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

Xeno wrote:

>> I've never painted a car. I suppose some day I'll give rebuilding an
>> automatic transmission a shot, but I've been lucky so far.
>
> Lots of traps for the unwary in that little task.

I don't disagree that an automatic is a completely different thing to
rebuild than a manual would be for a typical rebuild.

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/>

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=true?>

I'm talking legal normal street driving speeds because we're not talking
racing here.

wrote:

>>Pads, under extremes of heat, give off gases. It is the presence of
>>those gases *between* the pads and the disc that prevents the friction
>>from happening. The gases make the pads operate more like a hovercraft.
>>The slots provide a means by which the gases can quickly escape.
>>In a road going car, slotted rotors are probably overkill. Not so on
>>high performance vehicles.
>
>
> 100% correct - on both counts.

Marketing bull**** and applying racing specifics to street cars is classic
bull**** moves, where we've all had this happen to us a billion times.

Just show a reliable reference on the entire Internet ... just one ... that
proves that without changing anything else ... in a normally driven street
car ... which is what we're talking about here ... that any of that above
isn't anything other than marketing bull****.

Just one reference from the entirety of the Internet.
You show it ... I'll read it.

Until then, it's marketing bull****.

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 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 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.

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 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?

wrote:

> e "better rings" has to be better ... somehow ... in some way.
>
> Better design, better metalurgy

Sounds just like really good marketing bull****.
It might be true. It might not be true.
That's the thing about marketing bull****.

A ring has a metallurgy. It has a cross section. It even has a diameter in
so much as there is a slot for blowby. And there are other rings.

I know all that.

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.

How is the design better?
How is the metallurgy better?

Proof?
That's all I ask.

No proof is needed where logic prevails (as in the carb to efi story).
But proof is needed for rings having better steel or cross sections.

>>
>>Where a piston ring is a pretty simple thing (in practice).
>
> Actually a LOT of science involved in the base metalurgy, the torsion
> design, the surface finish - moly filled, chromed, etc, as well as the
> thickness and tension of the rings.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. More bull****.
We all know that stuff.
Really.
We do.

We're all engineers here (at least I am).
I know *everything* has details that would knock your socks off.

But at the level we're talking, for you to say rings are better and hence
engines last longer, requires *more* than bull**** opinions.

That's all.
Is proof so very hard to ask for?

> The ring used in a dragster engine, truck engine, and standard street
> engine will all be significantly different.

More bull****.
Every time someone brings in racing they're trying to defend bull****.
Why don't you tell me to drive on the street with bald tires too?

I'm kind of sick of bull**** ... so sorry if I'm cross.
I just ask for something simple.

If you're gonna say rings improved so much that they make engines last
longer, just stammering that "metallurgy made them do it" is fine, except
nobody is gonna believe that without some proof.

Likewise with cross sections. Sure, it *can* happen. But did it?
Where's the beef?

>>Pray tell ... what on earth do you think is *better* about a ring of steel
>>today from that same ring of steel of yesteryear?
> You just do not understand the complexity of ring sealing - how they
> must twist - and bend to seal as both the rings and cyls change size
> and shape as they heat and cool.

More bull****. I'm sick of bull****.

I know every single thing is complex when you get down to the grass roots.
Do you know how freakin' complicated a spark plug is when you get down to
the nitty gritty.

And yet, all it does is allow a spark to jump across a gap.
A ring is pretty simple in what it does and, like everything, it's complex
as all hell if you are the designer of them.

I get that.

But every bull****ter on the planet begins his bull**** with a blanket
statement and then when challenged, instead of finding proof, the
bull****ter then stammers that racers do it (we already saw that
racers-do-it bull**** on the drilled-versus-slotted rotor bull**** and on
the warped-rotor bull****).

Then when you challenge that bull**** with logic, they then go into
marketing bull**** mode by bringing out all the bull**** that is
meaningless but which is intended to cow the recipient into submission
because the recipient isn't a piston-ring engineer.

Let's drip this because you're gonna reply with *more* bull****, when the
only reasonable reply is factual scientific references.

I'm not gonna look them up because I can smell bull**** a mile away.
If you're not gonna look them up, then let's just drop it.

So as to stop this nonsense, I won't respond further to any
rings-are-better opinion that doesn't have a reliable reference attached.

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?

Xeno wrote:

>> You can take three weeks to do your alignment.
>
> If it was going to take me three weeks to do a wheel alignment on my own
> car, it would be taken to the professional wheel aligners and they would
> get the job.
>
>> They have to do it in 1/2 hour.
>
> It's not that they have to, it's that they *can do it in 1/2 hour*. In
> fact, with the right wheel aligner, I could do a full wheel alignment in
> significantly less time.

I was just pointing out that time isn't the issue for home whereas time is
everything for a shop.

That has a HUGE influence on the tools required.

Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool (and I've met a *lot* of fools
who insist you have to have a shop's equipment to do things like alignment
or replacing the clutch or changing tires - but they're just fools and
that's that).

Fools forget the tool equation is totally different for a shop.

Especially for a wheel alignment where you can do caster on day one, and
then do camber on day two and toe on day three and it won't make a
realistic difference from having done all three on day 1.

>> My oil changes easily take me a couple of hours.
>> A two-hour oil change at a shop would be unheard of.
>
> It'll be unheard of around here too.

My point again is that you can do a great oil change at home without the
kind of equipment that a shop has.

The tools for a shop are different than the tools for home.

How well the job is done is NOT dependent on the tools.
It's the attitude of the person changing the oil that matters.

And their education (e.g., viscosity spread, oil quality, filter quality,
new gaskets, sufficient drainage of the old oil, proper tightening of the
filter, etc.)

Time isn't the issue.
Tools aren't the issue.
Quality of results is the issue.

> You don't pay the tradesman for what he does, you pay him for what he
> knows and his *experience*. These days that can also include access to
> TSBs and relevant factory data.

Wrong.
Dead wrong.

I don't want to count the number of times I've seen a tradesman do the job
wrong. I just don't. I have example after example after example after
example.

In no case did he not *know* he was doing the job wrong.
He just didn't care to do the job right.

You're paying him to do the job right.

RS Wood wrote:

> Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool (and I've met a *lot* of fools
> who insist you have to have a shop's equipment to do things like alignment
> or replacing the clutch or changing tires - but they're just fools and
> that's that).
>
> Fools forget the tool equation is totally different for a shop.

I think I got cranky.
Apologies.