Re: Advice on replacing 94-97 Accord muffler? Dealing with rubber hangers?
Tegger
@newsfe08.iad:
> I'd like to replace the muffler on my 94 Accord LX with either a
> Honda part or one made by Bosal (281-365). But in looking carefully
> at how the original muffler is mounted, I see that there are three
> oval rubber hangers that hold the muffler in place. It's not clear
> how I would deal with these hangers. The metal bars that go into
> the holes in the hangers are welded to the car or the muffler, and
> the hangers don't look very stretchy. Do they just "persuade" on
> and off with enough force, or is there some trick I don't know
> about?
They just "persuade off". The rubber is extremely tough, so don't worry
about tearing them. But with your car's age, it wouldn't be a bad idea at
all to buy new ones (about $5 each) from the dealer.
When reinstalling, use some dishwashing liquid as a lube to make everything
slide back together again.
Sand off the rust from the metal bars that are attached to the car's body.
This will reduce their effective diameters so as to make it easier to get
the hangers back onto the wires.
A couple of screwdrivers as "helpers" is also handy.
If you plan on keeping the car for a long time, I would STRONGLY suggest
the OEM Honda part in spite of the cost. It's /far/ better quality than any
aftermarket, and the purchase price comes with a lifetime guarantee that
puts the aftermarket to shame.
Remember that the Honda part is one-piece from the back of the B-pipe to
the tailpipe. And you'll notice the hangers are far more robust than
aftermarket.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Peabody
> They just "persuade off". The rubber is extremely tough,
> so don't worry about tearing them. But with your car's
> age, it wouldn't be a bad idea at all to buy new ones
> (about $5 each) from the dealer.
Thanks very much for the clarification, Tegger.
> If you plan on keeping the car for a long time, I would
> STRONGLY suggest the OEM Honda part in spite of the
> cost. It's /far/ better quality than any aftermarket,
> and the purchase price comes with a lifetime guarantee
> that puts the aftermarket to shame.
Well, what I'm looking at is a direct-fit replacement made
by Bosal. These are available at RockAuto for about $90,
that's for #281-365, and a Honda would be $219 at the
dealer, or maybe $150 online. But the Bosal is not a
generic oval can. It looks exactly like the Honda muffler,
installs the same way, and supposedly is made of aluminzed
steel, whatever that means.
Is there a chance the Bosal would be the same quality as
Honda, or that Bosal is even the Honda US muffler supplier?
http://www.bosalna.com/index.php?mod=exhaust
But,if you were going to buy a genuine Honda muffler, where
would you shop for the best price?
If I have this done by a local shop (not the dealer), I'm
looking at $275 for a Honda muffler, installed. I'm pretty
handy, but of course don't have a lift. So I have mixed
feelings about trying this myself. In theory it should be
doable - I have the right sockets for the front bolts, and
if I can persuade the rubber hangers, I really don't see why
it wouldn't work. It would be nice to save all that money
for maybe an hour's work.
Stewart
"Peabody" <waybackNO...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9cZTm.49774$ky1....@newsfe14.iad...
Don't forget, it's about $50 a knuckle these days, so if you draw
blood on 3 or 4, the dealer cost starts to look a lot better!
Tegger
@newsfe14.iad:
>
> Well, what I'm looking at is a direct-fit replacement made
> by Bosal. These are available at RockAuto for about $90,
> that's for #281-365, and a Honda would be $219 at the
> dealer, or maybe $150 online. But the Bosal is not a
> generic oval can. It looks exactly like the Honda muffler,
> installs the same way, and supposedly is made of aluminzed
> steel, whatever that means.
>
> Is there a chance the Bosal would be the same quality as
> Honda, or that Bosal is even the Honda US muffler supplier?
Bosal is indeed a Honda OEM supplier, but that doesn't mean they sell the
same quality into the aftermarket that they do to Honda. FRAM is also a
Honda supplier, but are their aftermarket filters the same as what they
sell to Honda?
It's highly unlikely the aftermarket part is exactly the same as the Honda
one. Don't just look at the can, look also at the rest of the system. Is
the steel of equal thickness and quality? Are the hangers exactly the same?
Are the mounting flanges exactly the same? Are the welds of equal quality?
>
> http://www.bosalna.com/index.php?mod=exhaust
>
> But,if you were going to buy a genuine Honda muffler, where
> would you shop for the best price?
Any Honda dealer. Nobody but a Honda dealer can sell Honda parts. Ask all
the dealers in your area for their price.
>
> If I have this done by a local shop (not the dealer), I'm
> looking at $275 for a Honda muffler, installed.
It won't be OEM Honda, but an aftermarket "OEM spec" muffler. "OEM spec"
means they tried a (very) little bit harder to make it less crappy than
their usual aftermarket shit.
nwf_snake
Accord. Looks and fit like the stock unit. Reused the rubber
hangars, but got new gaskets and bolts as well as a stainless tip.
Nice and quiet again.! They were offereing a $40 rebate on the
muffler when I purchased it.
JRE
For the vast majority of aftermarket exhaust parts, I agree with your
assessment. Many are poorly made and do not last nearly a long as OEM.
I also agree that OEM oil filters are usually worth the slight extra
cost, and I have never put an aftermarket filter on a Honda.
However, for our early 90's Hondas (a Civic and an Accord), I have seen
_no_ significant difference in lifetime between Bosal exhaust parts and
Honda parts. In fact, the original B pipe failed *under warranty* on
the Accord, then less than three years old, at 35,950 miles. (Enough
warranty miles left to make it home from work and then to the nearest
dealer with a few to go. Perfect timing!) This is on a car that makes
a minimum one-way trip of about 17 miles, too, not an around-town car
that never gets the exhaust hot enough to boil off the water when the
weather is cold.
The Bosal pipes, mufflers, and resonators are well made and have always
bolted up perfectly to both other Bosal pipes and Honda pipes. The only
significant difference I can see is that the OEM pipes have flanged
hangers (to help hold the rubber donuts on) and the Bosal pipes have
straight hangers bent at the end for retention instead (no, they do not
fall off).
Had I known the car would last this long, I'd have invested in a
stainless steel exhaust for the Accord long ago...
All that said, does the lifetime warranty apply to all new Honda exhaust
parts, including those for older cars? If so, I might reconsider using
Honda parts next time (though all the pipes are now under a year old, so
it will be some time before then).
--
JRE
Tegger
news:hfs528$31b$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> All that said, does the lifetime warranty apply to all new Honda
> exhaust parts, including those for older cars?
Yes it does, provided you're replacing a replacment Honda part with another
replacment Honda part.
You also need your original bill of sale, or the dealer needs to be able to
find the previous repair in their system.
> If so, I might
> reconsider using Honda parts next time (though all the pipes are now
> under a year old, so it will be some time before then).
>
I, frankly, have had different experiences from you for aftermarket exhaust
parts. Maybe Bosal is better, I don't know. And frankly, I don't want to
risk it.
My exhaust was 100% OEM until a couple of years ago.
When my OEM cat rusted out a couple of years ago, I had to buy an
aftermarket one (a Walker) because new OEM is no longer available for my
car. During the repair, the shop discovered the A and B-pipes were also
rusted through, so they replaced them, without asking me, also with Walker
parts.
In the afternoon I came to pick the car up. I peeked undeneath before going
in to pay and saw the new B-pipe, which DID NOT FIT at all. The hanger
rubbers were all pulled well forwards and off to one side.
Plus the hangers and mounting flanges were hokey little things that were
nothing like the OEM fittings.
They ended up replacing the new Walker B-pipe with a new OEM B-pipe (no
extra charge to me), which DOES fit properly. The hangers are now straight.
The Walker A-pipe remains. It doesn't quite fit either, meaning that by the
time the assembly gets to the tailpipe, the tailpipes are slightly
misaligned in their bumper aperture, whereas before they were dead-center.
The Walker A-pipe is a piece of crap. When the (very weak) hanger flange
finally breaks off, a new OEM A-pipe is going in and I'll be down to the
cat as being the only aftermarket part in the system.
Seth
> but am just a bit goosey about being able to do the
> installation with only the OEM jack to work with. The
Never get under the car using the OEM jack that it came with. That thing is
(barely) sufficient/safe for changing a flat (for which it was intended and
you don't get under the car). Getting under the car using that piece of
garbage is very dangerous.
Tegger
$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
> Seth says...
>
> >> but am just a bit goosey about being able to do the
> >> installation with only the OEM jack to work with. The
>
> > Never get under the car using the OEM jack that it came
> > with. That thing is (barely) sufficient/safe for
> > changing a flat (for which it was intended and you don't
> > get under the car). Getting under the car using that
> > piece of garbage is very dangerous.
>
> Sorry, I didn't say that right. What I would do is jack up
> the rear end one side at a time, and put concrete paving
> stones under the tires,
Still a very bad idea.
There's a guy who posts in rec.autos.tech who's in the middle of restoring
an '80 Civic. He had the car up on concrete blocks. It fell off while he
was working on it. Good thing he wasn't under the car at the time.
Do the job properly, or don't do it at all. If you're not prepared to buy
and use the correct tools, don't do the job.
> and lower the car onto them, with
> the front wheels blocked. But I can probably only get six
> inches or so of extra room doing it that way, not like being
> able to work under a lift. Never having done this before, I
> just don't know if that's enough room to work with.
The more room the better. Six inches will have you gnashing your teeth in
frustration for lack of room.
And raising a car is best accomplished with a proper jack and stands.
If this is your first time, don't let it be your last as well.
Seth
> Seth says...
>
> >> but am just a bit goosey about being able to do the
> >> installation with only the OEM jack to work with. The
>
> > Never get under the car using the OEM jack that it came
> > with. That thing is (barely) sufficient/safe for
> > changing a flat (for which it was intended and you don't
> > get under the car). Getting under the car using that
> > piece of garbage is very dangerous.
>
> the rear end one side at a time, and put concrete paving
> the front wheels blocked. But I can probably only get six
> inches or so of extra room doing it that way, not like being
> able to work under a lift. Never having done this before, I
> just don't know if that's enough room to work with.
Also never use concrete blocks. Not being rebar reinforced, they can crack.
Jack stands are cheap enough.
I doubt you'll get enough lift out of the scissor jack that the car comes
with. It's only designed to get the tires just enough off the ground to
change a tire.
Like Tegger says, either get the right stuff to do the work or don't do it
at all. If you're not going to be doing much more work to the car yourself,
it's probably cheaper to pay a shop to do the work than to buy all the right
equipment to do the job safely and correctly.
JRE
> JRE says...
>
> > However, for our early 90's Hondas (a Civic and an
> > Accord), I have seen _no_ significant difference in
> > lifetime between Bosal exhaust parts and Honda parts.
>
> take a chance on the quality of the Bosal muffler
> and install it myself (saving about $150 in the process),
> but am just a bit goosey about being able to do the
> installation with only the OEM jack to work with. The
> particularly difficult to get to.
Yes. I pay for car repairs only when I don't think any new tools I
might need will ever pay me back. Alignments, tire-busting, machine
work, and recently a rear wheel bearing replacement on a BMW E46 (new
tools-$1,000!; repair-$300). Very little else, ever. If you buy decent
tools and don't lose them, it doesn't take too many jobs to build a set
that will serve for most jobs without having to acquire many (or any)
new tools.
You will find things much easier with a real floor jack. More
importantly, though, you need jack stands. They are not optional.
NEVER, EVER get under a car supported only by a jack. For years, there
was a newspaper article on my garage wall with the headline, "Car falls
off jack, killing town man" that I would point to when a friend thought
he should crawl under a car without setting jack stands. It was a real
convincer. Cars are heavy and you are fragile. If one falls on you,
you will be severely injured at best. Do NOT screw around here. The
$150 you save is not worth risking your life--and it's a sizable
fraction of the cost of a decent jack and pair of jack stands.
For exhaust system work, ramps are cheaper and just as safe. They are
somewhat easier to use as long as they slope gradually enough to avoid
catching the front bumper cover on them when you back off. However,
they can't be used to remove a wheel and are less versatile in general.
>
> Is the precedure to mount the muffler on the hangers first
> and then do the gasket and flange bolts, or the other way
> around?
>
You will avoid undue stress on the remaining flanges if you unbolt
things first, and then take off the hangars. Don't forget to get new
gaskets with the new pipe. Have spare nuts and bolts or studs on hand
in the right sizes. A propane (or better, acetylene) torch is a big
help for stubborn nuts. Frozen ones are easy to remove when red hot,
and if you have to drive out a stud it is much easier if the flange is
heated until it goes clear.
--
JRE
JRE
> JRE <not...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
> news:hfs528$31b$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> All that said, does the lifetime warranty apply to all new Honda
>> exhaust parts, including those for older cars?
>
> Yes it does, provided you're replacing a replacment Honda part with another
> replacment Honda part.
>
> You also need your original bill of sale, or the dealer needs to be able to
> find the previous repair in their system.
Cool! I'll definitely consider that if the car lives through its
current exhaust system.
<snip>
> I, frankly, have had different experiences from you for aftermarket exhaust
> parts. Maybe Bosal is better, I don't know. And frankly, I don't want to
> risk it.
Your choice. We can certainly agree that there is plenty of crap out
there, and that many, perhaps even most, aftermarket exhaust parts are
simply awful. Exhaust parts made of lighter-gauge tubing and sheet
steel, less-durable steel alloys, poor fit, etc., are almost epidemic.
Shopping purely on price is a mistake unless the car is unlikely to last
long for other reasons. There are only so many things a manufacturer
can do to take cost out of an exhaust system, and all of them are bad.
> My exhaust was 100% OEM until a couple of years ago.
>
> When my OEM cat rusted out a couple of years ago, I had to buy an
> aftermarket one (a Walker) because new OEM is no longer available for my
> car. During the repair, the shop discovered the A and B-pipes were also
> rusted through, so they replaced them, without asking me, also with Walker
> parts.
Funny! The only OEM part in my exhaust *is* the cat! But it won't last
through another A pipe and B pipe, as the flanges are nearly gone.
(Washers can be your friend, but there are limits. ;-)
> In the afternoon I came to pick the car up. I peeked undeneath before going
> in to pay and saw the new B-pipe, which DID NOT FIT at all. The hanger
> rubbers were all pulled well forwards and off to one side.
> Plus the hangers and mounting flanges were hokey little things that were
> nothing like the OEM fittings.
>
> They ended up replacing the new Walker B-pipe with a new OEM B-pipe (no
> extra charge to me), which DOES fit properly. The hangers are now straight.
> The Walker A-pipe remains. It doesn't quite fit either, meaning that by the
> time the assembly gets to the tailpipe, the tailpipes are slightly
> misaligned in their bumper aperture, whereas before they were dead-center.
>
> The Walker A-pipe is a piece of crap. When the (very weak) hanger flange
> finally breaks off, a new OEM A-pipe is going in and I'll be down to the
> cat as being the only aftermarket part in the system.
I stopped buying Walker exhaust parts a quarter century ago. I don't
recall why, exactly, but for Hondas the Bosal pipes work well for me and
last a comparable amount of time vs. Honda pipes.
--
JRE
jim beam
dude, on the one hand, you're casting pearls before swine. he wants to
use after-market, and clearly, nothing you say is going to convince him.
[here's the "unteachable" signal: he's prepared to fudge his numbers
to create "savings".]
otoh, he's pissing in the knowledge pool with this "just as good as oem"
bs, so it's good to point that out. just like you say, oem spec is
different and more stringent. there are some exceptions to this, but
for honda, exhaust systems is not one of them.
to anyone else reading, if you're driving detroit garbage, many times
after-market /is/ superior to oem - buy aftermarket and enjoy. but this
is not true for honda because honda oem standards are so high. honda
oem is guaranteed to work and be reliable. with anything else, you're
taking needless chances for trivial [if any] "savings", and if you don't
have all the facts about an after-market part available to you, you're
simply letting hope triumph over the logic and experience of others who
know what you don't.
jim beam
i second that story. my dad was working under a car like that, on a
sloping gravel drive one time. lucky for him i just happened to pull
into the drive way to see the car roll off the stand and fall on him.
it broke a bunch of ribs [ever heard ribs pop?] and he was out of action
for weeks. if i hadn't shown up when i did, he probably wouldn't be
alive because no one else was scheduled to be home for hours and he'd
have been pinned there unable to breathe.
ALWAYS use a proper jack, with stands, on hard level ground. and ALWAYS
chock the wheels.
>
> For exhaust system work, ramps are cheaper and just as safe. They are
> somewhat easier to use as long as they slope gradually enough to avoid
> catching the front bumper cover on them when you back off. However, they
> can't be used to remove a wheel and are less versatile in general.
>
>>
>> Is the precedure to mount the muffler on the hangers first
>> and then do the gasket and flange bolts, or the other way
>> around?
>>
>
> You will avoid undue stress on the remaining flanges if you unbolt
> things first, and then take off the hangars. Don't forget to get new
> gaskets with the new pipe. Have spare nuts and bolts or studs on hand in
> the right sizes. A propane (or better, acetylene) torch is a big help
> for stubborn nuts. Frozen ones are easy to remove when red hot, and if
> you have to drive out a stud it is much easier if the flange is heated
> until it goes clear.
>
heat works. however, there is risk of burning the underside of the car
unless you use a flame board. i've found impact drivers to be awesome
removing otherwise frozen rusted exhaust nuts in this situation.
absolutely awesome. no heat, no collateral damage, and otherwise
unshiftable nuts zip right off.
Joe
> Seth says...
>
> >> but am just a bit goosey about being able to do the
> >> installation with only the OEM jack to work with. The
>
> > Never get under the car using the OEM jack that it came
> > with. That thing is (barely) sufficient/safe for
> > changing a flat (for which it was intended and you don't
> > get under the car). Getting under the car using that
> > piece of garbage is very dangerous.
>
> the rear end one side at a time, and put concrete paving
> stones under the tires, and lower the car onto them, with
> the front wheels blocked. But I can probably only get six
> inches or so of extra room doing it that way, not like being
> able to work under a lift. Never having done this before, I
> just don't know if that's enough room to work with.
>
Not to be too critical, but proper jack stands are fairly cheap at any
auto parts store or harbor freight. They are a MUCH better idea than
concrete blocks.
And if you plan on doing work on your car more than just a couple of
times, it couldn't hurt to spend $100-$150 on a decent hydraulic floor
jack...
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
Stewart
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
news:Xns9CDE58C5...@208.90.168.18...
> JRE <not...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
> news:hfs528$31b$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>>
>> All that said, does the lifetime warranty apply to all new Honda
>> exhaust parts, including those for older cars?
>
>
>
> Yes it does, provided you're replacing a replacment Honda part with
> another
> replacment Honda part.
Why don't they lifetime warranty the parts when the car is new if they
do so for OEM replacements?
jim beam
> "Tegger"<inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CDE58C5...@208.90.168.18...
>> JRE<not...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>> news:hfs528$31b$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> All that said, does the lifetime warranty apply to all new Honda
>>> exhaust parts, including those for older cars?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes it does, provided you're replacing a replacment Honda part with
>> another
>> replacment Honda part.
>
> Why don't they lifetime warranty the parts when the car is new if they
> do so for OEM replacements?
er, dunno. why don' t they give the car an unconditional, unlimited
"forever" satisfaction "we'll refund you in full" guarantee? do you
think "money" might be involved?
Leftie
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but when I got a Honda
Lifetime Warranty muffler for my old Civic Si, and then wore *it* out,
the free replacement was much cheaper and didn't have much of a warranty.
Tegger
>>
>
> I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but when I got a Honda
> Lifetime Warranty muffler for my old Civic Si, and then wore *it* out,
> the free replacement was much cheaper and didn't have much of a warranty.
>
Weird. I've had at least two "warranty" replacements of replacement OEM
Honda mufflers. Both of those were absolutely free to me, and the next one
will be as well.
Are you sure the replacement you got was actually OEM? Did it is have a
Honda part number? Don't put it past the dealership to try to sell you an
aftermarket one instead of OEM.
Greg
>
> It's just a shame I can't do this myself. I mean, it's two
> bolts and three hangers. Just a real shame. Maybe I need
> to advertise on Craiglist for a guy with jacks and jack
> stands to help me.
>
> Anyway, I appreciate everyone's advice and warnings about
> working under the car safely. It just kills me another way
> not to be able to do this myself.
You already have a jack; the one in your trunk. Find some bricks, 2x6
boards, etc. Now invest in some ramps for the front end. You'll get
your $ back, and then some instantly. Assuming you're paying someone to
change the oil, etc., the savings will continue forever.
Tegger
$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
> Tegger says...
>
> > Weird. I've had at least two "warranty" replacements of
> > replacement OEM Honda mufflers. Both of those were
> > absolutely free to me, and the next one will be as well.
>
> Well, I've been unable to find a friend with a floor jack
> and jack stands, so it looks like I'll be getting the
> muffler replaced "professionally."
>
> But I want to be sure I understand what the guarantee is on
> a Honda muffler.
>
> If I have the dealer do the work, the price I was quoted was
> $364 plus tax, which is $219 for the muffler and $145 labor.
> And at least verbally they confirmed that would be a full
> lifetime warranty, parts and labor. I assume that would be
> in writing at some point.
It should be on the invoice. In any case, it's SOP for any dealership,
so you shouldn't have a problem
IMPORTANT!
Keep that invoice in the glove box or some other safe place and save
your self a fight in four to seven years.
If you're not a regular at the dealership, you'll likely fall off their
easily-accessible customer list after a few years and they'll have
trouble finding the record of installation if you don't have the
invoice.
>
> If I have the Four Star Honda/Accura local repair shop do
> it, the price will be about $275 total. They confirmed
> they will get a Honda muffler from the dealer, and they say
> it's a lifetime warranty, but the guy I talked to said he
> thought it was just the part, not labor. But he's going to
> check on that. It makes sense, though, since you wouldn't
> expect Honda to reimburse a local repair shop for labor.
>
> But other scenarios arise if Four Star does this work.
> Would a dealer honor at least the part warranty, so if I
> move to another city I would at least have something to fall
> back on? Is there a chance the dealer would cover labor on
> the future replacement too even though a non-dealer did the
> original installation?
That's a **VERY** good question. I don't know if the repair is dealer-
specific or general to any repair shop.
You had better make sure you get this clarified at the dealership,
preferably in writing.
But when you consider the amortization of that extra $89 over four years
(that's a bare-minimum), that's $1.85 a month, or $22 per year. If you
get seven years out of the muffler, then the added cost falls to $1.05
per month, or $12 per year.
If it were me, I'd bite the bullet and get the dealer to do it. It's
safest that way, and you'll end up with OEM fasteners and gasket.
>
> It's just a shame I can't do this myself. I mean, it's two
> bolts and three hangers. Just a real shame. Maybe I need
> to advertise on Craiglist for a guy with jacks and jack
> stands to help me.
It's like anything else. If you have to tools you can do the job. If you
don't, you can't. Or it's a LOT harder. A kitchen cabinet is just a few
flat pieces of wood and a few screws, right?
Tegger
>
> You already have a jack; the one in your trunk. Find some bricks, 2x6
> boards, etc. Now invest in some ramps for the front end. You'll get
> your $ back, and then some instantly. Assuming you're paying someone to
> change the oil, etc., the savings will continue forever.
This advice is so astonishingly bad I'm left wondering if "Greg" is a
troll.
JRE
> Tegger says...
>
> > Weird. I've had at least two "warranty" replacements of
> > replacement OEM Honda mufflers. Both of those were
> > absolutely free to me, and the next one will be as well.
>
> and jack stands, so it looks like I'll be getting the
> muffler replaced "professionally."
First, rest assured that you made the right decision. You can always
make more money to pay for repairs when you're alive and well.
<snip>
>
> It's just a shame I can't do this myself. I mean, it's two
> bolts and three hangers. Just a real shame. Maybe I need
> to advertise on Craiglist for a guy with jacks and jack
> stands to help me.
Where do you live? The BMWCCA hooks up members with each other for
stuff like this. Maybe there's a Honda equivalent.
> Anyway, I appreciate everyone's advice and warnings about
> working under the car safely. It just kills me another way
> not to be able to do this myself.
I understand completely. I felt the same way last week when I actually
paid for a car repair, but the tools required would probably never pay
me back and the repair was far cheaper than the tools (25-30% of the
cost of the tools, in fact).
--
JRE
Tegger
september.org:
>
> I understand completely. I felt the same way last week when I actually
> paid for a car repair, but the tools required would probably never pay
> me back and the repair was far cheaper than the tools (25-30% of the
> cost of the tools, in fact).
>
I think it depends on how dedicated you are to the idea of doing your own
repairs.
I see my tool purchases as investments for the future. The amount of money
I save in doing my own work means I have lots of cash available to allocate
towards new tools.
Plus -- and I must be crazy -- I actually LIKE working on my car, even when
what I'm doing is something scarily new to me and which at first appears to
go horribly wrong until I eventually figure it out, after which there's an
elation that beats chemical intoxication...
If you don't see yourself doing lots of your own work past, say, light bulb
changes, just get the pro's to fix your car. Nothing wrong with that at
all. I don't do my own roofing or windows; I pay pro's to do that.
E. Meyer
On 12/14/09 1:22 PM, in article 6gwVm.43068$kY2....@newsfe01.iad, "Greg"
<nos...@null.net> wrote:
Well, those first two sentences are just plain scary. The ramps are a
useful idea though.
JRE
> JRE <not...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in news:hg6p62$ac2$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>
>> I understand completely. I felt the same way last week when I actually
>> paid for a car repair, but the tools required would probably never pay
>> me back and the repair was far cheaper than the tools (25-30% of the
>> cost of the tools, in fact).
>>
> I think it depends on how dedicated you are to the idea of doing your own
> repairs.
>
> I see my tool purchases as investments for the future. The amount of money
> I save in doing my own work means I have lots of cash available to allocate
> towards new tools.
I have always done this on a dollar basis. My payback period on tools
used to be 10 years. Lately, I've been oscillating between 5 and 10
years. The repair I just paid for was the first non-warranty mechanical
repair I did not do myself in a very, very long time. My guess, though
it's impossible to predict, is that the tools would not have paid me
back in well over 10 years. I'm fast approaching the age where the
window of utility is getting perceptibly shorter, and a 20-year payback
probably makes little sense. And I didn't know anyone I could borrow
them from, either.
Do you own a tire machine and spin balancer? A full-size hydraulic
lift? A 4-wheel alignment rack? A valve refacer? A cylinder head
resurfacer? A crankshaft grinder? A frame machine? A paint booth for
clearcoat? Outside the businesses that can afford them, I suspect not,
and I further suspect we're talking about *where* we each choose to draw
the line, not *whether* we choose to draw the line. Were I a
billionaire, I'd have a really cool garage, just for fun, but...
> Plus -- and I must be crazy -- I actually LIKE working on my car, even when
> what I'm doing is something scarily new to me and which at first appears to
> go horribly wrong until I eventually figure it out, after which there's an
> elation that beats chemical intoxication...
Yup. Same here.
>
> If you don't see yourself doing lots of your own work past, say, light bulb
> changes, just get the pro's to fix your car. Nothing wrong with that at
> all. I don't do my own roofing or windows; I pay pro's to do that.
Oddly enough, I do my own roofing and most interior renovation work, but
draw the line at windows. Not because I can't, but because I don't want to.
--
JRE
Stewart
"Leftie" <N...@Thanks.net> wrote in message
news:9PnVm.64638$X01....@newsfe07.iad...
> jim beam wrote:
>> On 12/13/2009 06:06 PM, Stewart wrote:
>>> "Tegger"<inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CDE58C5...@208.90.168.18...
>>>> JRE<not...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:hfs528$31b$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All that said, does the lifetime warranty apply to all new Honda
>>>>> exhaust parts, including those for older cars?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does, provided you're replacing a replacment Honda part
>>>> with
>>>> another
>>>> replacment Honda part.
>>>
>>> Why don't they lifetime warranty the parts when the car is new if
>>> they
>>> do so for OEM replacements?
>>
>> er, dunno. why don' t they give the car an unconditional,
>> unlimited "forever" satisfaction "we'll refund you in full"
>> guarantee? do you think "money" might be involved?
If the idea of buying OEM is to get the same thing one gets with the
original equipment, it only stands to reason that the warranty for the
the original equipment be the same as the OEM replacement parts.
In effect, the warranty is somewhat limited.
Joe
> Tegger says...
>
> > Weird. I've had at least two "warranty" replacements of
> > replacement OEM Honda mufflers. Both of those were
> > absolutely free to me, and the next one will be as well.
>
> and jack stands, so it looks like I'll be getting the
> muffler replaced "professionally."
Why not just buy them? They don't take much space, and they cost less
than the labor is going to cost you for this job. Once you have them,
you have them forever.
Stewart
"JRE" <not...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:hg6tik$bs6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Tis always good to be in a position to chose one's battles. I
remodeled our kitchen with the paid help of a friend/contractor that
included a full demolition, redesign and about 700 sq feet of tile
(front entry and bar area included, boy that old parquet floor was
tough to pull up). We filled a 40 yard dumpster....and it took about
3 weeks.
After that, I ended up having the kid down the street cut the lawn for
the rest of the summer (let him use my tractor, a couple of acres) and
I taught him how to do routine maintenance on cars for me. He learned
something, made a few bucks and I got a rest!
I just didn't feel like doing it myself.
Leftie
The first replacement (the one I paid for) was OEM. The second one
had no chromed tips on the exhaust outlets, looked cheaper, and didn't
last as long. There was no lifetime warranty with that one and it only
lasted a few years. Maybe the dealer ripped me off. This was circa 1990.
Greg
> Greg <nos...@null.net> wrote in news:6gwVm.43068$kY2....@newsfe01.iad:
>
>
>> You already have a jack; the one in your trunk. Find some bricks, 2x6
>> boards, etc. Now invest in some ramps for the front end. You'll get
>> your $ back, and then some instantly. Assuming you're paying someone to
>> change the oil, etc., the savings will continue forever.
>
>
>
> This advice is so astonishingly bad I'm left wondering if "Greg" is a
> troll.
BREATHE!!
Ah.....
Now, please put away the torches and pitchforks!
I'm not suggesting he try to build some crazy shelf-like structure to
support the car! The idea is to drive the front of the car up onto the
ramps, then sequentially jack the rear corners, letting each rear tire
down on a sandwich of FLATLY STACKED boards, or possibly large, flat,
solid bricks.
I must admit that the frangible nature of the brick makes me a little
nervous. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that particular material.
OTOH, I might choose the bricks-of-death over some of the China-Mart
jackstands I've seen...
I also brain farted on the board size. I don't know where the hell '6'
came from. A tall stack 6 inches wide isn't such a hot idea! A pile of
4~5 2x12s would be much better.
Tegger
news:hg6tik$bs6$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> Do you own a tire machine and spin balancer? A full-size hydraulic
> lift? A 4-wheel alignment rack? A valve refacer? A cylinder head
> resurfacer? A crankshaft grinder? A frame machine? A paint booth
> for clearcoat? Outside the businesses that can afford them, I suspect
> not, and I further suspect we're talking about *where* we each choose
> to draw the line, not *whether* we choose to draw the line.
Well, yeah. That's the point I thought I was making.
Which is why I ultimately said, "If you don't see yourself doing lots of
your own work past, say, light bulb changes, just get the pro's to fix
your car. Nothing wrong with that at all. I don't do my own roofing or
windows; I pay pro's to do that."
pws
> otoh, he's pissing in the knowledge pool with this "just as good as oem"
> bs, so it's good to point that out. just like you say, oem spec is
> different and more stringent. there are some exceptions to this, but
> for honda, exhaust systems is not one of them.
>
> to anyone else reading, if you're driving detroit garbage, many times
> after-market /is/ superior to oem - buy aftermarket and enjoy. but this
> is not true for honda because honda oem standards are so high. honda
> oem is guaranteed to work and be reliable. with anything else, you're
> taking needless chances for trivial [if any] "savings", and if you don't
> have all the facts about an after-market part available to you, you're
> simply letting hope triumph over the logic and experience of others who
> know what you don't.
The 1995 Accord that I now own has 78,000 miles, and the muffler was
replaced about 5 years ago with an aftermarket unit that works great, so
far anyway.
That OEM Honda muffler was not anything special.
It went through very hard use on a lot of short mileage trips, and then
failed at about 10 years and only about 45k to 55K miles of use.
I have had stainless aftermarket exhausts on 3 different cars over the
past 24 years, including my current '91 turbo Miata, that were all
better and longer-lasting than what came on the Accord. Not equal to
Honda OEM, superior.
Sorry if I am pissing in the knowledge pool, but this is my personal
experience.
Pat
jim beam
er, dare i point out that when you talk of replacement with bosal,
you're NOT talking about replacement with several hundred dollars of
stainless? or am i not supposed to call "bullshit" and simply play along?
bottom line, it's your car dude - you go ahead and do whatever you want.
but you're fudging the facts, and misrepresenting them here. that
makes you look like an ass.
pws
> er, dare i point out that when you talk of replacement with bosal,
> you're NOT talking about replacement with several hundred dollars of
> stainless? or am i not supposed to call "bullshit" and simply play along?
>
> bottom line, it's your car dude - you go ahead and do whatever you want.
> but you're fudging the facts, and misrepresenting them here. that
> makes you look like an ass.
The muffler on my Accord is not stainless.
My experience has been that a Honda muffler, at least one from 1995, is
not this super high-quality piece of equipment compared to what I
replaced it with.
I have read a number of your posts, Mr. Jim Beam, and you are truly a
master of presenting yourself as an ass, so there is a bit of the pot
calling the kettle black here.
Have a nice day, and good luck finding someone else to fight with
online. Don't hit those keys too hard now.
Pat
jim beam
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> er, dare i point out that when you talk of replacement with bosal,
>> you're NOT talking about replacement with several hundred dollars of
>> stainless? or am i not supposed to call "bullshit" and simply play along?
>>
>> bottom line, it's your car dude - you go ahead and do whatever you
>> want. but you're fudging the facts, and misrepresenting them here.
>> that makes you look like an ass.
>
> The muffler on my Accord is not stainless.
>
> My experience has been that a Honda muffler, at least one from 1995, is
> not this super high-quality piece of equipment compared to what I
> replaced it with.
you know, when you first said "bosal" and "cheaper", i was completely
under the impression that you were /not/ talking about $600 of custom
stainless. clearly i was mistaken!
>
> I have read a number of your posts, Mr. Jim Beam, and you are truly a
> master of presenting yourself as an ass, so there is a bit of the pot
> calling the kettle black here.
>
> Have a nice day, and good luck finding someone else to fight with
> online. Don't hit those keys too hard now.
don't choke on your bullshit there dude - you'll need it for your rose
garden.
pws
> you know, when you first said "bosal" and "cheaper", i was completely
> under the impression that you were /not/ talking about $600 of custom
> stainless. clearly i was mistaken!
No, you are mistaken in that I never said "bosal", or "cheaper". That
was the original poster, not me.
I know it is probably hard to keep track of which person you insult and
what you are insulting them for, but please try harder.
It is hard for you to look very clever when you are wrong, especially
while trying so hard.
> don't choke on your bullshit there dude - you'll need it for your rose
> garden.
You should do stand-up comedy, that is really, really funny.
Seriously......That is as much as you are going to get out of me unless
you post some more completely erroneous information about what I did or
did not say.
Again, have a nice day, Mr. Beam,
Pat
jim beam
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> you know, when you first said "bosal" and "cheaper", i was completely
>> under the impression that you were /not/ talking about $600 of custom
>> stainless. clearly i was mistaken!
>
> No, you are mistaken in that I never said "bosal", or "cheaper". That
> was the original poster, not me.
then /you/ need to go back and read /my/ original post - you know, the
one you've carefully snipped.
>
> I know it is probably hard to keep track of which person you insult and
> what you are insulting them for, but please try harder.
> It is hard for you to look very clever when you are wrong, especially
> while trying so hard.
>
>> don't choke on your bullshit there dude - you'll need it for your rose
>> garden.
>
> You should do stand-up comedy, that is really, really funny.
>
> Seriously......That is as much as you are going to get out of me unless
> you post some more completely erroneous information about what I did or
> did not say.
>
> Again, have a nice day, Mr. Beam,
>
> Pat
see above, big guy.
pws
Tegger
>
> That OEM Honda muffler was not anything special.
> It went through very hard use on a lot of short mileage trips, and
> then failed at about 10 years and only about 45k to 55K miles of use.
Ten years is an excellent lifespan, especialy for a muffler that has had
the treatment yours did.
My personal (and fairly extensive) experience with aftermarket has never
yielded more than two years without additional problems arising. But then I
had been looking for /cheaper/ alternatives to OEM. Which turned out to be
very cheap indeed.
>
> I have had stainless aftermarket exhausts on 3 different cars over the
> past 24 years, including my current '91 turbo Miata, that were all
> better and longer-lasting than what came on the Accord. Not equal to
> Honda OEM, superior.
Were they more expensive than OEM?
jim beam
that's strange - your wife doesn't talk to /me/ like that.
jim beam
oooh, are we /allowed/ to do this "reality check" stuff around here? i
thought this game was just for people to have fun talking through their ass.
pws
> Ten years is an excellent lifespan, especialy for a muffler that has had
> the treatment yours did.
>
> My personal (and fairly extensive) experience with aftermarket has never
> yielded more than two years without additional problems arising. But then I
> had been looking for /cheaper/ alternatives to OEM. Which turned out to be
> very cheap indeed.
The aftermarket, non-stainless muffler I have on now has been there for
5 years and it is still in good condition. It has also been used pretty
hard, lots of short trips.
If it goes out really fast, lesson learned. If it makes it even 3 more
years, then it was a lot better value than going with a factory one, in
my personal experience, which is not terribly extensive, but does cover
24 years and about 8 cars.
>> I have had stainless aftermarket exhausts on 3 different cars over the
>> past 24 years, including my current '91 turbo Miata, that were all
>> better and longer-lasting than what came on the Accord. Not equal to
>> Honda OEM, superior.
>
>
>
> Were they more expensive than OEM?
I do fully see your point, Tegger. Thanks for at least being polite. I
just filtered "Mr. Beam", as I quit playing the "let's fight on the
internet game" with lightweights like him a long time ago.
Life is too short to waste too many keystrokes on people like him. With
no life, he will attempt to win through pure endurance, and he WILL get
the last word in, just watch.
Everybody is big and badass in front of their computer, I learned that a
while back.
With you, however, I will be back for advice on this Accord, whether we
agree on OEM mufflers as the best option or not.
Pat
ACAR
> Tegger says...
>
> > Weird. I've had at least two "warranty" replacements of
> > replacement OEM Honda mufflers. Both of those were
> > absolutely free to me, and the next one will be as well.
>
Muffler warranty: When I replaced mine (years ago) I was told that the
Warranty applied to the part only. The dealer would still charge for
installation if the replacement part failed. So naturally, I bought
the Honda part and took it to my independent shop where I had it
installed for half the price. Muffler warranty still valid. Car was
wrecked before second muffler wore out. Of course, Honda does not
offer a warranty on pipes which typically give out long before
mufflers. Depending on the car it is possible to find higher quality
pipes and exhaust systems than OEM; even Honda OEM.
OEM exhaust system in my 1999 Accord is still OK even after spending
time in Syracuse, NY and Chicago.
fyi: the stainless steel exhaust system (cat included) in my 1998
Sienna required zero work in the 12 years and 235K miles I owned the
car. then again, I live in the Baltimore area where road salt isn't an
everyday occurrence 5 months of the year.
Tegger
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> Ten years is an excellent lifespan, especialy for a muffler that has
>> had the treatment yours did.
>>
>> My personal (and fairly extensive) experience with aftermarket has
>> never yielded more than two years without additional problems
>> arising. But then I had been looking for /cheaper/ alternatives to
>> OEM. Which turned out to be very cheap indeed.
>
> The aftermarket, non-stainless muffler I have on now has been there
> for 5 years and it is still in good condition. It has also been used
> pretty hard, lots of short trips.
It might have to do with your geographical location. I'm located in the
very heart of the north-eastern Rust Belt, where the climate is horribly
abusive of anything made of steel, especially when the moisture is
regularly combined with road salt.
If you're in an area whose climate is kinder to steels, your mufflers would
last longer, period.
> If it goes out really fast, lesson learned. If it makes it even 3 more
> years, then it was a lot better value than going with a factory one,
> in my personal experience, which is not terribly extensive, but does
> cover 24 years and about 8 cars.
>
>>> I have had stainless aftermarket exhausts on 3 different cars over
>>> the past 24 years, including my current '91 turbo Miata, that were
>>> all better and longer-lasting than what came on the Accord. Not
>>> equal to Honda OEM, superior.
>>
>>
>>
>> Were they more expensive than OEM?
>
> I do fully see your point, Tegger.
One thing I can't quite understand is why Honda does not simply change to
semi-stainless steels. Toyota has been making their entire exhaust systems
from that for at least 12 years now. Our '99 Tercel (yes there was such a
beast) still has its original muffler, and it's just like new. No rust
anywhere, even in the weld seams.
But then Honda also still uses rustable steels for their brake caliper
pistons, whereas Toyota makes those out of stainless as well.
pws
> It might have to do with your geographical location. I'm located in the
> very heart of the north-eastern Rust Belt, where the climate is horribly
> abusive of anything made of steel, especially when the moisture is
> regularly combined with road salt.
>
> If you're in an area whose climate is kinder to steels, your mufflers would
> last longer, period.
Central Texas? That makes sense.
We get ice on the roads here about once every 3 or 4 years, and then
they drop sand instead of salt, so the two mufflers have probably never
encountered salt at all.
This Accord was my grandma's car, I don't think it even made a trip to
the coast. I have owned it for about a month now.
I had the top down on my non-Honda vehicle yesterday, I think it reached
70 degrees, but I will pay for it starting in June when the heat wave
begins again.
> One thing I can't quite understand is why Honda does not simply change to
> semi-stainless steels. Toyota has been making their entire exhaust systems
> from that for at least 12 years now. Our '99 Tercel (yes there was such a
> beast) still has its original muffler, and it's just like new. No rust
> anywhere, even in the weld seams.
>
> But then Honda also still uses rustable steels for their brake caliper
> pistons, whereas Toyota makes those out of stainless as well.
I didn't know that, buy come to think of it, I don't remember the
exhaust ever receiving repairs on my parent's '94 Toyota Camry with
173,000 miles.
I just replaced the neutral safety switch and the harmonic balancer on
that car, and brakes are next, but the exhaust looks good.
Thanks Tegger,
Pat
E. Meyer
On 12/19/09 6:31 AM, in article hgih13$8aq$1...@aioe.org, "pws"
<pwsh...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
Texas pretty much explains it. In the 37 years I've been in Texas (El Paso,
Houston, and Dallas) I've had to replace one muffler & no pipes. That was
on a '91 Mazda pickup at age 11 yr & 150,000 miles. Mufflers are just not
an issue here.
Grumpy AuContraire
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> It might have to do with your geographical location. I'm located in
>> the very heart of the north-eastern Rust Belt, where the climate is
>> horribly abusive of anything made of steel, especially when the
>> moisture is regularly combined with road salt.
>>
>> If you're in an area whose climate is kinder to steels, your mufflers
>> would last longer, period.
>
> Central Texas? That makes sense.
>
> We get ice on the roads here about once every 3 or 4 years, and then
> they drop sand instead of salt, so the two mufflers have probably never
> encountered salt at all.
Not true. TxDOT uses the same chemical(s), that other states use and
the only saving grace is that it only occurs a very few times a year,
(at least in the Austin area). The days of just using plain sand are
long gone.
JT
Tegger
news:IOCdnY0GNIgE1rDW...@giganews.com:
Whereas our roads are bathed in salt constantly from November to May.
The salt corrodes the hell out of anything metallic, but does make the
roads /considerably/ safer than they would be otherwise.
pws
> Not true. TxDOT uses the same chemical(s), that other states use and
> the only saving grace is that it only occurs a very few times a year,
> (at least in the Austin area). The days of just using plain sand are
> long gone.
>
> JT
Do the other states use a mixture of sand and salt, or just salt? I
remember sand on the road here, but honestly, I have no idea what has
been added to it.
As far as frequency, though, we do not normally get icy roads here a few
times a year.
That frequency has probably happened before, but in the 24 years that I
have been driving in Austin, the roads usually only freeze over about
once out of every 2 to 4 years, or about 3 on average.
Not trying to be being argumentative, but that has been my observation.
Of course, almost the entire city shuts down when this happens, but it
is still like bumper cars out on the roads when they get icy.
Oh yeah, is the the same "Grumpy AuContraire" from austin.general? It
has been a while.......
Pat
pws
> Whereas our roads are bathed in salt constantly from November to May.
>
> The salt corrodes the hell out of anything metallic, but does make the
> roads /considerably/ safer than they would be otherwise.
The one time I have been stranded by snowy/icy weather was a
near-blizzard in Southern Arizona, on the way back to Texas from Las Vegas.
It was about 40 miles from the Mexico border, and was the worst
snowstorm there in over 40 years. I saw no de-icing materials on the
road at all.
With summer tires on the car that were treacherous on ice, we made a
quick exit.
That was fun, there were many 18-wheelers, ands lots of other vehicles
off the road all over the place.
We wisely decided to hunkered down at one of the few vacant motel rooms
until the worst of it was over.
Pat
jim beam
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> Ten years is an excellent lifespan, especialy for a muffler that has
>> had the treatment yours did.
>>
>> My personal (and fairly extensive) experience with aftermarket has
>> never yielded more than two years without additional problems arising.
>> But then I had been looking for /cheaper/ alternatives to OEM. Which
>> turned out to be very cheap indeed.
>
> The aftermarket, non-stainless muffler I have on now has been there for
> 5 years and it is still in good condition. It has also been used pretty
> hard, lots of short trips.
> If it goes out really fast, lesson learned. If it makes it even 3 more
> years, then it was a lot better value than going with a factory one, in
> my personal experience, which is not terribly extensive, but does cover
> 24 years and about 8 cars.
>
>>> I have had stainless aftermarket exhausts on 3 different cars over the
>>> past 24 years, including my current '91 turbo Miata, that were all
>>> better and longer-lasting than what came on the Accord. Not equal to
>>> Honda OEM, superior.
>>
>>
>>
>> Were they more expensive than OEM?
>
> I do fully see your point, Tegger. Thanks for at least being polite. I
> just filtered "Mr. Beam", as I quit playing the "let's fight on the
> internet game" with lightweights like him a long time ago.
so, you "quit playing" with others? who could possibly be the ONE
common factor in all your other "games" given that it's not me???
Tegger
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>> Not true. TxDOT uses the same chemical(s), that other states use and
>> the only saving grace is that it only occurs a very few times a year,
>> (at least in the Austin area). The days of just using plain sand are
>> long gone.
>>
>> JT
>
> Do the other states use a mixture of sand and salt, or just salt? I
> remember sand on the road here, but honestly, I have no idea what has
> been added to it.
It depends.
North-eastern states (and Canadian provinces) use salt mixed with sand.
This mixture is required due to the type of winter weather received by that
area. Other areas tend to favor straight sand.
If the weather is too cold, salt doesn't work. Too much snow, it doesn't
work. Too infrequent snow/ice, there's no point in keeping the
infrastructure required to store and apply salt.
Some areas (including ours) have experimented with beet juice. No I am not
kidding. It's quite expensive compared to salt, and must be applied BEFORE
the snow falls, which really limits its practicality.
Tegger
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> Whereas our roads are bathed in salt constantly from November to May.
>>
>> The salt corrodes the hell out of anything metallic, but does make
>> the roads /considerably/ safer than they would be otherwise.
>
> The one time I have been stranded by snowy/icy weather was a
> near-blizzard in Southern Arizona, on the way back to Texas from Las
> Vegas.
>
> It was about 40 miles from the Mexico border, and was the worst
> snowstorm there in over 40 years.
They get /snow/ in Southern Arizona, 40 miles from Mehhheeco?? But that's
where all the rust-free cars come from!
AZ Nomad
>Tegger wrote:
>> Whereas our roads are bathed in salt constantly from November to May.
>>
>> The salt corrodes the hell out of anything metallic, but does make the
>> roads /considerably/ safer than they would be otherwise.
>The one time I have been stranded by snowy/icy weather was a
>near-blizzard in Southern Arizona, on the way back to Texas from Las Vegas.
>It was about 40 miles from the Mexico border, and was the worst
>snowstorm there in over 40 years. I saw no de-icing materials on the
Yeah, it was a quarter of an inch accumulation, melted instantly, but it was
still the worst snow storm in recorded history. When the cold front
blew through ten residents froze to death as temperatures fell
below 60.
Tegger
news:slrnhith0s.2...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
Phoo. What wimps. At 60 we North-easterners are sunning ourselves in
Adirondack chairs with frosty beers close to hand.
Grumpy AuContraire
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>> Not true. TxDOT uses the same chemical(s), that other states use and
>> the only saving grace is that it only occurs a very few times a year,
>> (at least in the Austin area). The days of just using plain sand are
>> long gone.
>>
>> JT
>
> Do the other states use a mixture of sand and salt, or just salt? I
> remember sand on the road here, but honestly, I have no idea what has
> been added to it.
>
Magnesium chloride... Salty stuff.
> As far as frequency, though, we do not normally get icy roads here a few
> times a year.
On the average, two or three icy road events per year. Worse now since
average temperatures have been falling over the past few years.
> That frequency has probably happened before, but in the 24 years that I
> have been driving in Austin, the roads usually only freeze over about
> once out of every 2 to 4 years, or about 3 on average.
>
> Not trying to be being argumentative, but that has been my observation.
> Of course, almost the entire city shuts down when this happens, but it
> is still like bumper cars out on the roads when they get icy.
Yes, Austin native drivers are pretty pathetic.
> Oh yeah, is the the same "Grumpy AuContraire" from austin.general? It
> has been a while.......
Yep, same one.. Stirring the pot where required.
JT
Grumpy AuContraire
Sand is always used along with chemicals except here in Texas where they
use small rocks...
JT
(From the Land of Cracked Windshields)
Grumpy AuContraire
Yeah, it can occur on rare occasion and you can bet that AZ-DOT doesn't
have squat for snow handling equipment in that part of the state...
JT
Grumpy AuContraire
I remember flying into Honolulu once for a weekend (away from Kwajalein)
and a cold front was passing through with temperatures in the low 60's.
Hilarious!
JT
Grumpy AuContraire
And thus it was said that the world was a giant fruitcake with all kinds
of varieties of nuts.......
<G>
JT
AZ Nomad
Here near Phoenix, it's easy to tell the tourists during the winter.
They're dressed in t-shirt and shorts while the temps are in the 60's
while the natives are wearing sweaters and winter jackets.
Tegger
>
> Here near Phoenix, it's easy to tell the tourists during the winter.
> They're dressed in t-shirt and shorts while the temps are in the 60's
> while the natives are wearing sweaters and winter jackets.
>
You are NOT kidding OR exaggerating. I've seen the exact same thing when we
were in So Cal both times. It's 85 and we Northerners are baring as much
flesh as possible, taking utmost advantage of it. The natives are going
around in long pants. The Mexicans are upping the ante with heavy cotton
long-sleeved shirts.
At one point in the 1960s there was a heat-wave in the Arctic part of
Canada. Temperatures soared into the 60s. The media sent reporters to find
out what the Eskimos thought of it all. And what they discovered was that
the Eskimos HATED it. WAY too hot for them. They complained up and down how
hot it was and how they had to go around half-naked to keep from sweating
themselves to death.
It's all relative, I guess.
Grumpy AuContraire
>
snip
>
> At one point in the 1960s there was a heat-wave in the Arctic part of
> Canada. Temperatures soared into the 60s. The media sent reporters to find
> out what the Eskimos thought of it all. And what they discovered was that
> the Eskimos HATED it. WAY too hot for them. They complained up and down how
> hot it was and how they had to go around half-naked to keep from sweating
> themselves to death.
Heat wave in the 1960's???? Don't let Al Gore find out!
JT
AZ Nomad
>snip
Moron. Global warming isn't related to seasonal weather.
E. Meyer
On 12/24/09 7:57 AM, in article
slrnhj6spr.7...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net, "AZ Nomad"
<azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
Well, duh, everybody knows its actually related to hot air emanating from
the mouths of politicians. Lets not do another 500 post thread on this.
Grumpy AuContraire
Really, pray tell, what's your take???
JT
(Who doesn't see much warming these days...)
AZ Nomad
My take is that we generate more auto emissions than ever, that before
emissions controls, they would cause terrible smog, and that they
are still currently generating even more non-smog generating,
culmulative emissions. Global CO2 levels have been rising steadily
since the invention of the automobile, and there are signs such as
shrinking glaciers of climate change occuring more in 50 years than
has every occured in a single 50,000 year period in history.
Pull you head out of your ass.
Tegger
>
> My take is that we generate more auto emissions than ever, that before
> emissions controls, they would cause terrible smog, and that they
> are still currently generating even more non-smog generating,
> culmulative emissions.
We're not actually. The US federal EPA says that pollution levels have
declined absolutely to about 57% of 1970 levels, this in spite of something
like a 153% increase in vehicular traffic since 1970.
That 57% reduction is absolute, not relative. It means that any given
volume of air contains 57% lower concentrations of the measured substances
than the same volume of air did in 1970. Sure sounds to me as though modern
cars are actually /cleaner/ than ambient air. Scrubbing Bubbles in your
exhaust!
And CO2 is not a "pollutant". The more CO2 in the air, the better plants
grow and the more rain falls. Some "pollutant".
jim beam
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:44:47 -0600, Grumpy AuContraire<Grum...@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote:
>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:18:54 -0600, Grumpy AuContraire<Grum...@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote:
>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>
>>>> snip
>>>
>>>>> At one point in the 1960s there was a heat-wave in the Arctic part of
>>>>> Canada. Temperatures soared into the 60s. The media sent reporters to find
>>>>> out what the Eskimos thought of it all. And what they discovered was that
>>>>> the Eskimos HATED it. WAY too hot for them. They complained up and down how
>>>>> hot it was and how they had to go around half-naked to keep from sweating
>>>>> themselves to death.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Heat wave in the 1960's???? Don't let Al Gore find out!
>>>
>>> Moron. Global warming isn't related to seasonal weather.
>>>
>
>
>> Really, pray tell, what's your take???
>
> My take is that we generate more auto emissions than ever, that before
> emissions controls, they would cause terrible smog, and that they
> are still currently generating even more non-smog generating,
> culmulative emissions. Global CO2 levels have been rising steadily
> since the invention of the automobile,
in 150 years? you need a cite for that.
> and there are signs such as
> shrinking glaciers of climate change occuring more in 50 years than
> has every occured in a single 50,000 year period in history.
again, you need a cite for that. as someone that grew up in the 70's,
we were fed the enviro-doomsday story of the day - the coming ice age.
then it was campaign for nuclear disarmament. then it was save the
whales. now it's global warming. it's amazing how fashions change.
>
> Pull you head out of your ass.
alternatively, crack open a google and read something you haven't read
before.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_coming_ice_age.html
Grumpy AuContraire
> AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
> news:slrnhjfalr.h...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
>
>
>> My take is that we generate more auto emissions than ever, that before
>> emissions controls, they would cause terrible smog, and that they
>> are still currently generating even more non-smog generating,
>> culmulative emissions.
>
>
>
> We're not actually. The US federal EPA says that pollution levels have
> declined absolutely to about 57% of 1970 levels, this in spite of something
> like a 153% increase in vehicular traffic since 1970.
I was going to answer the original poster but he seems to be totally
subjugated by the current "sky is falling" alarmists.
Regarding auto emmissions, that total is even higher here in Austin.
It's around 90% IIRC. Cars have gotten so clean that using 'em for
suicide is now a challenge.
> That 57% reduction is absolute, not relative. It means that any given
> volume of air contains 57% lower concentrations of the measured substances
> than the same volume of air did in 1970. Sure sounds to me as though modern
> cars are actually /cleaner/ than ambient air. Scrubbing Bubbles in your
> exhaust!
Actually, the previous poster's contention is laughable.
CO2 is as much a pollutant as H2O. Too much of either will kill you but
such "hazards" should not be of concern to mere mortals.
OTOH, if wishes to discuss "greenhouse" gases, one may want to take a
closer look at water vapor. Ooops, there's that pesky H2O again.
Further, the CO2 content in the atmosphere that comprises greenhouse
gasses is small indeed and the "human caused" amount is almost
non-calculable.
> And CO2 is not a "pollutant". The more CO2 in the air, the better plants
> grow and the more rain falls. Some "pollutant".
Now, if one wishes to look further, my contention is that most human
caused increases in CO2 are largely the result of the decimation of the
tropical rain forests. But since attempts to fix that are not real money
makers, we are being bombarded by unproven silly schemes to fix a
nonexistent problem which at the same time will empty our pockets.
Anyone who believes that money and power are not the real villains here
is just simply ducking the issue.
JT
Grumpy AuContraire
Well, CO2 is up but that's to be expected as it is a lagging factor in
climate change. (This is good in view of declining world temperatures
of late).
If he digs up a cite, you can bet that it's based on "cooked" numbers
probably from the UEA/Met which is now under siege just doing that.
As one who has had training in meteorology, climate is a science largely
dependent of the collection of statistics. When the alarmists who have
dominated the issue "sift" raw data, credibility comes into question.
Might be worth mentioning that people like Gore, Hanson, etc have
absolutely no credentials to even be involved while free thinkers like
Dr. Henrik Svensmark are ignored. His observations make the most sense
to me.
>> and there are signs such as
>> shrinking glaciers of climate change occuring more in 50 years than
>> has every occured in a single 50,000 year period in history.
>
> again, you need a cite for that. as someone that grew up in the 70's,
> we were fed the enviro-doomsday story of the day - the coming ice age.
> then it was campaign for nuclear disarmament. then it was save the
> whales. now it's global warming. it's amazing how fashions change.
See, what they are citing are relatively small areas of glacier loss
while never acknowledging glacial rebuilds over most of the world
particularly Antarctica. Same goes for polar bears et al.
In the 1970's, I was involved in a research/documentary project where
one of the issues was the destruction of the tropical corral reefs by
the Acanthaster planci. There are still some who are alarmed by its
continued existence. A lot of resources were devoted to remedial action
but in the end, it just turned out to be a cyclical event. After that
experience, I vowed then never to be misled by bad science.
In retrospect, I am not overly concerned that some species may go
extinct. Such as been the case for all history and who are we to stop a
natural process?
AZ Nomad
>AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>news:slrnhjfalr.h...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
>>
>> My take is that we generate more auto emissions than ever, that before
>> emissions controls, they would cause terrible smog, and that they
>> are still currently generating even more non-smog generating,
>> culmulative emissions.
>We're not actually. The US federal EPA says that pollution levels have
>declined absolutely to about 57% of 1970 levels, this in spite of something
>like a 153% increase in vehicular traffic since 1970.
Those figures don't include CO2.
Tegger
>
> Those figures don't include CO2.
>
Which isn't a "pollutant".
AZ Nomad
>AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>news:slrnhjflhe.r...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
>>
>> Those figures don't include CO2.
>>
>Which isn't a "pollutant".
Do you have ADD? We've been discussing climate change.
jim beam
that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
spelled it "coral", not corral.
Tegger
Man is responsible for /maybe/ 5% of the atmosphere's
total CO2 content.
Since the atmosphere's CO2 is about 0.04% of the total
atmospheric volume, that means our 5% product makes up about
0.002% of total atmospheric volume.
Read this for an imaginative illustration of just how
small an amount that is:
<http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=034028d4-8a4a-4103-8012-6445ac5ba715&k=46578>
(a "litre" is about the same as a quart; 50ml is about 2 oz)
Man is having no effect on the global climate with his CO2.
But even if he did, it would be a beneficial one.
Plants absolutely /love/ CO2. The more the better.
You like plants, don't you? Don't you want them to live?
Tegger
news:r7KdnX_nYKKHRqrW...@speakeasy.net:
If a man who smokes tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your
health, is his message invalid because he himself smokes? Ignore the
(stupidly trivial) spelling mistake and pay attention to Grumpy's point.
And in these days of Google, failure to do your own believability tests is
inexcusably argumentative.
I find it faintly distasteful how many Usenet/Web-board denizens demand
cites and proofs on points that they dislike. That demand can be translated
essentially as, "I hate what you're saying but I can't refute it (or don't
feel like doing so), so I'll put the onus on you by making a ridiculous
demand".
And then there are the attempts at deflection from the core issue, like
pointing out spelling mistakes, or ad hominem attacks.
I did some digging for you. Here,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish>
Grumpy just might be correct.
He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.
jim beam
> jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:r7KdnX_nYKKHRqrW...@speakeasy.net:
>
>> On 12/27/2009 01:29 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>>>
>>> In the 1970's, I was involved in a research/documentary project where
>>> one of the issues was the destruction of the tropical corral reefs by
>>> the Acanthaster planci. There are still some who are alarmed by its
>>> continued existence. A lot of resources were devoted to remedial action
>>> but in the end, it just turned out to be a cyclical event. After that
>>> experience, I vowed then never to be misled by bad science.
>>
>> that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
>> spelled it "coral", not corral.
>>
>
>
>
> If a man who smokes tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your
> health, is his message invalid because he himself smokes? Ignore the
> (stupidly trivial) spelling mistake and pay attention to Grumpy's point.
but dude, if it's been a part of your life for a period, if the story is
to be believed, you have to be able to spell it right don't you? that
would be like you misspelling "integra".
>
> And in these days of Google, failure to do your own believability tests is
> inexcusably argumentative.
>
> I find it faintly distasteful how many Usenet/Web-board denizens demand
> cites and proofs on points that they dislike. That demand can be translated
> essentially as, "I hate what you're saying but I can't refute it (or don't
> feel like doing so), so I'll put the onus on you by making a ridiculous
> demand".
> And then there are the attempts at deflection from the core issue, like
> pointing out spelling mistakes, or ad hominem attacks.
>
> I did some digging for you. Here,
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish>
> Grumpy just might be correct.
>
> He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
> activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
> do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.
>
>
on the subject of climate scientist credibility, some while back,
rec.bicycles.tech was being snowed with articles about the dangers of
mountain bikes with front disk brakes. the prime author, and vigorous
defender, of this danger theory was a climate scientist named dr james
annan. long story short, he'd calculated that the front wheel of a bike
could be ejected if the [disk] brakes were applied. and some of the
usual r.b.t blowhards jumped aboard the ballyhoo looking for trouble as
on the face of it, the math did indeed look sensational. but there were
two problems:
1. the calculated failures were not being observed in the field.
2. examination showed the math to have a fundamental omission!
hence #2 explained the reality check - #1.
but instead of fixing the math, this character just ignored the problem
and started to get more and more hysterical in his desperation to stir
up a fight. when that didn't work, he then started to play the
"credibility" card. sure, he had a phd, sure, he had a science job, and
sure, he apparently was pretty vocal on the subject and had a number of
high profile articles printed in a number of the world's newspapers,
complete with inflammatory statements. but the bottom line was, he'd
still made a fundamental mistake in what is some pretty danged simple
math, and failed the reality check of comparing the math what is
observed to be actually happening - basically because he was trying to
make his theory fit what he wanted to see, not what was actually happening.
a credible individual to be contributing to the climate change debate?
i think not.
AZ Nomad
>AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>news:slrnhjfmla.t...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:54:29 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <inv...@invalid.inv>
>> wrote:
>>>AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>>>news:slrnhjflhe.r...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Those figures don't include CO2.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>Which isn't a "pollutant".
>>
>> Do you have ADD? We've been discussing climate change.
>>
>Man is responsible for /maybe/ 5% of the atmosphere's
>total CO2 content.
>Since the atmosphere's CO2 is about 0.04% of the total
>atmospheric volume, that means our 5% product makes up about
>0.002% of total atmospheric volume.
5000 ppm is considered very unhealthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148%
respectively since 1750
These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000
years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice
cores.
jim beam
there is a physical phenomenon called "solid state diffusion". this
means that solute levels change over time, even in solids. i seriously
doubt the credibility of anyone trying to say that gas levels in ice
cores from 1750 are representative of reality 260 years ago.
Joe
At least you used a nice, reliable, peer-reviewed source...
Blech...
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
Tegger
>
> 5000 ppm is considered very unhealthy.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
>
> The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148%
> respectively since 1750
>
> These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000
> years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice
> cores.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Wikipedia is a biased, distorted, and thoroughly unreliable source
of climate change information.
Wikipedia is not to be trusted at all. Period.
It is to Jimmy Wales's eternal shame that he allows
William Connolley and his band of thugs to propagandize Wikipedia
as they do.
Read these, in order:
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx>
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx>
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx>
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/23/lawrence-solomon-climategate-at-wikipedia.aspx>
And a few more articles:
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/tags/Oreskes/default.aspx>
Tegger
news:slrnhjgb3...@barada.griffincs.local:
> On 2009-12-28, AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>
> At least you used a nice, reliable, peer-reviewed source...
>
> Blech...
>
I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning...
See here for far more credible information that is
NOT tainted with the infection that is William Connolley:
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx>
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx>
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx>
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/23/lawrence-solomon-climategate-at-wikipedia.aspx>
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/tags/Oreskes/default.aspx>
Read 'em in order, from top to bottom.
Grumpy AuContraire
That's probably because I go once a week to the Golden Corral for a
pigfest... - Polluted Thinker
Grumpy AuContraire
> jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:r7KdnX_nYKKHRqrW...@speakeasy.net:
>
>> On 12/27/2009 01:29 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>>> In the 1970's, I was involved in a research/documentary project where
>>> one of the issues was the destruction of the tropical corral reefs by
>>> the Acanthaster planci. There are still some who are alarmed by its
>>> continued existence. A lot of resources were devoted to remedial action
>>> but in the end, it just turned out to be a cyclical event. After that
>>> experience, I vowed then never to be misled by bad science.
>> that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
>> spelled it "coral", not corral.
>>
>
>
>
> If a man who smokes tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your
> health, is his message invalid because he himself smokes? Ignore the
> (stupidly trivial) spelling mistake and pay attention to Grumpy's point.
As I just explained in a just posted reply, the "corral" instead of
coral is probably due to my habit of stuffing myself at the Golden
Corral on a weekly basis. Irony would have it that an individual who
criticizes spelling while himself cannot find a "shift" key is... well,
ironic..
> And in these days of Google, failure to do your own believability tests is
> inexcusably argumentative.
>
> I find it faintly distasteful how many Usenet/Web-board denizens demand
> cites and proofs on points that they dislike. That demand can be translated
> essentially as, "I hate what you're saying but I can't refute it (or don't
> feel like doing so), so I'll put the onus on you by making a ridiculous
> demand".
> And then there are the attempts at deflection from the core issue, like
> pointing out spelling mistakes, or ad hominem attacks.
>
> I did some digging for you. Here,
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish>
> Grumpy just might be correct.
I should be. I was there in person.
> He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
> activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
> do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.
Prior to the recent revelations of numbers cooking, they almost had the
masses convinced. Thankfully, it's all unraveling hopefully just like
the ol' Watergate event.
AZ Nomad
Co2 levels are rising. It is a fact. Get over it.
Joe
>
> Co2 levels are rising. It is a fact. Get over it.
Thanks. Now that the issue is resolved...
Tegger
Sure are. And that's a GOOD thing.
Grumpy AuContraire
Enjoy the kool aid...
JT
M.A. Stewart
Is 'wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish' correct?
>
>
>>> He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
>>> activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
>>> do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.
>
>>Prior to the recent revelations of numbers cooking, they almost had the
>>masses convinced. Thankfully, it's all unraveling hopefully just like
>>the ol' Watergate event.
>
> Co2 levels are rising. It is a fact. Get over it.
Molecular cobalt (Co) levels are rising???
Boomer
The information about stainless steel parts in Toyota is very interesting.
The addition of stainless steel parts will probably not increase any sales
in the showroom. I am thinking that after a few years the information will
slowly become known that Toyota parts simply last a long time. This means
that they are planning for sales years ahead.
An American automaker would never do such a thing, and clearly Honda is not
doing it. I just brought my 98 CRV into a body shop to have the rust removed
and then repainted on my rear quarter panels. It had just barely started.
This cost me 90 dollars. We have low labour rates here in the UP. Of course
the UP is another place for much snow and lots of salt.
Michael
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE5B827...@208.90.168.18...
> pws <pwsh...@austin.rr.com> wrote in news:hgg5hi$um9$1...@aioe.org:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>
>>> Ten years is an excellent lifespan, especialy for a muffler that has
>>> had the treatment yours did.
>>>
>>> My personal (and fairly extensive) experience with aftermarket has
>>> never yielded more than two years without additional problems
>>> arising. But then I had been looking for /cheaper/ alternatives to
>>> OEM. Which turned out to be very cheap indeed.
>>
>> The aftermarket, non-stainless muffler I have on now has been there
>> for 5 years and it is still in good condition. It has also been used
>> pretty hard, lots of short trips.
>
>
>
> It might have to do with your geographical location. I'm located in the
> very heart of the north-eastern Rust Belt, where the climate is horribly
> abusive of anything made of steel, especially when the moisture is
> regularly combined with road salt.
>
> If you're in an area whose climate is kinder to steels, your mufflers
> would
> last longer, period.
>
>
>
>> If it goes out really fast, lesson learned. If it makes it even 3 more
>> years, then it was a lot better value than going with a factory one,
>> in my personal experience, which is not terribly extensive, but does
>> cover 24 years and about 8 cars.
>>
>>>> I have had stainless aftermarket exhausts on 3 different cars over
>>>> the past 24 years, including my current '91 turbo Miata, that were
>>>> all better and longer-lasting than what came on the Accord. Not
>>>> equal to Honda OEM, superior.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Were they more expensive than OEM?
>>
>> I do fully see your point, Tegger.
>
>
>
> One thing I can't quite understand is why Honda does not simply change to
> semi-stainless steels. Toyota has been making their entire exhaust systems
> from that for at least 12 years now. Our '99 Tercel (yes there was such a
> beast) still has its original muffler, and it's just like new. No rust
> anywhere, even in the weld seams.
>
> But then Honda also still uses rustable steels for their brake caliper
> pistons, whereas Toyota makes those out of stainless as well.
Boomer
>
>
>
> Whereas our roads are bathed in salt constantly from November to May.
>
> The salt corrodes the hell out of anything metallic, but does make the
> roads /considerably/ safer than they would be otherwise.
>
>
> --
> Tegger
>
I am not sure that this is always true Tegger. I lived for several years in
North Dakota. They had very cold winters. The state highways were not
salted, at least where I lived next to the Canadian border. I would drive
South to Minot and have good traction with my CRV. As soon as I came into
Minot, the roads were salted and were suddenly slippery.
I was always happy to get out of Minot and onto hard frozen roads where I
had traction. This may be simply a characteristic of the cold winters in ND.
Driving on icy roads when it is -20 means much better traction than when it
is +20.
Michael