that concerns me is snow and rain handling.
The winter of 1978-1979 the Chicago area had 90" of snow.
I had about a 20 mile trip to work, and I never missed a day.
Except when I showed up one day and nobody was there.
Drove back home, passing hundreds of cars stuck in the snow.
I was driving a RWD '67 Buick Skylark. With 300 lbs of sand bags in the trunk.
That's a cheap method.
Since 1991 I've driven FWD cars. Never had to load the trunk with anything.
As long as a car handles as expected, it's a non-issue.
Aside from snow, ice and rain, handling only matters to car racers and car racer wannabes.
I'm neither, so your "handling" logic is immaterial to me.

On 7/11/2017 4:09 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>> I'd have said your *logic* comes entirely from book learning and not
>> from the real world of the trade I spent 50 years involved in.
>
> Everyone here is talking about runout which is *different* than warp.
>
> I owned Chrysler & Dodge, as you know.

I never owned either of those two companies. I guess I was too poor.
What's it like to be a rich engineer company owner?
>
> As you may know, the lug bolts, in those days, were reverse threaded on one
> side of the car.

Yes, I did know that. Never snapped one off either - even as a kid.
>
> I snapped a few before I realized it (I was just a kid at the time).

Never snapped one off either - even as a kid.

Missed the imprinted *L* on the end of the stud, did you?
>
> The amount of torque you need to *bend* a rotor would snap a lug bolt well
> before you ever got close to permanently bending a rotor.

These vans;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...4397562%29.jpg

Had an integral front hub and drum. It was easily possible to warp the
drum purely by overtightening the wheel nuts. Why was that? Was the
casting designed by an engineer who was thinking logically that a bolt
would snap before the drum warped. Hey, he stuffed up big time.
>
> Doesn't anyone here think logically?
>
It's looking a lot like you don't.

--

Xeno

On 11/6/2017 10:24 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Anyone who buys FWD for handling has already proven they can't think
> logically.

I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about FWD. I wasn't going to
reply but your utter illogical bias is starting to **** me off. End of
discussion.

On 11/6/2017 10:46 PM, Frank wrote:

>
> OK, let's say it's 1% of the days. I don't want to be needlessly late
> on ANY of those days. More than that, the FACT that traffic is now
> flowing more smoothly on snowy days makes driving less stressful.
>

I learned a long time ago being late in snow is much better than
worrying about it or having complications. I used to start work at 7.
When it snowed, I'd go out at about 7 to clear the driveway and get
ready to go. My commute was 24 miles and a couple of steep hills.

I'm responsible for my car and myself and that comes far ahead of
showing up on time. This year will be different though, I'm retired and
plan to just go back to bed if it snows.

RS Wood wrote:

> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
> done?
>
> Mine are, in this order of "I wish I could do it" order
> 1. painting
> 2. alignment
> 3. replace/rebuild engine
> 4. clutch replacement
> 5. tire mounting and balancing
> 6. timing belt
> 7. head gasket and vcg
>
> I've done electrical, brakes, shocks, cooling systems, alternators,
> ujoints, pitman/idler arms & tie-rod ends and ball joints, tuneups,
> emissions hoses and sensors, exhaust, electrical components, fuel pumps,
> and fluids, but not the six things above.
>
> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
> done?

Given the half dozen tasks I wish I had done in the days of yore
* transmission
* alignment
* engine
* tires
* paint

I think each has a very special component, which, I posit, is the main
reason most of us don't dare to do them, at home.

I'm just using logic when I say what I'm going to say, and what I say below
is a summary, and it's not a statement, but more of a question as to what
the MAJOR FACTOR is why we don't do these jobs at home, in general.

* transmission auto (takes a LOT of KNOWLEDGE we just don't have)
* transmission manual (takes some equipment we don't have normally)

* alignment (takes a TON of THINKING that would explode most heads)

* engine (takes a TON of down TIME that most of us just don't have)

* tires (it's just too EASY to have SOMEONE ELSE do them for us)

* paint (takes a TON of SKILL to make the job look good)

This is the first time I'm proposing this logic.
What do you think about it.

What's the major single reason we don't do these jobs at home?
* transmission auto (knowledge?)
* transmission manual (equipment?)
* alignment (thinking?)
* engine (time?)
* tires (effort?)
* paint (skill?)

Frank wrote:

>> Lots of traps for the unwary in that little task.
>
> No doubt. I had a friend who worked at a transmission shop and also
> rebuilt transmissions in his garage. We'd hang out, talk car repair and
> he said he had to redo his first few rebuilds. Biggest problem was the
> effort to pull and replace the trans.
>
> Odd thing was, he hated working on carburetors.
>
> I expect I'd just install a good junkyard trans and rebuild the
> original. I have no expectation I'd get it right the first time.

Your comment about automatic transmissions made me think.

Given the half dozen tasks I wish I had done in the days of yore
* transmission
* alignment
* engine
* tires
* paint

I think each has a very special component, which, I posit, is the main
reason most of us don't dare to do them, at home.

I'm just using logic when I say what I'm going to say, and what I say below
is a summary, and it's not a statement, but more of a question as to what
the MAJOR FACTOR is why we don't do these jobs at home, in general.

* transmission auto (takes a LOT of KNOWLEDGE we just don't have)
* transmission manual (takes some equipment we don't have normally)

* alignment (takes a TON of THINKING that would explode most heads)

* engine (takes a TON of down TIME that most of us just don't have)

* tires (it's just too EASY to have SOMEONE ELSE do them for us)

* paint (takes a TON of SKILL to make the job look good)

This is the first time I'm proposing this logic.
What do you think about it.

What's the major single reason we don't do these jobs at home?
* transmission auto (knowledge?)
* transmission manual (equipment?)
* alignment (thinking?)
* engine (time?)
* tires (effort?)
* paint (skill?)

Frank wrote:

> I say warp, but I see NO practical difference.

That's my point.

I've been discussing warp on rotors for many decades so you're never going
to add anything to the equation until you begin to use logic on your own
thought processes.

The first bit of logic *you* have to figure out is the difference between
runout on the car and warp on the bench.

> Should warped discs be machined differently than discs with runout?

That's a crazy question, but it's a good first-time question.

You throw warped discs out. Period.

Technically, I guess, using logic, you "could" save them, I guess, but in
the practical world, you will almost *never* be able to machine a warped
disc because if it's really warped, you won't realistically have enough
metal left to meet spec when you're done.

Xeno wrote:

>> I owned Chrysler & Dodge, as you know.
>
> I never owned either of those two companies. I guess I was too poor.
> What's it like to be a rich engineer company owner?

You can insult me for explaining logic to you, but anyone here who knew
those cars knows what I say is a fact, where it was so *easy* to snap a lug
bolt that I lost more than one before I realized they're threaded backward.

Now, you can fault me for being stupid after the first one, and I admit, it
never occurred to me that lug bolts were threaded backward on *one side* of
the vehicle.

But it happened, where I'm glad it did, because you want to know something?
Lug bolts are *easy* to snap.

You'll never permanently bend a typical rotor on that car with lug bolts.

>> As you may know, the lug bolts, in those days, were reverse threaded on one
>> side of the car.
>
> Yes, I did know that. Never snapped one off either - even as a kid.

Then you never learned what I learned, which is that lug bolts are so easy
to snap that you will never bend a rotor on that car with a lug bolt no
matter how much torque you think you can apply.


>> I snapped a few before I realized it (I was just a kid at the time).
>
> Never snapped one off either - even as a kid.

Point is, that a rotor on that car isn't going to be bent by applying
torque to a lug nut. You can avoid that logical fact all you want but it
doesn't change that it's a logical fact.

>
> Missed the imprinted *L* on the end of the stud, did you?

Yes. I didn't even *think* that one side of the car was R and the other
side of the car was L. I had cars before that, and cars after that, but
only this one had reverse-threaded lug bolts and nuts - so I never tested
lugbolt strength since then (which was in the sixties or maybe very early
seventies as I recall).

Point is that it's so easy to snap a lug bolt on that car that you'll
*never* get anywhere near the torque required to permanently bend a rotor
with lug bolts no matter how much torque you apply to that car.

If you can show some *other* car has superhuman tensile strength lug bolts,
then let's look at your specs.


>> The amount of torque you need to *bend* a rotor would snap a lug bolt well
>> before you ever got close to permanently bending a rotor.
>
> These vans;
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...4397562%29.jpg
>
> Had an integral front hub and drum. It was easily possible to warp the
> drum purely by overtightening the wheel nuts. Why was that? Was the
> casting designed by an engineer who was thinking logically that a bolt
> would snap before the drum warped. Hey, he stuffed up big time.

You don't provide enough data because we need to know a lot about the drums
but we have been talking *ROTORS* all along, and not drums since we've been
discussing disc brakes.

I don't doubt drums suffer from similar issues than disc brakes but the
entire geometry is immensely different (as you know) and besides, what
matters first and foremost is the tensile strength of the lug bolts anyway.

What's the typical torque applied to those lug bolts?
What's the tensile strength of those lug bolts?

Without that basic information, we can't move forward on your drum brake
example, even though we've been clearly talking disc brakes so far.

>> Doesn't anyone here think logically?
>>
> It's looking a lot like you don't.

Classic argument which I've seen for fifty years, so it's not unexpected.
Anyone faced with basic logic for the first time always *attacks* the
messenger.

The good news is that you will mellow, days, months, years, and maybe
decades from now such that you'll think before you start trying to defend
marketing bull****.

It happens every time. You're smart enough to learn. You won't fall into
the same mudholes as you did in this thread. What you'll do is be more
careful about what you say because right now you're just trying to defend
your emotions.

But in another thread, years from now, you won't feel the desperate need to
defend your emotions. So I think we have seen some progress with you and
that's good.

I certainly learned a *lot* in this thread myself, particularly on the
major factors that make an engine run longer nowadays than in the days of
yore, and for that, I thank you.

You do not have to thank me for asking you to think logically though, as I
understand how people defend their emotions to the last breath.

Vic Smith wrote:

> The only handling that concerns me is snow and rain handling.

That's logical thinking.
It's like buying a Hummer so that when you do have an accident, you're more
likely to be safe. At least it's logically true to your thoughts.

It's the same as if you bought a dump truck as your only vehicle because 1%
of the time you need to haul soil. As long as you're logically true to your
own thought process, that's fine.

Most people fall for the Marketing Bull**** so they're not logically true
to their own thought processes. That's the crime.

If you're thinking logically, that's fine.

> The winter of 1978-1979 the Chicago area had 90" of snow.
> I had about a 20 mile trip to work, and I never missed a day.

Again, if *that* is what matters to you, and if you think everyone in
Chicago "missed a day" because they had RWD, then you're being true to
yourself.

However, if anyone else got to work on those days who had RWD vehicles,
then you're not being logically true again.

It's ok to think any way you want as long as you don't lie to yourself.
It's the age-old advice we gave 30 years ago to people who said the same
thing.

> Except when I showed up one day and nobody was there.
> Drove back home, passing hundreds of cars stuck in the snow.

I'm not as dumb as you need me to be in order to believe in your "bro" science.
You think I haven't heard what you just said, a billion times in the past
30 years?

The moment people start throwing "bro science" at me, I know they're just
flailing for lack of any reasonable logic. Happens every time when people
believe in Marketing Bull****.

Here's some "bro science" for you...

I drove RWD in the east-coast states and I've seen in the morning cars all
over the median and I've watched them smash themselves against the
guardrails.

All (obviously) were driving too fast for the conditions.

The proof was that I was in a 280Z for heaven's sake, and I didn't smash
into the guardrail or end up backward in the median.

So your anecdote is exactly canceled by mine (which is the age-old problem
with your "bro" science anecdote).

Anyone who is forced to constantly resort to "bro science" to back up their
claims is simply lying to themselves about the real issue, which is the
most common thing that happens when they fall for Marketing Bull****.

> I was driving a RWD '67 Buick Skylark. With 300 lbs of sand bags in the trunk.
> That's a cheap method.

And I have a bimmer RWD that uses chains in Tahoe. No problem.

> Since 1991 I've driven FWD cars. Never had to load the trunk with anything.

Again, you're back to logic and not bro science.
If for 1% of the time you don't need extra weight or chains, then that's a
fine reason for having worse handling 99% of the time.

Those tradeoffs are yours to make.
Just don't lie about them.

The moment you bring in "bro science", I know you're not telling yourself
the truth and that you are trying to defend Marketing Bull****.

> As long as a car handles as expected, it's a non-issue.

Logical.
That's perfectly reasonable.

As long as you don't try to defend Marketing Bull**** with Bro Science,
you're fine with logical people like me.

> Aside from snow, ice and rain, handling only matters to car racers and car racer wannabes.
> I'm neither, so your "handling" logic is immaterial to me.

I agree vehemenetly with you that when you use logic, your decisions make
perfect sense.

It's when people use "Bro Science" to back up Marketing Bull**** that
bothers me, because they're just lying to themselves and to everyone when
they do that. It's the age-old situation that never changes.

I have an off-color joke that is often used in such situations, which is
that I have this fat ugly dumb girlfriend who keeps the bed super warm at
night which is why I keep her around.

My friends ask why, and I can give them the logical answer, or I can start
using "Bro Science" to defend the Marketing Bull****.

LOGIC:
I can say "she's ugly 99% of the time but warm as fire 1% of the time" and
that's why I keep her.

BRO SCIENCE:
What? Ugly? Fat? Dumb? No way. My girlfriend is a svelte, gorgeously cute
rocket scientist, she is. Why my sister told me so herself just yesterday.

As long as you use logic to back up your decisions, and not bro science to
try to back up Marketing Bull****, then I have no problem with what you
say.

Frank wrote:

>> Then you could have good handling 99% of the year and sufficient deep
>> snow traction when you need it 1% of the year.
>
> With FWD I have good handling 100% of the year. Rear wheel drive
> handling is OK 99% of the year.
>
> What logic says that 99% is better than 100%?
>
> What logic says that continually installing and removing tire chains to
> get that 99% to 100% is better than being happy with the 100% without
> chains?

Nothing you have said (or even can say) isn't something they said 30 years
ago, so, just like with brake warp and drilled/slotted rotors, there's
nothing new that you provided that wasn't already logically debunked 30
years ago.

You keep believing it, since logic clearly isn't working within you.