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

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>> Been there, done that, with E Series Leyland Engines. Have to say though
>> that if the valves and seats are decent, adjustments are not regular
>> events. There's a lot of margin built in. If you don't mind regular
>> clearance checking and adjustments, you can run closer than factory
>> specs and gain the effect of a hotter cam.
>>
>> A set of pre-measured, marked and sorted shims is a handy thing to have
>> around.
>
> We're talking two different things:
> 1. Ignition timing on a motorcycle
> 2. Valve clearance adjustment on a motorcycle

Valve clearance adjustment is, well, valve clearance adjustment no
matter what type of engine it is on. Done it on all types - including
motorcycles and huge diesels. It's no different.
>
> Both of which I have done on multiple motorcycles, where the whole point of
> this thread is that just having done such things once is a *pleasure*
> because the inherent *understanding* of everything you say is there.
>
> For example, the ignition timing on a motorcycle that I did was simple, but
> nothing like that of a car, in that I just put a light or buzzer or
> resistance meter across the points and screwed in a dial gauge into the
> number one cylinder, and adjusted the point plate so that the points opened
> at the specified xx mmm before TDC.

Used to do the same with a test light and rotated the engine around. The
difference was that, in most cases, I used timing marks but mm before
TDC is really no different. You are still measuring crank angle by
another means.
>
> The valve clearance was just as easy, where I simply measured the clearance
> with feeler gauges and then replaced the old shim with a larger shim where
> the half-moon crescent-on-a-handle tool worked perfectly slid up under to
> depress the (rocker arm?) so I could remove the old shim and replace with a
> thicker shim.
>
> My main point in this thread is that there is an exquisite pleasure that I
> derive from having done such things at least once, so that I can
> UNDERTSTAND what is it you speak about.

I used to do it for a living. I didn't derive the same exquisite
pleasure that you seem to do.
>
> For example, I REMEMBER (belatedly) that tool, which rbowman knew about.
> I wouldn't have that memory if I hadn't done the job.

I know about that tool but I have never needed to do ignition timing in
that manner. There are usually easier ways.
>
> My main regret in such things is that I didn't do these jobs at home when I
> was a kid of 30 or 40 years old in the days of yore......
> 1. painting
> 2. alignment
> 3. replace/rebuild engine (including VCG and head gasket)
> 4. clutch replacement
> 5. tire mounting and balancing
> 6. timing belt (or chain)
>
> I am positing that it would have costs an average of about two hundred
> dollars each for tools which is $1200 but that the labor costs alone for
> all those jobs is 10x that, so, cost isn't the issue.
>
> I don't know WHY I never did those jobs.
> But I wish I had.
>
I did all those jobs and many many more. I wish now I hadn't and instead
took up a different career. I did move into auto teaching for the last
20 years of my automotive career and I found that much more satisfying.

--

Xeno

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> rbowman wrote:
>
>>> All I needed was the feeler gauges at the top, plus some Suzuki shims:
>>> <https://i.imgur.com/XSW3lhK.jpg>
>>
>> Shim over buckets? Yamaha had a tool that would hold the bucket down for
>> some of their engines so you could get the shims out. Shims under the
>> bucket means you pull the cams.
>
> Oh yeah! I remember that tool! I used it on my 650 four stroke engine!
>
> It was beautifully shaped, with a handle and a half-moon crescent.
> I just looked in my tune-up box, and found a bunch of other small tools
> tucked away under what I snapped a photo of ... but that lovely tool isn't
> there.
>
> I haven't seen it in decades ... but it's somewhere.
> The fact you even *know* about that tool means you know what you speak of.

I have fabricated such tools.
>
> That's what I *love* about having done the job at least once!
> (Which is the whole point of this thread, after all.)
>
> Taking an off-color example, if you never had sex with a woman, how could
> you possibly describe it accurately to someone else?
>


--

Xeno

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.

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Steve W. wrote:
>
>> Chains don't mean a lot when they drop them down to bicycle sizes with
>> small pins. Things stretch like cheap rope.
>
> I think the only reason manufactures went to belts is to increase their
> profits, so I wonder if there is any value to a belt AFTER you look at the
> tradoffs.
>
> The real question for a repair group would be the main factors:
> 1. Reliability of chain versus belt
> 2. Damage potential of chain versus belt
> 3. Repair hassle of chain versus belt
>
> Let's ignore the marketing bull**** (e.g., lighter, quieter, etc.) for this
> thread to concentrate on the reliability and repair-related issues.
>
> As I already noted, I *wish* I had replaced a timing chain in my life, but
> just like I've never owned a FWD vehicle (and I lived in a "snow state" for
> decades), I have never had a belt car and I've never had a chain break on
> me.
>
> So I have no experience.
> But....
>
> I posit that:
> 1. The chain is *far* more reliable than the belt
> 2. Both can ruin an interference engine if they break

The chain will give you fair warning - it will rattle before it breaks.
A belt will not.

> 3. Repair hassle is probably about the same
>
> The question is how long is the typical MTBF for a belt versus a chain?
>
typical belt replacement interval 40-60k miles. For chains, double or
triple that without an issue.

--

Xeno

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.

>>
>> 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.

> the inbuilt tyre UV protection is typically good for 5 to 7 years.

That's more than twice the time I need!


> 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.

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).

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>>>> I have Toyotas precisely because they have a chain.
>>> Some do, some don't. (perhaps today they all do - not sure)
>>>
>> The ones I buy sure do! ;-)
>
> Two vehicles that are worthless to me:
> 1. FWD
> 2. Belt
>
The past half dozen cars I've had have been FWD. I don't have a problem
with them. My first FWD car was a Morris Mini back in 74 and I have had
heaps of them since. Had heaps of RWD cars too. Totals in the hundreds.

--

Xeno

RS Wood wrote:

> If you have an EE pad that meets all your bull**** requirements, then it's
> still a worthless pad

I think I got cranky.
Apologies.

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, 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 =orse 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

Pushrod is a false comparison because they can be gear, chain or belt
driven.

Just add gear to your list and delete pushrod. We are talking about
driving the *camshaft*. gear, chain, belt. There are a few varieties of
chain in use; single row, double row, hyvo.
>
> 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 ?
> 2. Belt ?
> 3. Pushrod ?
>
> I don't hear anyone talking about pushrods, so, all I see here are that

That's because pushrods don't drive camshafts. Pushrods are *driven* by
camshafts.

> chains last a *lot* longer in general than do belts, where if either one
> broke on an interference engine, expensive things can happen.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The tradoffs are legendary where the owner is the one who loses in the end
> calculation.
>
>
>>> 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.
> 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.
>


--

Xeno

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> The $50 figure is about 30 years old. If it was accurate at the time is
>> would be double that today and there was still a lot of engineering and
>> new tooling to pay for. That said, I have no ideal today.
>
> I remember $1000 but they didn't pass that on to the consumer in toto.

Cars are cheaper now than they were when I was a boy.
>
> What irks me the most isn't that they make FWD cars, just like it doesn't
> irk me that they make convertibles or muscle cars or economy cars or luxury
> cars.
>
> What irks me about FWD is that the hoi polloi do not UNDERSTAND what FWD
> gets them.
>
> I posit it gets them almost nothing.
>
> Then the hoi polloi don't understand what they lose.
>
> I posit they lose handling.

They gain handling as long as they understand it's *different handling*.
>
> Maybe FWD is better now ... but I think I'll have to go to my deathbed
> before owning a FWD car... simply because I don't want to fall for the
> marketing trap that everyone else easily falls into.
>
FWD works for me.

--

Xeno

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> 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.
>
Far more than most people realise. Even more complex now that trans
operation is integrated with a TCU and the ECU.

--

Xeno