info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Simple drawer glides - is this a bad design?
104 views
Skip to first unread message
Edward A. Falk
May 26, 2014, 11:48:56 AM5/26/14
to
See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
it to other cabinets I've seen.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
it to other cabinets I've seen.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Michael
May 26, 2014, 12:02:29 PM5/26/14
to
k...@attt.bizz
May 26, 2014, 12:04:15 PM5/26/14
to
On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:48:56 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:
>See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
>
>It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
>
>I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
>held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
>should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
>it to other cabinets I've seen.
There are three problems, I see.
Falk) wrote:
>See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
>
>It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
>
>I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
>held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
>should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
>it to other cabinets I've seen.
First, the sliding surfaces will wear. It would probably be good to
make them out of something like Ash or Ironwood. ;-) If you can
somehow make one mating surface sacrificial, it might be a good idea.
The drawers will only be good for about 1/2 draw. After the COG goes
forward of the middle of the runners the wear on the front corner of
the runner (and the mating surface of the drawer) will wear
excessively. If they're pulled all the way out (without support at
the front) the runners may be damaged. Of course this can be a
minimal problem if these drawers are never heavily loaded. I prefer
at least 3/4 draw on all drawers, if not full extension (or more),
though.
Without "stretchers" (side to side pieces in the middle, holding the
sides parallel), the sides may bow outward causing the runners to bind
or slip off track. Again, this may be a minimal problem if the
drawers are never heavily loaded. Ours always seem to be, though.
Edward A. Falk
May 26, 2014, 12:17:37 PM5/26/14
to
In article <0qo6o91qpjst43e9j...@4ax.com>,
>The drawers will only be good for about 1/2 draw. After the COG goes
>forward of the middle of the runners the wear on the front corner of
>the runner (and the mating surface of the drawer) will wear
>excessively. If they're pulled all the way out (without support at
>the front) the runners may be damaged. Of course this can be a
>minimal problem if these drawers are never heavily loaded. I prefer
>at least 3/4 draw on all drawers, if not full extension (or more),
>though.
Ahh, good point. I know that the drawers can easily pull all the way out;
most of the drawers in my house are like that, so it's not really a problem.
But the way I have it designed, they'll still tip partway out, which is
not good. Time to reconsider some of the design elements.
>Without "stretchers" (side to side pieces in the middle, holding the
>sides parallel), the sides may bow outward causing the runners to bind
>or slip off track. Again, this may be a minimal problem if the
>drawers are never heavily loaded. Ours always seem to be, though.
Very good point; I'll look into adding stretchers.
Thanks for the advice.
<k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:48:56 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>Falk) wrote:
>
>
>There are three problems, I see.
>
>First, the sliding surfaces will wear. It would probably be good to
>make them out of something like Ash or Ironwood. ;-) If you can
>somehow make one mating surface sacrificial, it might be a good idea.
I was planning on using poplar.
>On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:48:56 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>Falk) wrote:
>
>
>There are three problems, I see.
>
>First, the sliding surfaces will wear. It would probably be good to
>make them out of something like Ash or Ironwood. ;-) If you can
>somehow make one mating surface sacrificial, it might be a good idea.
>The drawers will only be good for about 1/2 draw. After the COG goes
>forward of the middle of the runners the wear on the front corner of
>the runner (and the mating surface of the drawer) will wear
>excessively. If they're pulled all the way out (without support at
>the front) the runners may be damaged. Of course this can be a
>minimal problem if these drawers are never heavily loaded. I prefer
>at least 3/4 draw on all drawers, if not full extension (or more),
>though.
most of the drawers in my house are like that, so it's not really a problem.
But the way I have it designed, they'll still tip partway out, which is
not good. Time to reconsider some of the design elements.
>Without "stretchers" (side to side pieces in the middle, holding the
>sides parallel), the sides may bow outward causing the runners to bind
>or slip off track. Again, this may be a minimal problem if the
>drawers are never heavily loaded. Ours always seem to be, though.
Thanks for the advice.
dpb
May 26, 2014, 12:25:19 PM5/26/14
to
On 5/26/2014 10:48 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
>
> It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
>
> I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
> held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
> should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
> it to other cabinets I've seen.
For what usage? A zillion chests and such have been built that way for
> See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
>
> It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
>
> I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
> held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
> should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
> it to other cabinets I've seen.
centuries; it's important to fit well, of course. A _little_ taper to
the back can help.
Alternatives include use a side runner that fits in a rabbet along the
drawer side.
The comment on tipping is pretty easily handled by including a surface
above so that it has a running surface there, too, with just a little
clearance so the tipping isn't too great.
As far as the choice, poplar is quite soft, I'd suggest a harder wood.
A newer alternative there (and one I've used on several older pieces
including the dining room buffet here that has one full-width drawer on
the top; nearly 5-ft I'd guess) is to use a piece of the stick-on UHMD
plastic as a wear strip and friction-reducer.
Now, as a kitchen cabinet, maybe not so much, but you didn't say...
--
Larry Blanchard
May 26, 2014, 12:28:27 PM5/26/14
to
On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:04:15 -0400, krw wrote:
> First, the sliding surfaces will wear. It would probably be good to
> make them out of something like Ash or Ironwood. ;-) If you can
> somehow make one mating surface sacrificial, it might be a good idea.
Very true. Hard maple works pretty well. If both surfaces are hard
> First, the sliding surfaces will wear. It would probably be good to
> make them out of something like Ash or Ironwood. ;-) If you can
> somehow make one mating surface sacrificial, it might be a good idea.
maple, they should outlast thee or me.
>
> The drawers will only be good for about 1/2 draw. After the COG goes
> forward of the middle of the runners the wear on the front corner of the
> runner (and the mating surface of the drawer) will wear excessively.
sides (which can easily be sacrificial) running in a groove, or by a
kicker above the drawer.
pentapus
May 26, 2014, 1:13:23 PM5/26/14
to
>
>
--
pentapus
Edward A. Falk
May 26, 2014, 1:28:42 PM5/26/14
to
In article <llvq3b$s1a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
My updated design: http://imgur.com/nfZd5UQ
Thanks for your advice, everybody.
Thanks for your advice, everybody.
Edward A. Falk
May 26, 2014, 1:35:11 PM5/26/14
to
In article <llvpti$rm7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:
>On 5/26/2014 10:48 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>
>As far as the choice, poplar is quite soft, I'd suggest a harder wood.
OK, let me think about that. The outer surfaces will be Douglas Fir,
>On 5/26/2014 10:48 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>
>As far as the choice, poplar is quite soft, I'd suggest a harder wood.
see http://www.instructables.com/id/Pantry-Cabinet/ for an example of
something else I've done with Doug Fir.
I almost feel strange using softwood for the outside, and hardwood for
the structural components.
>Now, as a kitchen cabinet, maybe not so much, but you didn't say...
woodchucker
May 26, 2014, 2:28:29 PM5/26/14
to
On 5/26/2014 11:48 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
>
> It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
>
> I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
> held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
> should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
> it to other cabinets I've seen.
>
IMHO it works.
> See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
>
> It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
>
> I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
> held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
> should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
> it to other cabinets I've seen.
>
Just use heavy wax coating.
OR, use the nylon type glides that they sell that you staple in, on the
front end. That lets the drawer slide well and that wears over time and
is the sacrificial piece.. LONG TIME.
--
Jeff
dpb
May 26, 2014, 3:36:03 PM5/26/14
to
On 5/26/2014 12:35 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article<llvpti$rm7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, dpb<no...@non.net> wrote:
>> On 5/26/2014 10:48 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>
>> As far as the choice, poplar is quite soft, I'd suggest a harder wood.
>
> OK, let me think about that. The outer surfaces will be Douglas Fir,
> see http://www.instructables.com/id/Pantry-Cabinet/ for an example of
> something else I've done with Doug Fir.
>
> I almost feel strange using softwood for the outside, and hardwood for
> the structural components.
I love fir...it's only obtainable here any more by special order at
> In article<llvpti$rm7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, dpb<no...@non.net> wrote:
>> On 5/26/2014 10:48 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>
>> As far as the choice, poplar is quite soft, I'd suggest a harder wood.
>
> OK, let me think about that. The outer surfaces will be Douglas Fir,
> see http://www.instructables.com/id/Pantry-Cabinet/ for an example of
> something else I've done with Doug Fir.
>
> I almost feel strange using softwood for the outside, and hardwood for
> the structural components.
astronomical prices. Almost 15 yr ago now, shortly after returned to
the farm here after the sojourn (like Mr Van Winkle of 30 yr) in VA and
TN, asked the kid working in the local lumber yard for some fir--he
didn't even know what it was. In the loft of the barn from 50 yr ago
now are some 20-ft 2x12 and 2x10's left over from building a set of bins
for a small feed mill. I can't bring myself to touch 'em... :)
Anyway, "hard" vs "soft" here only has to do w/ the hardness, not the
genus classification. For a small vanity side drawer, the weight isn't
going to be enough that the poplar would likely be ok for a long time,
too. I was thinking heavier than that...
k...@attt.bizz
May 26, 2014, 3:45:27 PM5/26/14
to
On Mon, 26 May 2014 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:
>In article <llvq3b$s1a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>Larry Blanchard <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:04:15 -0400, krw wrote:
>>
>>That's easily solved. Either by runners in the middle of the drawer
>>sides (which can easily be sacrificial) running in a groove, or by a
>>kicker above the drawer.
Yes, runners (in slots) are a good idea too. That doesn't address the
Falk) wrote:
>In article <llvq3b$s1a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>Larry Blanchard <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:04:15 -0400, krw wrote:
>>
>>That's easily solved. Either by runners in the middle of the drawer
>>sides (which can easily be sacrificial) running in a groove, or by a
>>kicker above the drawer.
wear issue but it will solve some of the tilt problem. The
sacrificial member was what I was getting at, though. I hate building
anything that can't be repaired.
I'd beef the stretchers up substantially. Remember, that's end grain
they're attaching to the sides with. Really think about the joinery.
...or you could make it a solid panel (plywood, etc.) to eliminate the
end grain.
Edward A. Falk
May 26, 2014, 4:45:13 PM5/26/14
to
In article <IYmdndyBt_VTGh7O...@ptd.net>,
woodchucker <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Just use heavy wax coating.
>OR, use the nylon type glides that they sell that you staple in, on the
>front end. That lets the drawer slide well and that wears over time and
>is the sacrificial piece.. LONG TIME.
Yeah, I'm leaning towards small teflon glides.
>Just use heavy wax coating.
>OR, use the nylon type glides that they sell that you staple in, on the
>front end. That lets the drawer slide well and that wears over time and
>is the sacrificial piece.. LONG TIME.
Ed Pawlowski
May 26, 2014, 5:13:19 PM5/26/14
to
On 5/26/2014 3:45 PM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
> I hate building
> anything that can't be repaired.
They should have you in Detroit to design the location of spark plugs
> I hate building
> anything that can't be repaired.
and oil filters.
Michael
May 26, 2014, 5:23:13 PM5/26/14
to
Lew Hodgett
May 26, 2014, 5:57:12 PM5/26/14
to
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
> They should have you in Detroit to design the location of spark
> plugs and oil filters.
--------------------------------------------
> They should have you in Detroit to design the location of spark
> plugs and oil filters.
There was a time I would have said "AMEN", but that was then
and this is now.
Just had an oil and filter change.
Cost $24.00 including tax and proper disposal of old oil.
An air filter was $15 + tax by itself.
These days plug wires are designed for 100,000 miles of
service per Toyota.
Aftermarket wires are another matter.
Around here the wires cost more than the labor to change them.
At these prices, do it yourself offers no advantage.
Lew
k...@attt.bizz
May 26, 2014, 8:35:33 PM5/26/14
to
often. I don't even remember replacing them on my last vehicle. Oil
filters, well, you have a point. I bet you just love interference
heads, too.
Ed Pawlowski
May 26, 2014, 8:36:24 PM5/26/14
to
On 5/26/2014 5:57 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
paid to have it done since. I've been paying about $32.
>
> These days plug wires are designed for 100,000 miles of
> service per Toyota.
>
> Aftermarket wires are another matter.
>
> Around here the wires cost more than the labor to change them.
>
> At these prices, do it yourself offers no advantage.
>
> Lew
Not on everything. My car is a turbo and plugs should be changed at
48,000. On older engines, it was a 15 minute job to change 4 or 6
plugs. I'm sure it will be considerably more time on a car where the
plugs are not even visible. Don't know yet if I'll DIY as I've not
looked seriously yet. 10K miles to go.
I know some cars you have to loosen a motor mount and jack the engine,
others require pulling a wheel so you can go from a wheel well with 2
extensions and a U joint. Not at all like my flathead Merc pr a Chevy
straight six.
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>
>
>
> Just had an oil and filter change.
>
> Cost $24.00 including tax and proper disposal of old oil.
Last oil change I did was on my '91 Regal. It was a real PITA and I've
>
>
>
> Just had an oil and filter change.
>
> Cost $24.00 including tax and proper disposal of old oil.
paid to have it done since. I've been paying about $32.
>
> These days plug wires are designed for 100,000 miles of
> service per Toyota.
>
> Aftermarket wires are another matter.
>
> Around here the wires cost more than the labor to change them.
>
> At these prices, do it yourself offers no advantage.
>
> Lew
48,000. On older engines, it was a 15 minute job to change 4 or 6
plugs. I'm sure it will be considerably more time on a car where the
plugs are not even visible. Don't know yet if I'll DIY as I've not
looked seriously yet. 10K miles to go.
I know some cars you have to loosen a motor mount and jack the engine,
others require pulling a wheel so you can go from a wheel well with 2
extensions and a U joint. Not at all like my flathead Merc pr a Chevy
straight six.
k...@attt.bizz
May 26, 2014, 8:38:06 PM5/26/14
to
100% of the time. If the filter is impossible to get at, I'm quite
sure they're often skipped. "Who'll know?"
Michael
May 26, 2014, 9:11:06 PM5/26/14
to
pentapus
May 26, 2014, 9:35:47 PM5/26/14
to
On 5/26/2014 8:36 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/26/2014 5:57 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>
>> Just had an oil and filter change.
>>
>> Cost $24.00 including tax and proper disposal of old oil.
>
> Last oil change I did was on my '91 Regal. It was a real PITA and I've
> paid to have it done since. I've been paying about $32.
Buick never expected the car owner to do their own maintenance. That
> On 5/26/2014 5:57 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>
>> Just had an oil and filter change.
>>
>> Cost $24.00 including tax and proper disposal of old oil.
>
> Last oil change I did was on my '91 Regal. It was a real PITA and I've
> paid to have it done since. I've been paying about $32.
filter is hard to get to. In fairness to Buick, they do build a good
car, why can't the rest of GM manage that?
>
>
>>
>> These days plug wires are designed for 100,000 miles of
>> service per Toyota.
>>
>> Aftermarket wires are another matter.
>>
>> Around here the wires cost more than the labor to change them.
>>
>> At these prices, do it yourself offers no advantage.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Not on everything. My car is a turbo and plugs should be changed at
> 48,000. On older engines, it was a 15 minute job to change 4 or 6
> plugs. I'm sure it will be considerably more time on a car where the
> plugs are not even visible. Don't know yet if I'll DIY as I've not
> looked seriously yet. 10K miles to go.
>
> I know some cars you have to loosen a motor mount and jack the engine,
The Regals were supposed to be like that, but I had little trouble with
>
>>
>> These days plug wires are designed for 100,000 miles of
>> service per Toyota.
>>
>> Aftermarket wires are another matter.
>>
>> Around here the wires cost more than the labor to change them.
>>
>> At these prices, do it yourself offers no advantage.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Not on everything. My car is a turbo and plugs should be changed at
> 48,000. On older engines, it was a 15 minute job to change 4 or 6
> plugs. I'm sure it will be considerably more time on a car where the
> plugs are not even visible. Don't know yet if I'll DIY as I've not
> looked seriously yet. 10K miles to go.
>
> I know some cars you have to loosen a motor mount and jack the engine,
my '95 Regal. I don't mind the extra work so much as the replacement
intervals are lengthy.
What I don't like are cars that don't ever seem to get fixed right,
particularly when I wind up being the fallback when the shop fails.
> others require pulling a wheel so you can go from a wheel well with 2
> extensions and a U joint. Not at all like my flathead Merc pr a Chevy
> straight six.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_straight-6_engine
>
--
pentapus
Leon
May 26, 2014, 10:29:21 PM5/26/14
to
On 5/26/2014 10:48 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
>
> It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
>
> I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
> held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
> should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
> it to other cabinets I've seen.
>
That will work but to remention what others have or may have said,
>
> It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
>
> I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
> held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
> should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
> it to other cabinets I've seen.
>
1. You want pretty close tolerances so that there will be as little
side to side wiggle as possible.
2. Tight tolerances between the cabinet slides to drawer will keep the
drawer from tipping as much. The more the drawer tips the more friction
you will encounter. also the tighter the tolerances and less drawer
tipping you have the farther you can pull the drawers out.
3. Use HARD wood for the drawer top and bottom edges and the cabinet
runners. And then "wax" the mating surfaces.
4. I would strongly suggest that the cabinet side slides be dado'ed in.
You don't want to rely on screws alone to hold them in place.
These drawers are almost 16" deep and can be pulled out about 14 inches
before they begin to exhibit any drag or tilt.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/6485169951/in/set-72157630857421932
In this example the drawer chest side of the slides are dado'ed in and
the drawer sides have groves so that the chest slide engages the side of
the drawer. Again tight tolerances enables for the drawers to pull out
almost completely before they begin to tilt.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/4335052930/in/set-72157630857421932
In this example the tolerances allow the drawer to be pulled out to with
in 1" before it begins to tilt and they are 13,3/4" deep.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8615323816/in/set-72157630857421932
And of course consistency in size counts too.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8600953399/
Leon
May 26, 2014, 10:31:08 PM5/26/14
to
On 5/26/2014 11:17 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article <0qo6o91qpjst43e9j...@4ax.com>,
> <k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:48:56 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>> Falk) wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are three problems, I see.
>>
>> First, the sliding surfaces will wear. It would probably be good to
>> make them out of something like Ash or Ironwood. ;-) If you can
>> somehow make one mating surface sacrificial, it might be a good idea.
>
> I was planning on using poplar.
I would strongly suggest at least something like Baltic birch for the
> In article <0qo6o91qpjst43e9j...@4ax.com>,
> <k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:48:56 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>> Falk) wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are three problems, I see.
>>
>> First, the sliding surfaces will wear. It would probably be good to
>> make them out of something like Ash or Ironwood. ;-) If you can
>> somehow make one mating surface sacrificial, it might be a good idea.
>
> I was planning on using poplar.
drawer sides and maple or oak for the cabinet slides.
>
Leon
May 26, 2014, 10:38:28 PM5/26/14
to
look dirtier than the new oil. The filters typically hold 1/8 to 1/5 of
the oil that is in the engine. That old oil never really drains out of
the filter if it is left on the vehicle.
Besides that, I have probably changed the oil on a couple hundred
different vehicles. The the vehicle up on the lift makes all the
difference in the world in how accessible the filter is.
Leon
May 26, 2014, 10:40:01 PM5/26/14
to
Lew Hodgett
May 27, 2014, 12:35:10 AM5/27/14
to
"Michael" wrote:
>
> Our mechanic wanted $180.00 to replace the plugs on my F150.
Better you than me.
From memory, replacement labor was about $35 for a
Toyota Tacoma 4 cyl last year.
Lew
Lew Hodgett
May 27, 2014, 12:48:51 AM5/27/14
to
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>>>
>>>> They should have you in Detroit to design the location of spark
>>>> plugs and oil filters.
--------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>> There was a time I would have said "AMEN", but that was then
>>> and this is now.
>>>
>>> Just had an oil and filter change.
>>>
>>> Cost $24.00 including tax and proper disposal of old oil.
>>>
>>> An air filter was $15 + tax by itself.
>>>
>>> These days plug wires are designed for 100,000 miles of
>>> service per Toyota.
>>>
>>> Aftermarket wires are another matter.
>>>
>>> Around here the wires cost more than the labor to change them.
>>>
>>> At these prices, do it yourself offers no advantage.
----------------------------------------------------
>>> There was a time I would have said "AMEN", but that was then
>>> and this is now.
>>>
>>> Just had an oil and filter change.
>>>
>>> Cost $24.00 including tax and proper disposal of old oil.
>>>
>>> An air filter was $15 + tax by itself.
>>>
>>> These days plug wires are designed for 100,000 miles of
>>> service per Toyota.
>>>
>>> Aftermarket wires are another matter.
>>>
>>> Around here the wires cost more than the labor to change them.
>>>
>>> At these prices, do it yourself offers no advantage.
Somebody wrote:
>> I would agree with you if I believed that they replaced the filter
>> 100% of the time. If the filter is impossible to get at, I'm quite
>> sure they're often skipped. "Who'll know?"
---------------------------------------------------------
>> I would agree with you if I believed that they replaced the filter
>> 100% of the time. If the filter is impossible to get at, I'm quite
>> sure they're often skipped. "Who'll know?"
"Leon" wrote:
>
> If the filter is not changed at the oil change the oil will
> immediately look dirtier than the new oil. The filters typically
> hold 1/8 to 1/5 of the oil that is in the engine. That old oil
> never really drains out of the filter if it is left on the vehicle.
>
> Besides that, I have probably changed the oil on a couple hundred
> different vehicles. The the vehicle up on the lift makes all the
> difference in the world in how accessible the filter is.
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> If the filter is not changed at the oil change the oil will
> immediately look dirtier than the new oil. The filters typically
> hold 1/8 to 1/5 of the oil that is in the engine. That old oil
> never really drains out of the filter if it is left on the vehicle.
>
> Besides that, I have probably changed the oil on a couple hundred
> different vehicles. The the vehicle up on the lift makes all the
> difference in the world in how accessible the filter is.
If you chase the money you will find that most of the "lube shops"
(Jiffy Lube, etc) are owned by the oil companies.
Pretty sure Shell owns Jiffy Lube.
These days, the last thing an oil company needs is bad press,
especially for a $5 item.
Lew
WW
May 27, 2014, 12:52:07 AM5/27/14
to
"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message news:llvtka$c3f$1...@blue-new.rahul.net...
of usage I contact cement a strip of glossy Formica on top of the side
runners. This does not create much friction and wears for years....WW
Bill
May 27, 2014, 1:09:06 AM5/27/14
to
replace 4 spark plugs. No-sirree-Bob!
Also, $42 for the light over the license plate and $92 for a cabin air
filter, and numerous other "suggestions".
Some who doesn't own a set of wrenches is at a real disadvantage these days.
Bill
Morgans
May 27, 2014, 9:40:54 AM5/27/14
to
"Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote
> Interference heads?
That is the term for engines that are designed without clearance to avoid
the pistons from smashing into the valves if the valve train skips time or
stops while the crankshaft still keeps going for a short time.
This pistons come up and smash into the valves, usually breaking or bending
valves, and/or smashing holes in pistons and other knarly stuff like that.
You want to make sure you change the timing belt early on those engines,
because if you wait til they break, you have an expensive, heavy
paperweight.
--
Jim in NC
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
dadiOH
May 27, 2014, 9:59:35 AM5/27/14
to
"Edward A. Falk" <fa...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:llvtka$c3f$1...@blue-new.rahul.net
a portion of the back upwards so it will hit the horizontal stop in the
frame when the drawer is all the way forward, then round over the bottom
edge of the back, including the sides where they meet the back. Remove the
drawer by lifting the front up until the extended back clears the stop.
I don't like them but they used to make - probably still do - little plastic
rollers for drawers like this. A pair of rollers was attached to the frame
at the front so the drawer sides rolled on them, another pair on the drawer
at the top back corners so that as the drawer was extended and tipped, those
rollers contacted the "kick" and rolled on it.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
news:llvtka$c3f$1...@blue-new.rahul.net
> In article <llvq3b$s1a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Larry Blanchard <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:04:15 -0400, krw wrote:
> >
> > That's easily solved. Either by runners in the middle of the drawer
> > sides (which can easily be sacrificial) running in a groove, or by a
> > kicker above the drawer.
>
> My updated design: http://imgur.com/nfZd5UQ
>
> Thanks for your advice, everybody.
If you want to keep them from being pulled out but still removeable, extend
> Larry Blanchard <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:04:15 -0400, krw wrote:
> >
> > That's easily solved. Either by runners in the middle of the drawer
> > sides (which can easily be sacrificial) running in a groove, or by a
> > kicker above the drawer.
>
> My updated design: http://imgur.com/nfZd5UQ
>
> Thanks for your advice, everybody.
a portion of the back upwards so it will hit the horizontal stop in the
frame when the drawer is all the way forward, then round over the bottom
edge of the back, including the sides where they meet the back. Remove the
drawer by lifting the front up until the extended back clears the stop.
I don't like them but they used to make - probably still do - little plastic
rollers for drawers like this. A pair of rollers was attached to the frame
at the front so the drawer sides rolled on them, another pair on the drawer
at the top back corners so that as the drawer was extended and tipped, those
rollers contacted the "kick" and rolled on it.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
Leon
May 27, 2014, 1:10:03 PM5/27/14
to
On 5/27/2014 8:40 AM, Morgans wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote
>
>> Interference heads?
>
> That is the term for engines that are designed without clearance to
> avoid the pistons from smashing into the valves if the valve train skips
> time or stops while the crankshaft still keeps going for a short time.
>
> This pistons come up and smash into the valves, usually breaking or
> bending valves, and/or smashing holes in pistons and other knarly stuff
> like that. You want to make sure you change the timing belt early on
> those engines, because if you wait til they break, you have an
> expensive, heavy paperweight.
Actually the term is interference engines. The heads do not necessarily
>
>
> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote
>
>> Interference heads?
>
> That is the term for engines that are designed without clearance to
> avoid the pistons from smashing into the valves if the valve train skips
> time or stops while the crankshaft still keeps going for a short time.
>
> This pistons come up and smash into the valves, usually breaking or
> bending valves, and/or smashing holes in pistons and other knarly stuff
> like that. You want to make sure you change the timing belt early on
> those engines, because if you wait til they break, you have an
> expensive, heavy paperweight.
have any thing to do with valve to piston clearance unless the heads are
milled beyond factory specs to increase compression. It is the lift of
the cam that causes the piston to hit the valve should the timing
belt/chain break or the timing gears strip, and the valve is in or near
it's fully open position. Non interference engines do not have enough
cam lift to push the valves far enough open to interfere with the piston
as it approaches TDC whether the valve should be open or closed.
And FWIW before the days of RPM limiters it was not unusual during
excessive RPMS for the valves to float, meaning the valve springs were
not strong enough to push the valve shut fast enough after the cam lobe
relieved pressure on the valve train. In these cases, and even with the
timing belt/chain, and gears in proper order the pistons could come in
contact with the pistons. In those cases it was more desirable that a
push rod got bent vs a valve being bent. With OHC engines you don't
have as many moving parts and valve/piston damage is more likely.
Since we were talking about the ease of removing oil filters, spark
plugs, external parts, etc, I was a bit puzzled why an interference
engine would present a problem with being able to replace anything on an
engine.
I'm pretty sure there might have been some confusion as to what
interference an interference engine actually presented to some one
working on it. For the most part there is no difference in the engines
as far as convenience to the person servicing or replacing parts inside
the engine.
Now having said all of that, I retired from the automotive field some 20
years ago at 40. Up until then I never ever heard the term interference
heads. That may have changed in the last 20 years.
I at one time was the service sales manager for an Oldsmobile dealer.
We had to be careful with terminology when taking with the factory reps.
Ironically if you talked about the repair of paint on a vehicle with a
factory rep the repair description never included the word paint. The
repair involved color coating the affected panel. ;~)
Ed Pawlowski
May 27, 2014, 1:27:44 PM5/27/14
to
On 5/26/2014 9:35 PM, pentapus wrote:
>
> Buick never expected the car owner to do their own maintenance. That
> filter is hard to get to. In fairness to Buick, they do build a good
> car, why can't the rest of GM manage that?
Most Buick owners probably would not open the hood. As for them
>
> Buick never expected the car owner to do their own maintenance. That
> filter is hard to get to. In fairness to Buick, they do build a good
> car, why can't the rest of GM manage that?
building a good car, my last one was a POS that I ended up giving away.
I was a GM buyer for years, but GM pissed me off enough that I've not
bought one since my '01 LeSabre and won't ever again.
The 36,000 mile warranty was up after 18 months of driving and it was
down hill after that. The list of things that fell apart is very long.
Ed Pawlowski
May 27, 2014, 1:32:02 PM5/27/14
to
On 5/27/2014 12:48 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> Pretty sure Shell owns Jiffy Lube.
>
> These days, the last thing an oil company needs is bad press,
> especially for a $5 item.
>
>
> Lew
>
>
If that is true, why do they get so much bad press? I've read enough
>
> Pretty sure Shell owns Jiffy Lube.
>
> These days, the last thing an oil company needs is bad press,
> especially for a $5 item.
>
>
> Lew
>
>
about their shady tactics that I'd never go to one. Mind you, most is
probably the local owner/manager and not corporate policy, but I don't
trust any of the quick change chains. I have a local shop and I can
stand right next tot he car as it is serviced.
Ed Pawlowski
May 27, 2014, 1:41:32 PM5/27/14
to
On 5/27/2014 9:40 AM, Morgans wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote
>
>> Interference heads?
>
> That is the term for engines that are designed without clearance to
> avoid the pistons from smashing into the valves if the valve train skips
> time or stops while the crankshaft still keeps going for a short time.
>
> This pistons come up and smash into the valves, usually breaking or
> bending valves, and/or smashing holes in pistons and other knarly stuff
> like that. You want to make sure you change the timing belt early on
> those engines, because if you wait til they break, you have an
> expensive, heavy paperweight.
Many people have no idea that their car becomes a time bomb at about
>
>
> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote
>
>> Interference heads?
>
> That is the term for engines that are designed without clearance to
> avoid the pistons from smashing into the valves if the valve train skips
> time or stops while the crankshaft still keeps going for a short time.
>
> This pistons come up and smash into the valves, usually breaking or
> bending valves, and/or smashing holes in pistons and other knarly stuff
> like that. You want to make sure you change the timing belt early on
> those engines, because if you wait til they break, you have an
> expensive, heavy paperweight.
65,000 miles. Mostly is is the smaller 4 cylinder models, but you can
check yours on the Gates Belt web site.
If you buy a used car with more than 65k and an interference engine you
may not know if the belt was changed or not. I've heard $300 to $500
for parts and labor to do a belt change and you may as well get the
water pump done on some and save labor later.
Mike Marlow
May 27, 2014, 1:42:28 PM5/27/14
to
Leon wrote:
>
> Actually the term is interference engines.
Correct - but not really all that relevant.
>
> Actually the term is interference engines.
> The heads do not
> necessarily have any thing to do with valve to piston clearance
> unless the heads are milled beyond factory specs to increase
> compression.
> It is the lift of the cam that causes the piston to hit
> the valve should the timing belt/chain break or the timing gears
> strip, and the valve is in or near it's fully open position. Non
> interference engines do not have enough cam lift to push the valves
> far enough open to interfere with the piston as it approaches TDC
> whether the valve should be open or closed.
design.
> And FWIW before the days of RPM limiters it was not unusual during
> excessive RPMS for the valves to float, meaning the valve springs were
> not strong enough to push the valve shut fast enough after the cam
> lobe relieved pressure on the valve train. In these cases, and even
> with the timing belt/chain, and gears in proper order the pistons
> could come in contact with the pistons. In those cases it was more
> desirable that a push rod got bent vs a valve being bent. With OHC
> engines you don't have as many moving parts and valve/piston damage
> is more likely.
decompression from the valves not properly closing. Unless a spring was
broken or other mechanical failure, it was not that common in valve float
for a valve to contact the piston.
> Since we were talking about the ease of removing oil filters, spark
> plugs, external parts, etc, I was a bit puzzled why an interference
> engine would present a problem with being able to replace anything on
> an engine.
>
> I'm pretty sure there might have been some confusion as to what
> interference an interference engine actually presented to some one
> working on it. For the most part there is no difference in the
> engines as far as convenience to the person servicing or replacing
> parts inside the engine.
>
more of a concern than in a non-interference engine.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Mike Marlow
May 27, 2014, 1:45:58 PM5/27/14
to
that went into the buick and the motor that went into the chevy or the
pontiac. It has nothing to do with whether buick ever intended its owners
to open the hood. Only those who have never opened any of those hoods would
say/think this.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Mike Marlow
May 27, 2014, 1:47:33 PM5/27/14
to
coming through with timing chains and not belts. Huge difference in the
maintenance cycle.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
dpb
May 27, 2014, 1:45:05 PM5/27/14
to
On 5/27/2014 12:27 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/26/2014 9:35 PM, pentapus wrote:
>
>>
>> Buick never expected the car owner to do their own maintenance. That
>> filter is hard to get to. In fairness to Buick, they do build a good
>> car, why can't the rest of GM manage that?
>
> Most Buick owners probably would not open the hood. As for them building
> a good car, my last one was a POS that I ended up giving away. I was a
> GM buyer for years, but GM pissed me off enough that I've not bought one
> since my '01 LeSabre and won't ever again.
...
> On 5/26/2014 9:35 PM, pentapus wrote:
>
>>
>> Buick never expected the car owner to do their own maintenance. That
>> filter is hard to get to. In fairness to Buick, they do build a good
>> car, why can't the rest of GM manage that?
>
> Most Buick owners probably would not open the hood. As for them building
> a good car, my last one was a POS that I ended up giving away. I was a
> GM buyer for years, but GM pissed me off enough that I've not bought one
> since my '01 LeSabre and won't ever again.
Either folks or I or both have had one or more Buicks since '64 and nary
a one has ever been a bad 'un...only bad experience I've ever had w/ GM
was an '88 88 w/ a newly-introduced overdrive tranny design that went
south early. Counting all the farm trucks and pickups going back to
'28, I'd expect it would push 100 vehicles between personal and work
use. I'm confirmed GM guy, meself from our experience. There's still a
'58 C60 in use on the farm; I've been using it again today that's only
had brakes and some body work (ensilage is _very_ corrosive and it had
many, many years of use on feed-patrol)...current list includes '10
Enclave, '11 Lucerne, '98 and '99 PUs in the car, small truck varieties
plus a half-dozen assorted single- and tandem-axle medium-duty trucks
from '80s up.
--
Leon
May 27, 2014, 1:46:12 PM5/27/14
to
turn over rate is high so they certainly not investing much technical
training. So for the most part you have a guy that flipped burgers 6
months ago and the next time you go in he will be long gone.
YMMV
Having been in the automotive field most of my pro life I always did the
repairs to our vehicles. Then I cut half my thumb off and during the
healing period I took my wife's Acura to the local oil change place. I
recall the guy yelling something about the drain plug being tight. I
also noticed that the oil had already been drained. The next time I
changed the oil the drain plug was indeed tight, and stripped. This guy
cross threaded the plug and continued to tighten it until the crush
washer flattened out. I had to rethread the pan and replace the plug.
Another trip I witnessed a sales guy come walking in quickly with the
air filter to a lady's vehicle. He told her that the filter was dirty
and needed to be replaced. She looked at and said that it did not look
dirty to her. He pointed at the single dirty spot on the filter that
was directly in line with the snorkel of the air cleaner. This was the
old style round air filter. I was almost embarrassed for every one that
worked there that they used those tactics to sell things that were not
needed. The lady probably knew squat about cars but had more knowledge
about what was dirty than the guy working there.
k...@attt.bizz
May 27, 2014, 1:50:06 PM5/27/14
to
doesn't personally change your filter. The droid on the line doesn't
care.
One of these places didn't bother to check my antifreeze one Winter (I
had just bought the car, which had previously been registered in TX).
I specifically told them to make sure they checked it, even though it
was on their list of "service points". Of course it froze the next
night (its freezing point was +10F).
Leon
May 27, 2014, 1:56:00 PM5/27/14
to
On 5/27/2014 12:42 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually the term is interference engines.
>
> Correct - but not really all that relevant.
>
>> The heads do not
>> necessarily have any thing to do with valve to piston clearance
>> unless the heads are milled beyond factory specs to increase
>> compression.
>
> Ummmm... not so agreeable.
>
>> It is the lift of the cam that causes the piston to hit
>> the valve should the timing belt/chain break or the timing gears
>> strip, and the valve is in or near it's fully open position. Non
>> interference engines do not have enough cam lift to push the valves
>> far enough open to interfere with the piston as it approaches TDC
>> whether the valve should be open or closed.
>
> Splitting hairs here Leon. It's all part of the head assembly in an OHC
> design.
Actually Mike not all OHC engines are interference engines. The DOHC
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually the term is interference engines.
>
> Correct - but not really all that relevant.
>
>> The heads do not
>> necessarily have any thing to do with valve to piston clearance
>> unless the heads are milled beyond factory specs to increase
>> compression.
>
> Ummmm... not so agreeable.
>
>> It is the lift of the cam that causes the piston to hit
>> the valve should the timing belt/chain break or the timing gears
>> strip, and the valve is in or near it's fully open position. Non
>> interference engines do not have enough cam lift to push the valves
>> far enough open to interfere with the piston as it approaches TDC
>> whether the valve should be open or closed.
>
> Splitting hairs here Leon. It's all part of the head assembly in an OHC
> design.
engine in my wife's Accord was not an interference engine. Now you
change the cam with greater lift and or duration to increase the
performance and you might make that engine into an interference engine.
>
>
>> And FWIW before the days of RPM limiters it was not unusual during
>> excessive RPMS for the valves to float, meaning the valve springs were
>> not strong enough to push the valve shut fast enough after the cam
>> lobe relieved pressure on the valve train. In these cases, and even
>> with the timing belt/chain, and gears in proper order the pistons
>> could come in contact with the pistons. In those cases it was more
>> desirable that a push rod got bent vs a valve being bent. With OHC
>> engines you don't have as many moving parts and valve/piston damage
>> is more likely.
>
> Not really. It was much more common that valve float simply resulted in
> decompression from the valves not properly closing. Unless a spring was
> broken or other mechanical failure, it was not that common in valve float
> for a valve to contact the piston.
And do you know why the valves did not close properly? Think about the
>
>> And FWIW before the days of RPM limiters it was not unusual during
>> excessive RPMS for the valves to float, meaning the valve springs were
>> not strong enough to push the valve shut fast enough after the cam
>> lobe relieved pressure on the valve train. In these cases, and even
>> with the timing belt/chain, and gears in proper order the pistons
>> could come in contact with the pistons. In those cases it was more
>> desirable that a push rod got bent vs a valve being bent. With OHC
>> engines you don't have as many moving parts and valve/piston damage
>> is more likely.
>
> Not really. It was much more common that valve float simply resulted in
> decompression from the valves not properly closing. Unless a spring was
> broken or other mechanical failure, it was not that common in valve float
> for a valve to contact the piston.
valve hitting the piston in a previous situation. I'm not too sure how
much experience you have had in a large volume dealership but It was not
uncommon at all.
>
>
>> Since we were talking about the ease of removing oil filters, spark
>> plugs, external parts, etc, I was a bit puzzled why an interference
>> engine would present a problem with being able to replace anything on
>> an engine.
>
> Agreed. Two different issues.
>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure there might have been some confusion as to what
>> interference an interference engine actually presented to some one
>> working on it. For the most part there is no difference in the
>> engines as far as convenience to the person servicing or replacing
>> parts inside the engine.
>>
>
> Pretty much agreed except that other wear parts such as a timing belt become
> more of a concern than in a non-interference engine.
actual replacement.
Leon
May 27, 2014, 2:11:16 PM5/27/14
to
mid 70's each GM division produced its own engines and they were all
significantly different from each other than the color that they were
painted. As I recall, Chevy had the 396 Pontiac had the 400, Chevy
later had the 454, Pontiac had the 455. All significantly different
engines.
Starting in the 70,s GM lines began sharing engines on certain vehicles.
If you will recall the fuss that was made from customers that were, for
instance, long time Oldsmobile owners, and expected to get the
Oldsmobile Rocket Engine that their previous vehicle had when they
learned that the engine in their new 88 had a Chevy engine in it.
My 75 Olds Starfire had the Buick V6 engine as did the similar Buick
SkyHawk. but the same Chevy vehicle, the Monza, came with a Chevy V8.
But you are correct with more modern vehicles the engines are mostly all
painted black and who knows who makes the engine.
Mike Marlow
May 27, 2014, 2:44:13 PM5/27/14
to
Leon wrote:
> On 5/27/2014 12:42 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Actually the term is interference engines.
>>
>> Correct - but not really all that relevant.
>>
>>> The heads do not
>>> necessarily have any thing to do with valve to piston clearance
>>> unless the heads are milled beyond factory specs to increase
>>> compression.
>>
>> Ummmm... not so agreeable.
>>
>>> It is the lift of the cam that causes the piston to hit
>>> the valve should the timing belt/chain break or the timing gears
>>> strip, and the valve is in or near it's fully open position. Non
>>> interference engines do not have enough cam lift to push the valves
>>> far enough open to interfere with the piston as it approaches TDC
>>> whether the valve should be open or closed.
>>
>> Splitting hairs here Leon. It's all part of the head assembly in an
>> OHC design.
>
> Actually Mike not all OHC engines are interference engines. The DOHC
> engine in my wife's Accord was not an interference engine. Now you
> change the cam with greater lift and or duration to increase the
> performance and you might make that engine into an interference
> engine.
>>
Oh - you are quite correct... not OHC head designs are interference - but
> On 5/27/2014 12:42 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Actually the term is interference engines.
>>
>> Correct - but not really all that relevant.
>>
>>> The heads do not
>>> necessarily have any thing to do with valve to piston clearance
>>> unless the heads are milled beyond factory specs to increase
>>> compression.
>>
>> Ummmm... not so agreeable.
>>
>>> It is the lift of the cam that causes the piston to hit
>>> the valve should the timing belt/chain break or the timing gears
>>> strip, and the valve is in or near it's fully open position. Non
>>> interference engines do not have enough cam lift to push the valves
>>> far enough open to interfere with the piston as it approaches TDC
>>> whether the valve should be open or closed.
>>
>> Splitting hairs here Leon. It's all part of the head assembly in an
>> OHC design.
>
> Actually Mike not all OHC engines are interference engines. The DOHC
> engine in my wife's Accord was not an interference engine. Now you
> change the cam with greater lift and or duration to increase the
> performance and you might make that engine into an interference
> engine.
>>
all interference designs are OHC. That's the point I was centering around.
>>
>> Not really. It was much more common that valve float simply
>> resulted in decompression from the valves not properly closing. Unless a
>> spring was broken or other mechanical failure, it was not
>> that common in valve float for a valve to contact the piston.
>
> And do you know why the valves did not close properly? Think about
> the valve hitting the piston in a previous situation. I'm not too
> sure how much experience you have had in a large volume dealership
> but It was not uncommon at all.
>
wonder how much experience a dealership really has with valvel float. With
hydraulic lifters, valve float results in just a bad running engine for a
few seconds - no mechanical problems. I do have a fair amount of experience
with push rod engines, valve float, etc. I'll stand my ground on my point
above.
>>
>> Pretty much agreed except that other wear parts such as a timing
>> belt become more of a concern than in a non-interference engine.
>
> Yes absolutely more of a concern but that has nothing to do with the
> actual replacement.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Mike Marlow
May 27, 2014, 2:47:52 PM5/27/14
to
Leon wrote:
>
> And that would depend on what years you are talking about. Prior to
> the mid 70's each GM division produced its own engines and they were
> all significantly different from each other than the color that they
> were painted. As I recall, Chevy had the 396 Pontiac had the 400,
> Chevy later had the 454, Pontiac had the 455. All significantly
> different engines.
>
Point taken. I was not thinking that far back.
>
> And that would depend on what years you are talking about. Prior to
> the mid 70's each GM division produced its own engines and they were
> all significantly different from each other than the color that they
> were painted. As I recall, Chevy had the 396 Pontiac had the 400,
> Chevy later had the 454, Pontiac had the 455. All significantly
> different engines.
>
> My 75 Olds Starfire had the Buick V6 engine as did the similar Buick
> SkyHawk. but the same Chevy vehicle, the Monza, came with a Chevy V8.
>
> But you are correct with more modern vehicles the engines are mostly
> all painted black and who knows who makes the engine.
used the same underlying GM technology. For example - every division that
used a 3.1 and a 3.4 6 cyliner engine, suffered the same issues with the
intake gaskets. That was an 80's development if my memory serves me
correctly.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Leon
May 27, 2014, 3:23:31 PM5/27/14
to
hung slightly different sheet metal, header panels and interior trim,
and badges. None were better than the other. As far as the mechanics
were concerned a vast majority of the parts were the same.
Leon
May 27, 2014, 3:52:21 PM5/27/14
to
unless the interference engines came with more efficient valves and
valve timing after OHC engines became common. Prior to 1970 American
built OHC engines were few and far in between. IIRC Pontiac had a OHC
straight 6 in the 60's. But having said that there is nothing
significantly different, a push rod engine could easily be designed as
an interference engine.
>
>
>>>
>>> Not really. It was much more common that valve float simply
>>> resulted in decompression from the valves not properly closing. Unless a
>>> spring was broken or other mechanical failure, it was not
>>> that common in valve float for a valve to contact the piston.
>>
>> And do you know why the valves did not close properly? Think about
>> the valve hitting the piston in a previous situation. I'm not too
>> sure how much experience you have had in a large volume dealership
>> but It was not uncommon at all.
>>
>
> No experience in a large volume dealership at all Leon, but I would have to
> wonder how much experience a dealership really has with valvel float. With
> hydraulic lifters, valve float results in just a bad running engine for a
> few seconds - no mechanical problems. I do have a fair amount of experience
> with push rod engines, valve float, etc. I'll stand my ground on my point
> above.
transmission for graduation He is racing, misses a shift the engine
goes way beyond red line and his dad brings the car in for warranty
work... It is performance car, has a warranty, run the hell out of it.
When a vehicle is still under warranty you see everything.
Ed Pawlowski
May 27, 2014, 6:44:45 PM5/27/14
to
On Tue, 27 May 2014 13:11:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>
>But you are correct with more modern vehicles the engines are mostly all
>painted black and who knows who makes the engine.
I have a Sonata Limited with the 2.0 liter turbo. I've noticed that a
few other brands have a 2.0 liter turbo. I have to wonder if they are
all out of the same engine plant.
Audi, Cadillac, Ford, Honda, Nissan all have a 2.0. Coincidence?
My last Sonata had a V-6. It did me well and I read it was developed
with Chrysler and another car maker, maybe Mitsubishi.
wrote:
>
>But you are correct with more modern vehicles the engines are mostly all
>painted black and who knows who makes the engine.
few other brands have a 2.0 liter turbo. I have to wonder if they are
all out of the same engine plant.
Audi, Cadillac, Ford, Honda, Nissan all have a 2.0. Coincidence?
My last Sonata had a V-6. It did me well and I read it was developed
with Chrysler and another car maker, maybe Mitsubishi.
Lew Hodgett
May 27, 2014, 7:52:51 PM5/27/14
to
"Michael" wrote:
> Our mechanic wanted $180.00 to replace the plugs on my F150.
---------------------------------------
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Better you than me.
>>
>> From memory, replacement labor was about $35 for a
>> Toyota Tacoma 4 cyl last year.
----------------------------------------------------
>> Better you than me.
>>
>> From memory, replacement labor was about $35 for a
>> Toyota Tacoma 4 cyl last year.
"Bill" wrote:
> Subaru dealer told my wife it was $173.80 (I just looked at it) to
> replace 4 spark plugs. No-sirree-Bob!
> Also, $42 for the light over the license plate and $92 for a cabin
> air filter, and numerous other "suggestions".
>
> Some who doesn't own a set of wrenches is at a real disadvantage
> these days.
--------------------------------------------------------
> Subaru dealer told my wife it was $173.80 (I just looked at it) to
> replace 4 spark plugs. No-sirree-Bob!
> Also, $42 for the light over the license plate and $92 for a cabin
> air filter, and numerous other "suggestions".
>
> Some who doesn't own a set of wrenches is at a real disadvantage
> these days.
Let's see, today's plugs are about $15-$20 each.
Wires are also in the $15-$20 range.
IOW, a plug and a wire costs from $30-$40 per cyl.
Using an average, a plug/wire set costs about $35/cyl
or $140 for a 4 cyl engine.
If the labor charge is only $10/ cyl or $40 for a 4 cyl.
Now we are up to $180 and nothing has been included
for overhead and profit.
What about the electronics to test the newly installed
plug/wire set?
Where does the DIY'r gain access to this test equipment?
I have been very fortunate finding good mechanics since
coming to California.
Mechanics that will bring me back home while they work
on the truck, then come back and pick me up when they
are finished.
My present mechanic has a base business of working on
hot rods and treats me like his long lost wayward step
child.
His choice if he does the repair as long as he uses Toyota
parts.
Sheet metal OTOH, is strictly a dealer item.
Like anything else, you pays your money and you takes
your picks.
I use dealers as a source for renewal parts, body work
and little else.
Today's use of onboard vehicle computers and high
powered computerized test equipment, have made back
yard car maintenance a thing of the past IMHO.
Lew
Lew Hodgett
May 27, 2014, 8:22:52 PM5/27/14
to
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Pretty sure Shell owns Jiffy Lube.
>>
>> These days, the last thing an oil company needs is bad press,
>> especially for a $5 item.
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
> If that is true, why do they get so much bad press? I've read
> enough about their shady tactics that I'd never go to one. Mind
> you, most is probably the local owner/manager and not corporate
> policy, but I don't trust any of the quick change chains. I have a
> local shop and I can stand right next tot he car as it is serviced.
--------------------------------------------------
> If that is true, why do they get so much bad press? I've read
> enough about their shady tactics that I'd never go to one. Mind
> you, most is probably the local owner/manager and not corporate
> policy, but I don't trust any of the quick change chains. I have a
> local shop and I can stand right next tot he car as it is serviced.
4-5 years ago, the local NBC-TV investigative reporter
did a piece one of the oil change quickies and uncovered
a real mess.
Got a mea culpa from the chain.
Followed up with another investigation about 2 years ago
and guess what, back to the same old tricks.
Don't know what the outcome of this investigation was.
This was a chain that was attempting to increase their
revenue stream by offering added services above and beyond
the basic oil change.
Glad to see you found a local shop that works for you.
I have found a chain location that works for me.
As far as my comment about "bad press" is concerned,
the oil companies have enough "bad press" problems
with their base business' to have a headache with quick
change operations which are in business to maintain a
path to the retail market for their oil products.
What the quick change lube shops have done is establish
a price level for their service.
A price level that has basically put the DIY'r out of
business IMHO.
Lew
Lew Hodgett
May 27, 2014, 8:27:38 PM5/27/14
to
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
> I have a Sonata Limited with the 2.0 liter turbo. I've noticed that
> a
> few other brands have a 2.0 liter turbo. I have to wonder if they
> are
> all out of the same engine plant.
>
> Audi, Cadillac, Ford, Honda, Nissan all have a 2.0. Coincidence?
Take a look at Europe.
Most European countries have laws on the books that penalize
cars with engines above 2.0 liters.
Lew
Michael
May 27, 2014, 8:31:54 PM5/27/14
to
Morgans
May 27, 2014, 9:10:15 PM5/27/14
to
"Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote
> Actually the term is interference engines.
Still, I knew what the point was that was being made...
Interesting to note that many engines are interference engines, if the
pistons were totally flat on the crown. Many pistons have two or more
semi=circular depressions cast into their tops, so if a valve is open when
the piston comes up, it does not smack the piston, because of the depression
in the piston.
k...@attt.bizz
May 27, 2014, 9:17:17 PM5/27/14
to
TSi. What a PITA! The plug wires were threaded under the intake
manifold. The book time was 3-1/2 hours. I got so I could do replace
them in 45min[*]. Good profit item.
[*] After the third or fourth time, I found out why the kept blowing
out. The gap was misprinted on the plate in the engine compartment.
It specified .065" instead of .035". Opps. The car required MoPar
wires, too. The after-market wires didn't fit.
Leon
May 27, 2014, 10:52:17 PM5/27/14
to
On 5/27/2014 5:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2014 13:11:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> But you are correct with more modern vehicles the engines are mostly all
>> painted black and who knows who makes the engine.
>
> I have a Sonata Limited with the 2.0 liter turbo. I've noticed that a
> few other brands have a 2.0 liter turbo. I have to wonder if they are
> all out of the same engine plant.
> Audi, Cadillac, Ford, Honda, Nissan all have a 2.0. Coincidence?
There will be no similarities in these different brands of engines other
> On Tue, 27 May 2014 13:11:16 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> But you are correct with more modern vehicles the engines are mostly all
>> painted black and who knows who makes the engine.
>
> I have a Sonata Limited with the 2.0 liter turbo. I've noticed that a
> few other brands have a 2.0 liter turbo. I have to wonder if they are
> all out of the same engine plant.
> Audi, Cadillac, Ford, Honda, Nissan all have a 2.0. Coincidence?
than their size and number of cylinders. Just like in the 60,s Buick,
Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile all had 350ci V8's they were all
built with the same displacement but were all very unique.
Now in some instances these days the engines are the same. Audi being
owned by VW, shares engines with the VW. You will actually find Audi
branded parts under the hood of a VW.
Back in the 80's Chevrolet Isuzu and Honda had similar models. Isuzu
built the LUV pick-up for Chevrolet but later Chevrolet built the Isuzu
Rodeo for Isuzu. Strangely enough Isuzu had built for Honda, by
Chevrolet. a Honda version of the Rodeo, I forget what Honda called it.
Toyota used to build the Nova for Chevrolet in the 80's.
Leon
May 27, 2014, 11:03:47 PM5/27/14
to
On 5/27/2014 8:10 PM, Morgans wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote
>
>> Actually the term is interference engines.
>
> I missed the small difference in the post calling it interference heads.
> Still, I knew what the point was that was being made...
I believe you understood the terminology however I was not at all
>
>
> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote
>
>> Actually the term is interference engines.
>
> I missed the small difference in the post calling it interference heads.
> Still, I knew what the point was that was being made...
certain that the original poster mentioning it, did. Kinda reminds me
of the TV shows where a guy is doing something under the hood and
telling some one that he was putting water in a completely sealed
battery. Or pouring coolant in the master cylinder. ;~) The term
really did not fit the way the conversations was headed. I could have
totally missed on that but that is the way I took it.
>
> Interesting to note that many engines are interference engines, if the
> pistons were totally flat on the crown. Many pistons have two or more
> semi=circular depressions cast into their tops, so if a valve is open
> when the piston comes up, it does not smack the piston, because of the
> depression in the piston.
the piston comes up, every other revolution of the crank shaft the valve
is open when the piston comes up. And I know you probably know that but
you might be surprised how very close the valve and piston come to each
other. Some times you need a feeler gauge to measure the clearance on
higher performance engines.
pentapus
May 27, 2014, 11:08:40 PM5/27/14
to
On 5/27/2014 3:23 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/27/2014 1:47 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And that would depend on what years you are talking about. Prior to
>>> the mid 70's each GM division produced its own engines and they were
>>> all significantly different from each other than the color that they
>>> were painted. As I recall, Chevy had the 396 Pontiac had the 400,
>>> Chevy later had the 454, Pontiac had the 455. All significantly
>>> different engines.
>>>
>>
>> Point taken. I was not thinking that far back.
>>
>>
>>> My 75 Olds Starfire had the Buick V6 engine as did the similar Buick
>>> SkyHawk. but the same Chevy vehicle, the Monza, came with a Chevy V8.
>>>
>>> But you are correct with more modern vehicles the engines are mostly
>>> all painted black and who knows who makes the engine.
>>
>> Your points above are all correct. That said, each of those
>> manufacturers
>> used the same underlying GM technology. For example - every division
>> that
>> used a 3.1 and a 3.4 6 cyliner engine, suffered the same issues with the
>> intake gaskets. That was an 80's development if my memory serves me
>> correctly.
Not so many in the Buick lineup where they were mostly using 3.8,
> On 5/27/2014 1:47 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And that would depend on what years you are talking about. Prior to
>>> the mid 70's each GM division produced its own engines and they were
>>> all significantly different from each other than the color that they
>>> were painted. As I recall, Chevy had the 396 Pontiac had the 400,
>>> Chevy later had the 454, Pontiac had the 455. All significantly
>>> different engines.
>>>
>>
>> Point taken. I was not thinking that far back.
>>
>>
>>> My 75 Olds Starfire had the Buick V6 engine as did the similar Buick
>>> SkyHawk. but the same Chevy vehicle, the Monza, came with a Chevy V8.
>>>
>>> But you are correct with more modern vehicles the engines are mostly
>>> all painted black and who knows who makes the engine.
>>
>> Your points above are all correct. That said, each of those
>> manufacturers
>> used the same underlying GM technology. For example - every division
>> that
>> used a 3.1 and a 3.4 6 cyliner engine, suffered the same issues with the
>> intake gaskets. That was an 80's development if my memory serves me
>> correctly.
arguably one of the better engines. It seems to me that for most of it's
existance, Buick was trying to make a better car with the available parts.
The 80's were tough on GMs reputation, particularly for the upmarket
brands. Take note of the Cadillac Cimarron, which brought platform
sharing a step too far with Cadillac making up trimmed Cavaliers.
Something that took Cadillac a long time to recover it's reputation.
>
>
> Exactly, LOL Since that time basically GM built 4 or 5 of everything,
> hung slightly different sheet metal, header panels and interior trim,
> and badges. None were better than the other. As far as the mechanics
> were concerned a vast majority of the parts were the same.
Still, there must be something intangibly more, whatever that is, the
mechanics I know think well of the Buick brand. Whether it was a better
run assembly plant or resistance to offering the lesser engines and
parts, or less tampering by owners, I do not know, but it has had a
relatively untarnished reputation.
--
pentapus
Bill
May 27, 2014, 11:31:41 PM5/27/14
to
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Michael" wrote:
>
>> Our mechanic wanted $180.00 to replace the plugs on my F150.
> ---------------------------------------
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>> Better you than me.
>>>
>>> From memory, replacement labor was about $35 for a
>>> Toyota Tacoma 4 cyl last year.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> "Bill" wrote:
>
>> Subaru dealer told my wife it was $173.80 (I just looked at it) to
>> replace 4 spark plugs. No-sirree-Bob!
>> Also, $42 for the light over the license plate and $92 for a cabin
>> air filter, and numerous other "suggestions".
>>
>> Some who doesn't own a set of wrenches is at a real disadvantage
>> these days.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see, today's plugs are about $15-$20 each.
> Wires are also in the $15-$20 range.
I don't think replacing plugs includes wires.
> "Michael" wrote:
>
>> Our mechanic wanted $180.00 to replace the plugs on my F150.
> ---------------------------------------
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>> Better you than me.
>>>
>>> From memory, replacement labor was about $35 for a
>>> Toyota Tacoma 4 cyl last year.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> "Bill" wrote:
>
>> Subaru dealer told my wife it was $173.80 (I just looked at it) to
>> replace 4 spark plugs. No-sirree-Bob!
>> Also, $42 for the light over the license plate and $92 for a cabin
>> air filter, and numerous other "suggestions".
>>
>> Some who doesn't own a set of wrenches is at a real disadvantage
>> these days.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see, today's plugs are about $15-$20 each.
> Wires are also in the $15-$20 range.
(post not snipped, but nothing new added to the information Lew included
below)
Mike Marlow
May 28, 2014, 12:20:34 AM5/28/14
to
pentapus wrote:
>
> Not so many in the Buick lineup where they were mostly using 3.8,
> arguably one of the better engines. It seems to me that for most of
> it's existance, Buick was trying to make a better car with the
> available parts.
In the Regal family the 3.8 was the norm, but in the Century and the LeSabre
>
> Not so many in the Buick lineup where they were mostly using 3.8,
> arguably one of the better engines. It seems to me that for most of
> it's existance, Buick was trying to make a better car with the
> available parts.
line, the 3.4 (or the 3.1) was the norm. That significantly outnumbered the
3.8's in the Regal line.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Leon
May 28, 2014, 12:45:07 AM5/28/14
to
American Motors and eventually somewhere around the mid 70's Buick
bought back the engine. The first 3.8's were uneven fire engines. The
firing sequence was not balanced so the engine never quite ran as
smoothly as later models with a balanced sequence.
>
> The 80's were tough on GMs reputation, particularly for the upmarket
> brands. Take note of the Cadillac Cimarron, which brought platform
> sharing a step too far with Cadillac making up trimmed Cavaliers.
> Something that took Cadillac a long time to recover it's reputation.
of a reputation as the Olds diesel. IIRC almost every one of those
engines were replaced by Cadillac.
>
>>
>>
>> Exactly, LOL Since that time basically GM built 4 or 5 of everything,
>> hung slightly different sheet metal, header panels and interior trim,
>> and badges. None were better than the other. As far as the mechanics
>> were concerned a vast majority of the parts were the same.
>
> Certainly one of the reasons why there is no more Pontiac.
unique perspective, GM was not interested in building a more reliable
car. Year after year after year after year for decades GM used the same
crap replacement parts, in particular the electrical ones under the
hood. One would think that eventually they would have improved those
alternators, starters etc.
>
> Still, there must be something intangibly more, whatever that is, the
> mechanics I know think well of the Buick brand. Whether it was a better
> run assembly plant or resistance to offering the lesser engines and
> parts, or less tampering by owners, I do not know, but it has had a
> relatively untarnished reputation.
vehicles.
no...@none.com
May 28, 2014, 12:51:51 AM5/28/14
to
On Tue, 27 May 2014 23:45:07 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Still, there must be something intangibly more, whatever that is, the
>> mechanics I know think well of the Buick brand. Whether it was a better
>> run assembly plant or resistance to offering the lesser engines and
>> parts, or less tampering by owners, I do not know, but it has had a
>> relatively untarnished reputation.
>
>Most Buick and Cadillac owners could better afford to maintain their
>vehicles.
Astute observation.
>> mechanics I know think well of the Buick brand. Whether it was a better
>> run assembly plant or resistance to offering the lesser engines and
>> parts, or less tampering by owners, I do not know, but it has had a
>> relatively untarnished reputation.
>
>Most Buick and Cadillac owners could better afford to maintain their
>vehicles.
Ed Pawlowski
May 28, 2014, 8:43:22 AM5/28/14
to
On 5/27/2014 1:50 PM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
> One of these places didn't bother to check my antifreeze one Winter (I
> had just bought the car, which had previously been registered in TX).
> I specifically told them to make sure they checked it, even though it
> was on their list of "service points". Of course it froze the next
> night (its freezing point was +10F).
>
Of course they checked it. "Yep, its full."
> One of these places didn't bother to check my antifreeze one Winter (I
> had just bought the car, which had previously been registered in TX).
> I specifically told them to make sure they checked it, even though it
> was on their list of "service points". Of course it froze the next
> night (its freezing point was +10F).
>
I wonder if they even know how to check for freezing point.
Scott Lurndal
May 28, 2014, 11:34:17 AM5/28/14
to
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>Back in the 80's Chevrolet Isuzu and Honda had similar models. Isuzu
>built the LUV pick-up for Chevrolet but later Chevrolet built the Isuzu
>Rodeo for Isuzu. Strangely enough Isuzu had built for Honda, by
>Chevrolet. a Honda version of the Rodeo, I forget what Honda called it.
>Toyota used to build the Nova for Chevrolet in the 80's.
>
From 1984 to 2010, NUMMI (New United Motors Manufacturing Inc.,
>Back in the 80's Chevrolet Isuzu and Honda had similar models. Isuzu
>built the LUV pick-up for Chevrolet but later Chevrolet built the Isuzu
>Rodeo for Isuzu. Strangely enough Isuzu had built for Honda, by
>Chevrolet. a Honda version of the Rodeo, I forget what Honda called it.
>Toyota used to build the Nova for Chevrolet in the 80's.
>
a joint venture between Toyota and GM) built Nova's, Prizm's, Hilux,
Voltz (a version of the Pontiac Vibe), Tacomas, and the Corolla in California.
GM pulled out when it went bankrupt in 2009 and Toyota closed the
plant the next year.
The plant is now cranking out Tesla Model S.
Edward A. Falk
May 28, 2014, 7:41:07 PM5/28/14
to
In article <_L6dnfQHKe9yZR7O...@giganews.com>,
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 5/26/2014 11:17 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article <0qo6o91qpjst43e9j...@4ax.com>,
>> <k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:48:56 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>>> Falk) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There are three problems, I see.
>>>
>>> First, the sliding surfaces will wear. It would probably be good to
>>> make them out of something like Ash or Ironwood. ;-) If you can
>>> somehow make one mating surface sacrificial, it might be a good idea.
>>
>> I was planning on using poplar.
>
>I would strongly suggest at least something like Baltic birch for the
>drawer sides and maple or oak for the cabinet slides.
I wasn't planning on using plywood, even Baltic birch for the drawers,
but I could take a look at it. More likely, I'll just add teflon glides
to take the wear.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 5/26/2014 11:17 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article <0qo6o91qpjst43e9j...@4ax.com>,
>> <k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:48:56 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>>> Falk) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There are three problems, I see.
>>>
>>> First, the sliding surfaces will wear. It would probably be good to
>>> make them out of something like Ash or Ironwood. ;-) If you can
>>> somehow make one mating surface sacrificial, it might be a good idea.
>>
>> I was planning on using poplar.
>
>I would strongly suggest at least something like Baltic birch for the
>drawer sides and maple or oak for the cabinet slides.
I wasn't planning on using plywood, even Baltic birch for the drawers,
but I could take a look at it. More likely, I'll just add teflon glides
to take the wear.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Edward A. Falk
May 28, 2014, 7:43:43 PM5/28/14
to
In article <9467o915986n87thk...@4ax.com>,
<k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2014 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>Falk) wrote:
>
>>In article <llvq3b$s1a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>Larry Blanchard <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:04:15 -0400, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>That's easily solved. Either by runners in the middle of the drawer
>>>sides (which can easily be sacrificial) running in a groove, or by a
>>>kicker above the drawer.
>
>Yes, runners (in slots) are a good idea too. That doesn't address the
>wear issue but it will solve some of the tilt problem. The
>sacrificial member was what I was getting at, though. I hate building
>anything that can't be repaired.
>
>>My updated design: http://imgur.com/nfZd5UQ
>
>I'd beef the stretchers up substantially. Remember, that's end grain
>they're attaching to the sides with. Really think about the joinery.
>...or you could make it a solid panel (plywood, etc.) to eliminate the
>end grain.
Perhaps pocket screws to attach the stretchers to the end panels?
I was planning to use Doug fir plywood for the ends, but I have
a lot of doubts about it's looking as nice as the VG Doug fir I've
used for other projects, so maybe I'll go with solid panels instead.
<k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2014 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>Falk) wrote:
>
>>In article <llvq3b$s1a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>Larry Blanchard <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:04:15 -0400, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>That's easily solved. Either by runners in the middle of the drawer
>>>sides (which can easily be sacrificial) running in a groove, or by a
>>>kicker above the drawer.
>
>Yes, runners (in slots) are a good idea too. That doesn't address the
>wear issue but it will solve some of the tilt problem. The
>sacrificial member was what I was getting at, though. I hate building
>anything that can't be repaired.
>
>>My updated design: http://imgur.com/nfZd5UQ
>
>I'd beef the stretchers up substantially. Remember, that's end grain
>they're attaching to the sides with. Really think about the joinery.
>...or you could make it a solid panel (plywood, etc.) to eliminate the
>end grain.
Perhaps pocket screws to attach the stretchers to the end panels?
I was planning to use Doug fir plywood for the ends, but I have
a lot of doubts about it's looking as nice as the VG Doug fir I've
used for other projects, so maybe I'll go with solid panels instead.
k...@attt.bizz
May 28, 2014, 9:00:59 PM5/28/14
to
On Wed, 28 May 2014 23:43:43 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
show.
>I was planning to use Doug fir plywood for the ends, but I have
>a lot of doubts about it's looking as nice as the VG Doug fir I've
>used for other projects, so maybe I'll go with solid panels instead.
I think you'll be happier with either Birch or Oak ply. Both are
available at the Borg for not that much more than sanded ply. The
veneer is exceedingly thin, so watch the sanding.
Falk) wrote:
>In article <9467o915986n87thk...@4ax.com>,
> <k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
>>On Mon, 26 May 2014 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>>Falk) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <llvq3b$s1a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>>Larry Blanchard <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:04:15 -0400, krw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That's easily solved. Either by runners in the middle of the drawer
>>>>sides (which can easily be sacrificial) running in a groove, or by a
>>>>kicker above the drawer.
>>
>>Yes, runners (in slots) are a good idea too. That doesn't address the
>>wear issue but it will solve some of the tilt problem. The
>>sacrificial member was what I was getting at, though. I hate building
>>anything that can't be repaired.
>>
>>>My updated design: http://imgur.com/nfZd5UQ
>>
>>I'd beef the stretchers up substantially. Remember, that's end grain
>>they're attaching to the sides with. Really think about the joinery.
>>...or you could make it a solid panel (plywood, etc.) to eliminate the
>>end grain.
>
>Perhaps pocket screws to attach the stretchers to the end panels?
That's better but I'd still make them significantly wider than you
>In article <9467o915986n87thk...@4ax.com>,
> <k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
>>On Mon, 26 May 2014 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>>Falk) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <llvq3b$s1a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>>Larry Blanchard <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:04:15 -0400, krw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That's easily solved. Either by runners in the middle of the drawer
>>>>sides (which can easily be sacrificial) running in a groove, or by a
>>>>kicker above the drawer.
>>
>>Yes, runners (in slots) are a good idea too. That doesn't address the
>>wear issue but it will solve some of the tilt problem. The
>>sacrificial member was what I was getting at, though. I hate building
>>anything that can't be repaired.
>>
>>>My updated design: http://imgur.com/nfZd5UQ
>>
>>I'd beef the stretchers up substantially. Remember, that's end grain
>>they're attaching to the sides with. Really think about the joinery.
>>...or you could make it a solid panel (plywood, etc.) to eliminate the
>>end grain.
>
>Perhaps pocket screws to attach the stretchers to the end panels?
show.
>I was planning to use Doug fir plywood for the ends, but I have
>a lot of doubts about it's looking as nice as the VG Doug fir I've
>used for other projects, so maybe I'll go with solid panels instead.
available at the Borg for not that much more than sanded ply. The
veneer is exceedingly thin, so watch the sanding.
Leon
May 28, 2014, 10:29:45 PM5/28/14
to
the Teflon tape will work well also.
Waterloo Structures
May 29, 2014, 1:31:42 AM5/29/14
to
Morgans;3241088 Wrote:
> "Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote
> -
> Interference heads?-
>
> That is the term for engines that are designed without clearance to
> avoid
> the pistons from smashing into the valves if the valve train skips time
> or
> stops while the crankshaft still keeps going for a short time.
>
> This pistons come up and smash into the valves, usually breaking or
> bending
> valves, and/or smashing holes in pistons and other knarly stuff like
> that.
> You want to make sure you change the timing belt early on those engines,
>
> because if you wait til they break, you have an expensive, heavy
> paperweight.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> 'AVAST 2014 | Antivirus Gratuit - T�l�charger la meilleure protection
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> anti-malware' (http://www.avast.com)
Thanx for the timely advice buddy!!
--
Waterloo Structures
Swingman
May 29, 2014, 9:28:46 AM5/29/14
to
On 5/28/2014 6:43 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> I was planning to use Doug fir plywood for the ends, but I have
> a lot of doubts about it's looking as nice as the VG Doug fir I've
> used for other projects, so maybe I'll go with solid panels instead.
Pay particular attention to what Leon has posted with regard to drawers
> I was planning to use Doug fir plywood for the ends, but I have
> a lot of doubts about it's looking as nice as the VG Doug fir I've
> used for other projects, so maybe I'll go with solid panels instead.
and you won't go wrong.
The proof is in the pudding.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
Swingman
May 29, 2014, 9:53:54 AM5/29/14
to
On 5/27/2014 8:59 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> If you want to keep them from being pulled out but still removeable, extend
> a portion of the back upwards so it will hit the horizontal stop in the
> frame when the drawer is all the way forward, then round over the bottom
> edge of the back, including the sides where they meet the back. Remove the
> drawer by lifting the front up until the extended back clears the stop.
Same concept, but even simpler, quicker and easier way to insure a
drawer pulls out only as far as you want it to:
https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJigsFixturesMethods?noredirect=1#6018844233476839170
To pull the drawer all the way out, simply reach in and turn the drawer
stop a quarter turn.
> If you want to keep them from being pulled out but still removeable, extend
> a portion of the back upwards so it will hit the horizontal stop in the
> frame when the drawer is all the way forward, then round over the bottom
> edge of the back, including the sides where they meet the back. Remove the
> drawer by lifting the front up until the extended back clears the stop.
Same concept, but even simpler, quicker and easier way to insure a
drawer pulls out only as far as you want it to:
https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJigsFixturesMethods?noredirect=1#6018844233476839170
To pull the drawer all the way out, simply reach in and turn the drawer
stop a quarter turn.
Sonny
May 29, 2014, 10:53:25 AM5/29/14
to
On Monday, May 26, 2014 10:48:56 AM UTC-5, Edward A. Falk wrote
> It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
> I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
> held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
> should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
> it to other cabinets I've seen.
"... - is this a bad design?"
I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but the wording caught my sense for perspective and, sometimes, I sense some younger/novice woodworkers (as myself) are "influenced", a bit, with that kind of wording. And this idea applies to other fields of subject matter.
Let's not say "bad design". That "negative" connotation is misleading and kinna sets the stage, possibly, for an incorrect mindset. Lets say "improved design". A log, to roll stones on, to make pyramids, is essentially a wheel and a wheel is a great design. Sometimes, I ask the kids "What is the best way to cut this board: a hand saw, a circular saw or a table saw?", in order to get them to think, aiming for a positive mindset. Any of the saws will cut the board, but one might make for a better "technique", than another. There is no "bad" saw.
With the selection of products, suggested by others, and including your level of skills, try to improve on your "bad design" concept by selecting those products that make for the best results, for your drawers, and try an advanced woodworking technique (skill), for yourself, if applicable.
That "bad whatever" kinna strikes me as incorrect or negative. I've caught myself "practicing" that negativeness, labeling, at times, also. I dislike it, when I see that "bad" connotation, or something similar, within myself. Your trying something new or advanced is a positive.
Think positive!
Okay, Sorry for the "rant". I'm probably a bit out of line, but I wondered if there was a hint of that mindset in your planning, etc. I hope I'm wrong.
Sonny
> It's a very simple cabinet; not a face-frame design.
> I just want to build a cabinet where the drawer rests on runners and is
> held in place side-to-side by the cabinet case itself. It seems that it
> should work as designed, but somehow it seems "too easy" when I compare
> it to other cabinets I've seen.
"... - is this a bad design?"
I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but the wording caught my sense for perspective and, sometimes, I sense some younger/novice woodworkers (as myself) are "influenced", a bit, with that kind of wording. And this idea applies to other fields of subject matter.
Let's not say "bad design". That "negative" connotation is misleading and kinna sets the stage, possibly, for an incorrect mindset. Lets say "improved design". A log, to roll stones on, to make pyramids, is essentially a wheel and a wheel is a great design. Sometimes, I ask the kids "What is the best way to cut this board: a hand saw, a circular saw or a table saw?", in order to get them to think, aiming for a positive mindset. Any of the saws will cut the board, but one might make for a better "technique", than another. There is no "bad" saw.
With the selection of products, suggested by others, and including your level of skills, try to improve on your "bad design" concept by selecting those products that make for the best results, for your drawers, and try an advanced woodworking technique (skill), for yourself, if applicable.
That "bad whatever" kinna strikes me as incorrect or negative. I've caught myself "practicing" that negativeness, labeling, at times, also. I dislike it, when I see that "bad" connotation, or something similar, within myself. Your trying something new or advanced is a positive.
Think positive!
Okay, Sorry for the "rant". I'm probably a bit out of line, but I wondered if there was a hint of that mindset in your planning, etc. I hope I'm wrong.
Sonny
Edward A. Falk
May 31, 2014, 2:16:23 PM5/31/14
to
In article <ug1do9t78uisqbdl6...@4ax.com>,
>>I was planning to use Doug fir plywood for the ends, but I have
>>a lot of doubts about it's looking as nice as the VG Doug fir I've
>>used for other projects, so maybe I'll go with solid panels instead.
>
>I think you'll be happier with either Birch or Oak ply. Both are
>available at the Borg for not that much more than sanded ply. The
>veneer is exceedingly thin, so watch the sanding.
Yeah, I had some solid-core oak-veneer plywood once, and sanded through
the veneer in no time. You'd think the expensive stuff would have thicker
veneer, but no.
I do like Birch and Oak ply quite a bit, but I've already done two sets
of cabinets with the VG Doug fir (and they look great), so I'm going to
stick with that style.
As I expected, the Doug fir plywood was ugly as crap, so I'm doing the
ends of the cabinet as solid panels instead.
<k...@attt.bizz> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 May 2014 23:43:43 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>Falk) wrote:
>
>>In article <9467o915986n87thk...@4ax.com>,
>
>On Wed, 28 May 2014 23:43:43 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>Falk) wrote:
>
>>In article <9467o915986n87thk...@4ax.com>,
>
>That's better but I'd still make them significantly wider than you
>show.
OK, I probably will.
>show.
>>I was planning to use Doug fir plywood for the ends, but I have
>>a lot of doubts about it's looking as nice as the VG Doug fir I've
>>used for other projects, so maybe I'll go with solid panels instead.
>
>I think you'll be happier with either Birch or Oak ply. Both are
>available at the Borg for not that much more than sanded ply. The
>veneer is exceedingly thin, so watch the sanding.
the veneer in no time. You'd think the expensive stuff would have thicker
veneer, but no.
I do like Birch and Oak ply quite a bit, but I've already done two sets
of cabinets with the VG Doug fir (and they look great), so I'm going to
stick with that style.
As I expected, the Doug fir plywood was ugly as crap, so I'm doing the
ends of the cabinet as solid panels instead.
Edward A. Falk
May 31, 2014, 2:55:49 PM5/31/14
to
In article <llvnp8$920$3...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
Edward A. Falk <fa...@rahul.net> wrote:
>See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
Well, guess what. She Who Must Be Obeyed wants metal drawer glides
instead. So back to the drawing board. Or Sketchup. Whatever.
Anyway, thanks for all your advice everybody.
Edward A. Falk <fa...@rahul.net> wrote:
>See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
Well, guess what. She Who Must Be Obeyed wants metal drawer glides
instead. So back to the drawing board. Or Sketchup. Whatever.
Anyway, thanks for all your advice everybody.
k...@attt.bizz
May 31, 2014, 3:31:12 PM5/31/14
to
On Sat, 31 May 2014 18:55:49 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:
>In article <llvnp8$920$3...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
>Edward A. Falk <fa...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
>
>Well, guess what. She Who Must Be Obeyed wants metal drawer glides
>instead. So back to the drawing board. Or Sketchup. Whatever.
Listen to her. As long as you're going that far, I'd add
Falk) wrote:
>In article <llvnp8$920$3...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
>Edward A. Falk <fa...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>See http://imgur.com/vOn2O4S.
>
>Well, guess what. She Who Must Be Obeyed wants metal drawer glides
>instead. So back to the drawing board. Or Sketchup. Whatever.
full-extension slides on the requirements lest. Add soft-closing
under-mount to the pile and SWMBO will be very happy indeed.
Pringles CheezUms
Jul 5, 2014, 2:30:19 AM7/5/14
to
PMBI from a newbie, but how did you do those drawings?
Is it simply MS Paint, or is there a program that specially does
projects like this?
Is it simply MS Paint, or is there a program that specially does
projects like this?
dadiOH
Jul 5, 2014, 7:01:52 AM7/5/14
to
"Pringles CheezUms" <now...@nohow.com> wrote in message
news:ep6fr9h49vdagl5ga...@4ax.com
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
news:ep6fr9h49vdagl5ga...@4ax.com
> PMBI from a newbie, but how did you do those drawings?
> Is it simply MS Paint, or is there a program that specially does
> projects like this?
Google "SketchUp"
> Is it simply MS Paint, or is there a program that specially does
> projects like this?
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
Bill
Jul 5, 2014, 3:44:44 PM7/5/14
to
dadiOH wrote:
> "Pringles CheezUms" <now...@nohow.com> wrote in message
> news:ep6fr9h49vdagl5ga...@4ax.com
>> PMBI from a newbie, but how did you do those drawings?
>> Is it simply MS Paint, or is there a program that specially does
>> projects like this?
> Google "SketchUp"
>
Google sold it to Trimble. Here is a download link:
> "Pringles CheezUms" <now...@nohow.com> wrote in message
> news:ep6fr9h49vdagl5ga...@4ax.com
>> PMBI from a newbie, but how did you do those drawings?
>> Is it simply MS Paint, or is there a program that specially does
>> projects like this?
> Google "SketchUp"
>
http://www.sketchup.com/
Leon
Jul 5, 2014, 5:44:44 PM7/5/14
to
Puckdropper at dot
Jul 5, 2014, 9:26:27 PM7/5/14
to
Bill <BILL_...@whoknows.net> wrote in news:lp9kq...@news4.newsguy.com:
I'm still running version 8. Has Trimble kept the software pretty much the
same, or gone and made big (negative) changes?
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
I'm still running version 8. Has Trimble kept the software pretty much the
same, or gone and made big (negative) changes?
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
Swingman
Jul 5, 2014, 9:51:21 PM7/5/14
to
On 7/5/2014 8:26 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
> Bill <BILL_...@whoknows.net> wrote in news:lp9kq...@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> Google sold it to Trimble. Here is a download link:
>> http://www.sketchup.com/
>
> I'm still running version 8. Has Trimble kept the software pretty much the
> same, or gone and made big (negative) changes?
Most changes by Trimble have been 'under-the-hood' and barely noticeable
> Bill <BILL_...@whoknows.net> wrote in news:lp9kq...@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> Google sold it to Trimble. Here is a download link:
>> http://www.sketchup.com/
>
> I'm still running version 8. Has Trimble kept the software pretty much the
> same, or gone and made big (negative) changes?
as far as 3D modeling/drawing capability from previous versions.
I have noticed an increased sensitivity to axis/plane issues, especially
with imported files (.dwg) that may contain "Layer" information in the
imported file.
But that is not necessarily a bad thing once you realize that this is
due to an increased, more faithful reproduction of the imported original
into SketchUp, and that "layers" are handled differently in CAD vs 3D
modeling.
What you make on the bananas, you lose on the grapes...
Bill
Jul 5, 2014, 11:05:55 PM7/5/14
to
Puckdropper wrote:
> Bill <BILL_...@whoknows.net> wrote in news:lp9kq...@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> Google sold it to Trimble. Here is a download link:
>> http://www.sketchup.com/
> I'm still running version 8. Has Trimble kept the software pretty much the
> same, or gone and made big (negative) changes?
I'm still running version 8 too (fear of upgrading). And I've backed up
> Bill <BILL_...@whoknows.net> wrote in news:lp9kq...@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> Google sold it to Trimble. Here is a download link:
>> http://www.sketchup.com/
> I'm still running version 8. Has Trimble kept the software pretty much the
> same, or gone and made big (negative) changes?
the installation file.
>
> Puckdropper
Leon
Jul 6, 2014, 10:36:29 AM7/6/14
to
On 7/5/2014 8:26 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
> Bill <BILL_...@whoknows.net> wrote in news:lp9kq...@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> Google sold it to Trimble. Here is a download link:
>> http://www.sketchup.com/
>
> I'm still running version 8. Has Trimble kept the software pretty much the
> same, or gone and made big (negative) changes?
>
> Puckdropper
>
Pretty much the same however there are a couple of extra icons, the one
>
>> Google sold it to Trimble. Here is a download link:
>> http://www.sketchup.com/
>
> I'm still running version 8. Has Trimble kept the software pretty much the
> same, or gone and made big (negative) changes?
>
> Puckdropper
>
that comes to mind is the arc icon/pie icon.
Plugins are now handled differently and some of the older non approved
plugins no longer work. I have not had too much of an issue with that
as there are still a load to choose from if the one you had no longer works.
Pringles CheezUms
Jul 7, 2014, 7:52:21 PM7/7/14
to
Thanks everyone.
Sketchup Make is the free version. Is sketchup v8 better? Would there be
advantages to move over to v8? (if possible)
Sketchup Make is the free version. Is sketchup v8 better? Would there be
advantages to move over to v8? (if possible)
Leon
Jul 7, 2014, 9:26:03 PM7/7/14
to
On 7/7/2014 6:52 PM, Pringles CheezUms wrote:
> Thanks everyone.
> Sketchup Make is the free version. Is sketchup v8 better? Would there be
> advantages to move over to v8? (if possible)
Better than v5, v6, v7? Most likely. But Sketchup 8 is also free if it
> Thanks everyone.
> Sketchup Make is the free version. Is sketchup v8 better? Would there be
> advantages to move over to v8? (if possible)
is still available.
Better than v2013 or v2104, not from my experience.
FWIW Sketchup Make is simply the new name for the free version.
Sketchup has had a free version since IIRC V4. Unless you are a pro
there is no reason to move to the "pro" version.
Leon
Jul 8, 2014, 7:48:55 AM7/8/14
to
have multiple versions installed on your computer. Just be aware that any
drawings that are made from an earlier version and opened/modified under a
later version should be saved with a unique name. Older files saved under
later versions will no longer be able to be opened with an earlier version.
woodchucker
Jul 8, 2014, 11:09:54 PM7/8/14
to
professionally. Much more dollars than expected.
I know, they are in business to make money. But I was shocked at the new
license agreement.
--
Jeff
Leon
Jul 9, 2014, 7:28:29 AM7/9/14
to
AutoCAD LT until about 6 years ago. That program got ridiculous in price
even it you renewed as often as they wanted. AND it is only 2D. Upgrading
that program is about 7 times the expense of up grading SU Pro each year
and initially about twice the expense to initially purchase.
0 new messages