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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Rotors warp in street use all the time when the kids at the chain store use
> impact wrenches instead of a proper torque wrench to take tires off and
> put them back on.
>
> And of COURSE the chain store blames the driver, the tires, the phase
> of the moon, for it. "You must be going over potholes too hard."

We covered that in the car forums about three decades ago, where you have
to wonder how anyone could say what you just said.

I haven't *looked* at the problem you speak of for more than 30 years, but
let's take it step by step in really big steps here.

1. How many footpounds *can* you torque a lug nut to before the bolt snaps?
2. Let's put *that* amount of torque on ONE of six bolts, shall we.
3. A rotor isn't solid, but let's assume a solid rotor for a moment.
4. How much torque would it take to *bend* a solid rotor?

QUESTION FOR YOU THAT WE ASKED 30 YEARS AGO OF OTHERS:
Q: How much torque on one bolt would it take to bend a rotor?

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 10:03:21 -0800, Vic Smith
> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 12:11:22 -0500, wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 08:40:36 -0800, Vic Smith
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 10:08:46 -0500, wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 02:36:44 -0800, Vic Smith
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 02:57:16 -0500, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Only the stop-tech article is written by a pro (Can't open the
>>>>>>raybestos link so it's useless)
>>>>>
>>>>>That "pro" says to replace brake fluid once a year.
>>>>>I wonder how many people do that.
>>>>>I never replace brake fluid unless I've got the system open.
>>>> I generally did when doing any major brake work (drums, rotors, pads
>>>>or shes) - just s thorough bleed.
>>>
>>>I haven't touched any part of my brakes for 4 years.
>>
>>
>> I "service" my disc brakes at least once a year.
>
>Sure, so do I. But I don't call that "service." I call it "looking at pad wear."
>I sure don't open the MC reservoir. That would expose the fluid to more air than it's seen
>in about 20 years of not opening it. And we all know, brake fluid if "hygroscopic."
Correct. The "service" is more than checking pads. It's PRIMARILY
making sure all moving/sliding parts are free - and knocking off any
rust scale build-up on the edges of the rotors.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:36:45 -0000, "Ian Field"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Tekkie®" > wrote in message
...
>> RS Wood posted for all of us...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I have done all except #3.
>>
>> The worst job I consider is exhaust. I guess that has diminished these
>> days.
>>
>> The hardest is being a good diagnostician.
>
>Diagnostics can be challenging when *EVERYTHING* rattles.................
a hand full of loose nuts and bolts thrown into closed body sections
by disgruntled union workers during "job action" was the worst one I
had to deal with - AMC in '72??

A friend found a full can of beer inside e tire that wouldn't balance
- I believe it was a GM in the sixties? Early in the canned beer era,
anyway.

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 04:49:21 +0000, RS Wood wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Chains are hardly ideal. Chains wear. The wear changes the pitch
>> between the links and the links no longer quite fit on the sprockets.
>> It turns into a self reinforcing cycle. More wear = worse fit, worse
>> fit = accelerated wear. Eventually the poorly fitting chain will jump
>> one or more teeth on the crank gear or start breaking the teeth on the
>> cam gear.
>
> What are our choices?
> 1. Chain 2. Belt 3. Pushrod
>
> Anything else?
>
>> The other effect of chain wear is retarded cam timing. The more worn
>> links between the crank and cam, the more the camshaft timing gets
>> retarded. I changed timing sets on conventional OHV engines and that
>> usually advanced the ignition timing from 5 to 10 degrees, suggesting
>> that chain wear had retarded the timing by that amount.
>
> From a repair standpoint, how long do each typically last?
> 1. Chain ?

Depends what you mean by "how long does it typically last?"

Timing sets on OHV engines typically wouldn't totally fail at under
100,000 miles. Most of those sets were used in the days when cars were
junked at about that mileage. Alot of those cars were junked because the
timing set failed.

But I'd guess timing set wear would retard cam timing around 1/2 to 1
degree every 10,000 miles. If we set an arbitrary failure spec of, say 3
degrees, then the set would have gone out at 30 to 60,000 miles. Of
course, the car would run even if the camshaft were retarded more than
this and the driver usually became acclimated to the poorer performance
and gas mileage.

> 2. Belt ?

I don't know. My car requires belt replacement every 100,000 miles or
six years. I replaced the belt at eight years and it looked perfect.
There's no significant timing change as the belt ages, until it fails.
An insignificant number fail before the required maintenance time.

> 3. Pushrod ?

I don't know what you're getting at. Most US pushrod engines drive the
cam with sprockets and a chain. A few used gears. A few antique
motorcycles used tower shafts and bevel gears. Maybe some auto engines?
dunno.


>
> I don't hear anyone talking about pushrods, so, all I see here are that
> chains last a *lot* longer in general than do belts, where if either one
> broke on an interference engine, expensive things can happen.

Pushrod engines can be interference engines. Not sure what you're
getting at.

>
>> But I still prefer belts. Even on a tight package like a Dodge Neon
>> with the 4 speed auto, the replacement isn't too bad, once you know the
>> routine.
>
> If the replacement isn't bad, then the belt isn't 'as' bad.

Easiest belt replacement I ever did was on an early Fox body Mustang with
the 2.3 liter 4. Take of the drive belts, take off the timing belt
cover, swap the belts. With some practice and preperation, it would be a
clean, 15 minute job.

Much easier and cleaner than replacing a chain timing set!!


>
> In the general sense though, belts, I posit, are bad news multiplied.
> I try not to take things from the marketing-bull**** standpoint.
>
> My take is always from the *why* standpoint.
> Why did the automakers go to belts over chains?
>
> My supposition is that they did it to save them money.
> No other reason.

Camshaft timing.

>
> The tradoffs are legendary where the owner is the one who loses in the
> end calculation.

Belts became important when Overhead cams became important. A worn chain
in a cam in block engine has, off the top of my head, 10 links between
the crank sprocket and the cam sprocket. What about a OHC motor? Say 30
links? 10 worn links might retard cam timing 5 degrees. What about 30
worn links?


>
>
>>> Just like FWD cars and tricked-out cars are, to me, nearly worthless.
>>
>> I love front wheel drive, especially in the snow.
>
> Lots of cars are FWD that never see snow.
>
> In the general sense though, FWD, I posit, is bad news multiplied.
> I try not to take things from the marketing-bull**** standpoint.
>
> My take is always from the *why* standpoint.
> Why did the automakers go to FWD over RWD?
>
> My supposition is that they did it to save them money.
> No other reason.
>
> The tradoffs are legendary where the owner is the one who loses in the
> end calculation (particularly since deep snow is still on the road for
> what, maybe 10 days out of 365?)
>
> Anyone who mentions snow with FWD is falling directly into marketing
> hell.

Bull****. Here in Chicago, traffic flows much better in the snow than it
did 30 years ago. In fact, I haven't seen a car stuck in the snow in at
least a couple of years.

Stuck RWD cars used to impede rush hour traffic on a routine basis.
Nowadays, I haven't been late to work because of the snow in those two
years.

Or, maybe it's the FIRE OF MARKETING HELL that's taking care of the
snow. Either way, I'll take it.


> Just like anyone who mentions belts are "quieter" and "lighter" is
> doing.
>
> The sole reason for belts and FWD is to increase manufacturer's profits.
> Everything else is marketing bull**** because the tradeoffs are
> legendary.

I know. The "donut in a snowy parking lot" crowd is almost extinct.

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:59:09 +1100, Xeno >
wrote:

>On 7/11/2017 6:32 AM, Tekkie® wrote:
>> RS Wood posted for all of us...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I have done all except #3.
>>
>> The worst job I consider is exhaust. I guess that has diminished these days.
>>
>> The hardest is being a good diagnostician.
>>
>That is the easiest providing you have a good understanding of the
>underlying systems, possess a good range of diagnostic equipment and,
>finally, know how to use it. For judgemental issues, know first what is
>*normal*, then you can easily recognise *abnormal*.
Correct. What I taught all my students (and apprentices). The first
step in diagnosis is understanding how it is supposed to work, and
why. Then understand what the results of any malfunstion would be - -
When you see those symptoms, you have a pretty good idea what has gone
bad and where - as well as, very often, WHY.

Frank wrote:

> Bull****. Here in Chicago, traffic flows much better in the snow than it
> did 30 years ago. In fact, I haven't seen a car stuck in the snow in at
> least a couple of years.

People who believe in marketing bull**** never follow basic logic.

Here's simple logic (which may be too difficult for you to follow).

1. How many days in a year are you *driving* in *deep* snow?
2. Tell us what percentage that turns out to be.
3. Now, take that percentage and subtract it from one hundred percent.

That's the percentage you're getting the *other* handling out of FWD.

You may not want to answer the question because it's too logical a question
for someone to ask about handling tradeoffs given your extremely carefully
cherry-picked hand-crafted situations versus normal situations.

On 11/6/2017 6:19 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>> I only really started learning *after* I completed my apprenticeship -
>> and I've never stopped learning ever since.
>
> You stop learning only when you're dead.
>
> I learned a LOT in this thread, particularly about WHY engines last
> forever, and why exhausts last forever, and why bearings last forever, and
> why ball joints last forever.
>
> That's all good.
>
> I didn't learn a thing on rings that I didn't already know though.
>
> I'm all prepared to learn how the metallurgy or shape of rings is different
> nowadays versus yesteryear, but I haven't seen any reference that shows
> even the slightest improvement over the years.
>
> It might be there, but saying it's there isn't the same as it being there.
> Proof in logic is always very simple.
>

Everything is simple and seems logical when you don't know
what you don't know.

On a 1965 Chevy small block, measurable improvements can be
had with modern ring technology[1]. Here's a big block, but
the principles are the same:

http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/pro...e-part-twenty/

check out the chart #5/10!
Discussion of materials, coatings, temper, tolerances and
fitting on that page as well.

That's just a specific engine with which I am very familiar.
Web's got thousands of other examples.

[1] Not the only improvement to be had, but you mentioned
classic vs modern rings.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 04:48:45 +0000, RS Wood wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> 10W 40 would coke up faster than 10W 30, for what it's worth.
>
> I just mentioned that, but I didn't look for references.
> Do we all generally agree that the *spread* is what causes the coking?

No. Synthetics have a natural "spread" that conventional oils don't.
Conventional oils need additives to achieve their spread. I suppose it's
the multigrade additives that coke up the most, not the oil itself.

As I understand it, conventional oils are a mishmash of hydrocarbons
which react more strongly to temperature.

Maybe this doesn't relate exactly, but consider water. The viscosity of
water doesn't change much from freezing point to boiling point. The
molecules are all the same and they're all acting the same.

Ideally, motor oil wouldn't react to temperature. A perfect viscosity
oil would flow the same at a cold startup as it does at normal
temperature. That doesn't happen, but synthetics are much better in that
regard and is why a much wider spread is possible with a synthetic.


>
> 0W30 has a spread of 30 5W30 has a spread of 25 10W40 has a spread of 30
> 30W40 has a spread of 10 <--- this has the lowest coking
>
> If we agree on that concept of coking:spread, then the question is how
> much does coking actually matter and under what conditions does coking
> matter?

Coking matters to the extent that it plugs filters and oil passages. The
coke is hard and can abrade bearing surfaces.

On 7/11/2017 11:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, RS Wood > wrote:
>>
>> If you think rotors warp in street use then you should be able to find a
>> ton of references to back up your logic.
>
> Rotors warp in street use all the time when the kids at the chain store use
> impact wrenches instead of a proper torque wrench to take tires off and
> put them back on.
>
> And of COURSE the chain store blames the driver, the tires, the phase
> of the moon, for it. "You must be going over potholes too hard."
> --scott
>
That's been a pet peeve of mine for decades. I hate inappropriate use of
air tools - and final torquing nuts with them is one of those peeves.








--

Xeno

On 7/11/2017 11:35 AM, RS Wood wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Which is the most reliable?
>>>
>> Gear by far, chain next, belt last.
>
> Interesting. Makes sense.
> Are gears prevalent?

Used to be on cars. Noise was the issue. Phenolic resin gears solved
that issue but then gear longevity was sacrificed to the god of noise.
Used to change a lot of stripped phenolic resin gears back in the 60s
and 70s.

> If not, is the main reason the cost?
>
On larger diesel engines noise isn't a factor and longevity is. Cost is
less of an issue when long life is the requirement.

Or performance with reliability as in this BMW F1 engine

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/I...iminggears.jpg

Gears become an issue with distance, as is the case with OHC. In that
case you need too many idler gears so a chain or belt is more
efficacious. From memory, the Toyota KZ engines had both gears and then
a belt to the OHC.


--

Xeno