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

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:35 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>>>I just wish I could have done that on my own, without paying $100 for
>>>someone else to twist a bolt that I could have twisted myself.
>> You paid $10 to twist the bolt and $90 to know how far to turn what
>> bolt in what direction!!
>
>Good point.
>But I would rather have paid $100 for the tool to measure to know that I
>twisted the bolt as far as it could go.
>
>In the case of my rear camber, it was maxed out at 0 degrees, so, in
>hindsight, I guess I could have done it sans any measurement at all.
>
>
You paid $90 to find that out. Consider it money well spent and move
on with your life.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:45 +0000 (UTC), 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?
>
>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
Never seen 30W40 and 0W30 is a synthetic, so MUCH more coke resistant
than any conventional oil. Use the oil recomended by the manufacturer
- in the case of my Fords and my daughter's Hyundai that is a 5w20 or
0W20 synthetic oil - which I change twice a year, which is less than
10,000KM per change
>
>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?
No - "spread" does not cause coking. Heat and time does. The
"spread" in conventional oil means the viscosity index will break down
faster than a narrow spread - it will loose it's ability to maintain
viscosity at temperature due to "shearing" of the long-chain polymers
used in VI improvers.
High spread synthetic oils suffer a LOT less from this problem - and
in the vast majority of "coking" problems, the simple expediency of
changing the oil on the "severe service" schedule will totally
eliminate the ptoblem. Also, the use of the much more chemically
stable synthetic oil virtually eliminates the problem.

Even the "viscosity shear" is NOT a problem with 3000 mile or 5000km
oil changes.

EDxtended drain intervals have made garages more money, and cost car
owners more money, that the money saved on oil changes by a pretty
good margin.

Coking matters - it reduces oil flow which causes higher temperatures
which cause more coking, which further reduces oil flow, and if any of
those "diamods" brak loose they play hell on bearings, or can cause
pressure regulator valves to stick/leak, or tear the heck out of
timing chain tensioners.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:47 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>>>What doesn't last longer on a car nowadays?
>> Sometimes things like power lock actuators and some electrical
>> connections
>
>I was watching a video by the MythBusters on how to get out of a car that
>is sinking in a pond (pool in their case) where someone mentions to roll
>down the windows ... heh heh ...
>
>When's the last time you saw a roll-down window?
Every car I've owned except for my Mark 1 Mini has "wind down" windows
- just because they are electric doesn't change the fact they are
"wind down" and the window motors WILL run under water - at least
once.
The mini had "sliders"

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
> 3. Repair hassle is probably about the same
>
> The question is how long is the typical MTBF for a belt versus a chain?

Depends on the particular engine. Most belts are around 60K change
interval, and many are not hard to do. Then you have vehicles with
chains, a good design will go 2-300K with no real issues. The ****ty
designs fail around 50-60K and do more damage than just the valves if it
drops into the lower sprocket on a stick that rolls a bit.
GMs 3.6 and some others use a VERY light chain that stretches and breaks.


--
Steve W.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:49 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

wrote:
>
Snipped for brevity
>
>I don't think I've seen rust on my cars in decades, but when I lived back
>east with my Z cars, they rusted out like crazy.
>
>So a lot of this stuff depends on the environment.

Corect
>
>>>And they're still cheap as they always were.
>>
>> Not sure if you call $14.99 each cheap - sometimes available on sale
>> for just under $10 (Autolite double platinum) or Motorcraft SP515
>> plugs at $20.75 Canadian (for Ford Triton 5.4)
>
>I haven't bought plugs in a while.
>I'm thinking half the price you're quoting.
>But it has been a while.

Depends what you drive and what plugs it needs. Waste spark engines
basically require double platinum plugs (they fire in both polarities)
and 5.4 Tritons use a very specific specialized plug.
>
>> The cold starts USED to be the big issue with carbureted engines -
>> due to cyl wash, fuel dilution, and poor barrier lubrication - not so
>> much today.
>
>I stand edified that carbs to EFI is a *major* factor in improving engine
>life. Less liquid gas in the oil is a good thing for engine life.
>
>> Everthing else being the same - which is seldome the case, an engine
>> run at over 90% output for half it's life will not last as long as an
>> engine run at less than 30% output for over 75% of it's life.
>
>Gearing matters.
>
>> If I have a Ford Ranger with a 2.5 4 cyl and one with a 4.0 V6 - and I
>> run them both at rated capacity on the highway under the same
>> conditions, the bigger motor will last longer / wear less than the
>> smaller engine - whether the gearing is different or not.
>
>I don't believe it.
You don't have to. It's true -
>
>A car engine is almost never run at full bore BHP.

My mini and my bug were run wide open almost all the time.
>And gearing makes a huge difference anyway.
and the final drive gearing can be identical between engines - and if
not the little engine is reving a lot higher. Gearing cannot change
the power output - only the road torque. You trade rpm for torque by
gearing.
>
>Sounds good that bigger engines last longer but I don't believe it.
>We'd need some facts.
>
>> Things like load. Sure - if like MOST pickups on the road today they
>> are never loaded or worked - no difference.
>
>Exactly my point.
But if loaded - BIG difference.
>
>> If a car is just tooled around town with 1 or 2 people in it - no
>> difference. Neither one is ever being worked hard enough to hurt
>> itself.
>
>Exactly my point.
Load that 2.4 liter PT cruiser with 4 adults and luggage for a 3 week
road trip - then drive it throgh the laurentians and back through the
appalachians and tell me it's not working like a sled dog.
>
>Now if you use the truck at full bore BHP to pull an airplane to takeoff
>speeds on the airport runway, then the bigger engine should last longer.
>
How about pulling a house trailer up 4th of july pass in idaho -
something like 13 miles of 5% grade - or up the Coquahala at Hope BC.
>
>>>Now if you told me one engine had 10K cold starts and 20K short trips,
>>>while the other only had 1K cold starts and had mostly long trips, then
>>>*that* would be a factor in engine life.
>>
>> Take that TOTALLY out of the equation - I said "all other things
>> being equal".
>
>I agree with you that we'd have to compare the life of a big engine veruss
>a small engine in a vehicle where they both do the same things which we can
>assume are normal things.
>
>If you pull redwood trees uphill, then I can see bigger engines lasting
>longer.
>
>But if you just tool around town, like I do, I can't imagine that a bigger
>engine has any longevity over a smaller engine all else being equal.
>
>Gears make a bigger difference.

They make a bigger difference on my bicycle which I tool around town
on - - -
>
>> The amount of repairs I've needed to do an ANY of my vehicles in the
>> last 20 yeats is SO small "getting at" the engine is not much of a
>> concern to me.
>
>But have you needed to do any of these repairs?
>1. painting
Just some touchup where the tinted clearcoat pealed on the 02 Taurus
>2. alignment
Nope
>3. replace/rebuild engine (or major work)
Nope - not since replacing the heads on the 88 New Yorker 3.0 liter
Mitso****ty engine
>4. clutch replacement (or major work)
Paid my brother to replace the clutch when I bought the truck because
I was busy earning money
>5. tire mounting and balancing
Nope - I paid to have my Haks and Michelins installed for the truck,
and the Tiger Paws on the Taurus. Bought the used snows on rims for
the taurus (virtually new)
>6. timing belt
Last one I did on my own car was the '81 Tercel. Haven't had a belt
that required replacement since
>
>To me, these half-dozen repairs almost nobody does at home, but I *wish* I
>had done at home when I had the chance.

Most people will never require 1,3, or 4 - and very few will require
#6 either since so many have gone back to chains
>
>My recommendation to a kid of 30 or 40 years old would be to *do* them when
>he has the chance, just as I'd tell him to climb that mountain he always
>wanted to climb.

Only do it if theyenjoy it - rather climb that mountain in the time
it would take to do the repair - and do what you do well and get paid
well for - and use that money to pay the guy who does that job well.
Thats what keeps the economy going.
>
>When he gets older, he won't be able to do it anymore, and the economics of
>the benefits will be less as he ages.
The actual economics / benefits are often less than you think when
all is said and done - - - Break off a bolt or a spark plug
(thinking Triton 5.4 here) and the cost goes WAY higher than paying
the guywho knows to do it right in the first place - - - - -

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:51 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>>>A good Fluke DMM is de rigueur though, I agree, for any homeowner.
>>
>> Absolutely no need to waste money on a "Fluke" branded meter. LOTS of
>> lower cost stuff out there that is more than accurate enough for
>> automotive electronics use.
>
>This is true. I *love* my Fluke 75.
>But any $10 meter will work just fine.
>I agree with you.
>
>>>It's the same old tools, with minor exceptions of emissions and ECU/DMU/ABS
>>>control, isn't it?
>> Different brake tools for some disc brakes - torque to angle or
>> angle to torque adapters for "torque to tield" bolts. Special
>> wrenches/sockets for certain sensors - but not a lot of essoteric and
>> complex stuff.
>
>I agree with you that, for the most part, there aren't a lot of special
>tools needed for new cars.
>
>I just looked in my tuneup kit, and I saw some special distributor wrenches
>and a special flat file and the spark plug gappers, etc., so I think one
>thing that did not change over the years is the need for special tools.
>
>In both yesteryear and today, there are 'some' but not many special tools
>needed - but for the most part - the tools needed are about the same.
>
>I think the main difference is that a lot of us have battery-powered tools
>that we never had in days of yore. We also all have air tools now.
>
>Did everyone at home have air tools in the olden days?
Nope. They cost almost as much back then when the dollar was worth a
LOT more. Didn't have Chines tools pushing the price down, and the
volume up.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:53 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Not just mufflers any more. They were smart enough to evolve into other
>> auto services like brakes, shocks, and the like. As cars get more
>> sophisticated the more you have to rely on the dealer also. My Genesis
>> was dealer service because the local guy could not get the right oil
>> filter for it. The NAPA nest door did not carry it as it is a low
>> volume item.
>
>I agree on Midas Muffler because they do other stuff and there is no way
>they're staying in business on just mufflers nowadays.
>
>I disagree on the dealer being required for anything.
>
>To me, the dealer is whom you go to when you're under the original factory
>warranty and then that's the last time you ever go do the dealer.
Thankfully many customers felt differently when I was in the
dealership - where I made sure the customers got good value for their
money and their loyalty.
There are things the dealer KNOWS about the car that the average
mechanic may NEVER know - things to look for to prevent problems from
ocurring. - like making sure the diff vent valves on RWD Toyotas are
free every time the car is on the hoist - meaning you virtualkly NEVER
need to replace axle bearings and seals - which will leak quickly if
the vent sticks.
>
>I have nothing against the dealer except one thing, which is why they're
>called the 'stealer'. But that's a biggie.

Some are - some are not. I had the highest customer retention of any
Toyota dealer in Canada - usually well over 100% - which meant we
regularly serviced more cars than we sold - even after they were out
of warranty.
>
>The only other reason you go to the dealer is to buy parts that they might
>stock where you need them now (e.g., you broke a bolt or forget a gasket
>and you're in the middle of the job) but expect to pay more than double for
>those parts than anywhere else.
Not always true. I've found many parts are the same price or cheaper
at the dealer than at the local jobber - and cheaper than buying from
Rock Auto and payinf shipping and brokerage.
>
>I go to an indy for alignment and clutch and tires, etc., where I couldn't
>imagine payking the price for the same job at the dealer.

A good independent and a good dealer can both come in handy. My
brother operated an independent shop for several decades (after
working for several dealers and independents) while I worked for both
dealers and insdependents
>
>Of course, I *wish* I could do these jobs myself at home!
>1. painting
>2. alignment
>3. replace/rebuild engine (or major repairs)
>4. clutch replacement
>5. tire mounting and balancing
>6. timing belt or chain
>
>But I think I lost my chance.
>If some 30-year-old kid asked me if they should do those jobs, I'd say
>"Hell yes", just as if they asked me should they hike down into the Grand
>Canyon or if they should hike across the Sahara Desert (with water).
>
>If you don't do it when you can, you'll never do it ever.
>And you'll never learn anything if you never do it.
>
>That would be my advice, anyway.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:58 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> A cut-off wheel on a grinder or a "muffler chisel" - preterably on an
>> air hammer, also makes muffler repair a lot easier - but the "blue tip
>> wrench" is pretty universal
>
>This is a good point in that my angle grinder would make short work of a
>reticent pipe, but when I worked on mufflers, I didn't have such tools.
>
>Did any of us have angle grinders at home in those days?
>Certainly we didn't have decent battery operated tools like we do today.
>
>I love the term "blue-tip wrench".
>I have a saying that no bolt will ever win, since I have that thing!
>
>> My 16 year old taurus has stainless exhaust, as does my 22 year old
>> Ranger. So did my Mystique, originally - but when a flange broke for
>> the original owner some bandit sold him a complete walker mild steel
>> system. After I got it, I replaced it again with stainless. The last
>> car s I ownwd without factory stainless exhaust were th '90 aerostar
>> and the '88 New Yorker. My daughres' Honda Civic and Hyundai Elantra
>> both have stainless systems - the Honda's a 2008.
>
>I think the consensus is pretty much that most of us have had SS for quite
>a long time, which is why the exhaust system now lasts the life of the car
>or nearly so.
>
>I haven't bothered to search, but it's my understanding the car companies
>did not do that out of goodwill toward us - but out of gov requirements
>that they have to warrant the exhaust system for longer periods of time.


They only need to warrant it to the last converter and sensor.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:49:02 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Better material, better tolerances, possibly better design. When is the
>> last time you got a ring job on your car? It was common in the 1950s to
>> do rings and bearings at about 50,000 miles. Lubricants are a factor
>> too, but engines today can easily last 200,000 miles with the same
>> internal parts. Do you think those rings are the same?
>
>I'm not going to argue that anything *can* be designed better.
>But a ring is a pretty simple thing.
>It has a certain cross section. A certain material. And that's it.
>
>I certainly can believe that a quantum leap in either the cross section or
>the material happened, but all I'm asking for is proof.
>
>I think the argument that ring jobs were common isn't really gonna fly
>because we already learned that a huge problem is gasoline liquid in the
>cylinders upon startup - which itself was vastly reduced by EFI over carbs.
>
>So, rings being better ... might ... be true.
>But it's a hard one to swallow without something said about how rings are
>better today.
>
>Especially since there are really very few possible factors:
>1. Material, size, and cross section of rings, then and now, or
>2. Geometry inside the piston (e.g., number or spacing of rings)
>
>What could possibly be better about rings today?
As I posted earlier - a LOT.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:49:07 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>>>What's the old voltage? Something like 10K to 15K volts, right?
>>>What is the new voltage zap?
>> 60K plus
>
>The whole reason that the voltage doesn't kill us when we get zapped is
>that the current is low.
>
>Someone said the *duration* is longer nowadays, but nobody mentioned
>current.
>
>Is the current about the same?
It is high enogh to kill you if it hits you at the right point in the
heart-beat and actually flows through the heart (depends where you get
grounded) 100 miliamps can kill you as dead as 100 amps.