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

[RS Wood]

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

Mine are, in this order of "I wish I could do it" order
1. painting
2. alignment
3. replace/rebuild engine
4. clutch replacement
5. tire mounting and balancing
6. timing belt
7. head gasket and vcg

I've done electrical, brakes, shocks, cooling systems, alternators,
ujoints, pitman/idler arms & tie-rod ends and ball joints, tuneups,
emissions hoses and sensors, exhaust, electrical components, fuel pumps,
and fluids, but not the six things above.

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

[rbowman]

On 11/03/2017 08:42 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
> done?

Painting is something I have done and wish I never had... The best
paint guy I ever knew was someone you had to catch in the zone between
sober but shaky and falling down drunk. The runner up was a complete
stoner.

[Bob F]

On 11/3/2017 7:42 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
> done?
>
> Mine are, in this order of "I wish I could do it" order

> 1. paintingDid it.
> 2. alignment
Bought Firestone "lifetime alignment" for each vehicle.
> 3. replace/rebuild engine
Did it.
> 4. clutch replacement
Did it.

> 5. tire mounting and balancing

I've thought about this one
> 6. timing belt
Never had a vehicle with one.

> 7. head gasket and vcg

On the rebuild - Honda 600 Sedan

>
> I've done electrical, brakes, shocks, cooling systems, alternators,
> ujoints, pitman/idler arms & tie-rod ends and ball joints, tuneups,
> emissions hoses and sensors, exhaust, electrical components, fuel pumps,
> and fluids, but not the six things above.

Ditto, plus a ring replacement on the 66 Chevy van.

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

Replace transmission - I did pay someone else to replace an automatic
with a manual transmission I provided, on a 66 Chevy van. Glad I did it
- got 3 mpg out of it and way better performance (repl. power glide).
The shop that did it said "never again.

a

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 02:42:59 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

Done just about all of it. My painting left a bit to be desired, and
I don't really like rust repair bodywork. I've installed AC, installed
oversized brakes, totally rebuilt a few cars - engine, suspension,
electrics - the works. I've done some automatic trans work - but never
a FULL rebuild.

What I'd really LIKE to do is build a complete car from scratch - but
after taking 16 years on the plane, and it's not done yet - at 65 that
likely won't happen

[rickman]

None, I've done a bunch of work on cars in my day, but I'm fed up with it
now. I wish I could find someone who has half a brain who would do a decent
job fixing my truck. It's old and has issues, but the repair people I seem
to find these days fix one thing and break something else.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[John-Del]

I've done all those jobs OP mentioned, but painting (once mastered) is the easiest. Anyone can paint. It's the prep work that's daunting. The metal work, the skim coats of filler, the half dozen or more alternate coats of red and gray primer all block sanded off and the seal coat. The color and clear coats are easy. The problem today is the enormous cost of paints, clears and other coatings.

[RS Wood]

rickman wrote:

> None, I've done a bunch of work on cars in my day, but I'm fed up with it
> now. I wish I could find someone who has half a brain who would do a decent
> job fixing my truck. It's old and has issues, but the repair people I seem
> to find these days fix one thing and break something else.

My observation with repair people is that it's hard to find one who cares
to do what he was trained to do.

Recently a bolt was missing from a repair job and when I came back to ask
why, the guy told me it didn't do anything.

I reflected that the car still works fine without the bolt, but there is no
way they put that bolt there in the first place if it didn't do anything.

He didn't believe me.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> Done just about all of it.

You may be the only lucky one here!

> My painting left a bit to be desired, and
> I don't really like rust repair bodywork.

Nobody expects a home job to be as good as the pros, but it still would be
nice to do.

> I've installed AC, installed
> oversized brakes, totally rebuilt a few cars - engine, suspension,
> electrics - the works. I've done some automatic trans work - but never
> a FULL rebuild.

I was thinking manual. An automatic might be too much for a home job due to
the potential equipment requirement. For a manual, all you need is a good
jack, some tools for tight places, clutch alignment tool, snapring pliers,
and everything else you probably already have.

> What I'd really LIKE to do is build a complete car from scratch - but
> after taking 16 years on the plane, and it's not done yet - at 65 that
> likely won't happen

I'm older than you, so I know what you mean that it probably will never
happen. We lost our chance.

I too would love to have built my "own" car, which, by that, I mean I would
have taken my very first car or maybe one of the cars from the 60s, or 70s,
or maybe as late as the 80s, and then rebuilt it "my way", whatever that
would mean, such that it would be unique.

My advice to a kid in his twenties or thirties would be to save the car he
likes best, probably it's a simple one, manual, inline six perhaps, and
then just learn it, work it, and repair it, and make it what you want it to
be.

[RS Wood]

Bob F wrote:

>> 3. replace/rebuild engine
> Did it.

The closest I came to for the engine was an Infiniti Q45 I had where my
wife holed the oil pan somehow (she said it wasn't her fault).

To replace the oil pan, I had to buy an engine "holder" where I unbolted
the engine mounts and jacked it up from underneath and then hung it on a
hook over this crossbar which bolted into the shock bolts.

But I've never replaced an engine mostly because I never drove an engine
into the ground that needed to be replaced. I envy people who have done it
because it must feel great to put a new engine in yourself.

>> 4. clutch replacement
> Did it.

I haven't had a manual for so long that I think I lost my chance to do the
clutch and pressure plate. The one chance I had in the 80s, I blew it by
paying someone else to do it. That was my mistake because that turned out
to be my last chance in life to learn how to do it and experience it.

>> 6. timing belt
> Never had a vehicle with one.

I know what you mean. All mine have been chains, where some have plastic
chain guides or tensioners which need replacing - but I've never needed to
replace a belt - but belts are pretty common on cars nowadays, aren't they?

>> 7. head gasket and vcg
> On the rebuild - Honda 600 Sedan

I may get my chance yet on at least the valve cover gasket as mine has a
few spots of oil on the edges. :)

> Ditto, plus a ring replacement on the 66 Chevy van.

As in piston ring?
If so, I think that qualifies as a "engine", at least to me, since you have
to open her up pretty deep to get to the pistons.

>> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
>> done?
> Replace transmission - I did pay someone else to replace an automatic
> with a manual transmission I provided, on a 66 Chevy van. Glad I did it
> - got 3 mpg out of it and way better performance (repl. power glide).
> The shop that did it said "never again.

Replacing the transmission would also be something I wish I had done, along
the lines of putting in a clutch, which is I think essentially the same
thing since the transmission has to come out anyway. In fact, unless it's a
swap (like yours was), I would think replacing the transmission one to one
would be easier than replacing just the clutch, and pressure plate.

I may have lost my chance on most of the things above though, just like I
can't hike in the Grand Canyon anymore (due to being old).

[RS Wood]

Long ago, in the 80's, at Sears, I bought the compressor, the sprayer, and
the sandblaster, and the welder (but I bought gas welding equipment which
turned out to be a mistake because the skill set needed is great compared
to arc welding on thin metal with wires below them).

Not wishing to merely fill with bondo, I cut out the rust, and welded steel
plates (melting the harness bundle below the rocker panels by mistake but
repairing that easily enough).

I was still working on it, when it was totalled after I lent it to a
friend, so the only thing I have left is the memory and the tools.

What I learned from all that was never lend your car to a friend, and in
the end, I never learned how to paint it because I never needed to paint a
car ever again.

Ever since then, I farmed out my painting, but I wish I had finished that
one job.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

Major engine mods to get a lot more mpg, and obviously I'm not talking about fitting aftermarket crap. And build my own from scratch.


NT

[RS Wood]

RS Wood wrote:

>> My painting left a bit to be desired, and
>> I don't really like rust repair bodywork.
>
> Nobody expects a home job to be as good as the pros, but it still would be
> nice to do.

I'm thinking that can be misconstrued just like the alignment can be
misconstrued.

What I really think about home jobs is that you _care_ more than the guy
doing your work for you for pay.

He has more experience and better equipment.
You care more about the results where your equipment just has to be good
enough.

Recently I brought a car back to the shop because a bolt was missing where
the guy insisted the bolt didn't do anything. That's what I mean about
caring about the job.

When they mount my tires, they don't align the dots to get the least amount
of weight. They say it doesn't matter. Maybe they're right. I don't know,
but it doesn't seem like the right way to do the job to me.

When they do the clutch, they put in whatever they put in but I doubt it's
Redline.

That's what I mean more so than they don't know more than we do.

They know. But they might not care as much as we do about the results.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 13:00:16 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>> Done just about all of it.
>
>You may be the only lucky one here!
>
>> My painting left a bit to be desired, and
>> I don't really like rust repair bodywork.
>
>Nobody expects a home job to be as good as the pros, but it still would be
>nice to do.
>
>> I've installed AC, installed
>> oversized brakes, totally rebuilt a few cars - engine, suspension,
>> electrics - the works. I've done some automatic trans work - but never
>> a FULL rebuild.
>
>I was thinking manual. An automatic might be too much for a home job due to
>the potential equipment requirement. For a manual, all you need is a good
>jack, some tools for tight places, clutch alignment tool, snapring pliers,
>and everything else you probably already have.
>
>> What I'd really LIKE to do is build a complete car from scratch - but
>> after taking 16 years on the plane, and it's not done yet - at 65 that
>> likely won't happen
>
>I'm older than you, so I know what you mean that it probably will never
>happen. We lost our chance.
>
>I too would love to have built my "own" car, which, by that, I mean I would
>have taken my very first car or maybe one of the cars from the 60s, or 70s,
>or maybe as late as the 80s, and then rebuilt it "my way", whatever that
>would mean, such that it would be unique.

Done that many times.

>
>My advice to a kid in his twenties or thirties would be to save the car he
>likes best, probably it's a simple one, manual, inline six perhaps, and
>then just learn it, work it, and repair it, and make it what you want it to
>be.

My '63 Valiant (170 slant six, push-button automatic) had lowered
suspension so it cornered like it was on rails, and put 206HP to the
rear wheels. 60 in 1st, 90 in second, and bury the needle in drive.

The 69 Dart wasn't quite as radical but would do 104 all day long
(225 slant six)

the 1953 Coronet Sierra (241 Red Ram Hemi Overdrive) was a complete
rebuild, as was the custom 1957 (Dodge) Fargo Express.
Wish I still had those 2. The Coronet was one of my paint jobs.
"\'69 Chevelle and 72 VW Beetle were 2 others. Both turned out nice
except for one "sag" on each. The Coronet had no sags, but not much
shine either.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 13:23:54 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>RS Wood wrote:
>
>>> My painting left a bit to be desired, and
>>> I don't really like rust repair bodywork.
>>
>> Nobody expects a home job to be as good as the pros, but it still would be
>> nice to do.
>
>I'm thinking that can be misconstrued just like the alignment can be
>misconstrued.
>
>What I really think about home jobs is that you _care_ more than the guy
>doing your work for you for pay.
>
>He has more experience and better equipment.
>You care more about the results where your equipment just has to be good
>enough.

A GOOD tech cares as much as you do - mabee more - because a poor job
reflects badly on him and can cost him BIG TIME if he gets a bed
reputation.

I cared more about most of my customers' vehicles than they did for
the 25+ years I was actively in the trade.

>
>Recently I brought a car back to the shop because a bolt was missing where
>the guy insisted the bolt didn't do anything. That's what I mean about
>caring about the job.
>
>When they mount my tires, they don't align the dots to get the least amount
>of weight. They say it doesn't matter. Maybe they're right. I don't know,
>but it doesn't seem like the right way to do the job to me.
>
>When they do the clutch, they put in whatever they put in but I doubt it's
>Redline.

And "redline" isn't necessarily the best or any better for your
application/ use than what they put in.

>
>That's what I mean more so than they don't know more than we do.
>
>They know. But they might not care as much as we do about the results.

Or they might. You just need the right shop, and the right
technician.

[Mike_Duffy]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 21:04:42 -0600, rbowman wrote:

> The best paint guy I ever knew was someone you had to catch in
> the zone between sober but shaky and falling down drunk.

I know who you mean. My Dad took care of his dog while he did a few months
in the slammer for DUI.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 11/3/2017 10:42 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
> done?
>
> Mine are, in this order of "I wish I could do it" order
> 1. painting
> 2. alignment
> 3. replace/rebuild engine
> 4. clutch replacement
> 5. tire mounting and balancing
> 6. timing belt
> 7. head gasket and vcg
>

I've done or assisted in most of those and a bunch of others except #6.
These days I buy new cars and don't even do oil changes.

If you really want to tackle #3, it is easy enough to do. Buy a new
Corvette and for an extra $5000 you can go to the plant and assemble
your own engine. Of course, they have a pro with you.

[rbowman]

On 11/04/2017 07:00 AM, RS Wood wrote:
> I know what you mean. All mine have been chains, where some have plastic
> chain guides or tensioners which need replacing - but I've never needed to
> replace a belt - but belts are pretty common on cars nowadays, aren't they?

Serpentine belts are common, as are interference engines. I replaced the
belt on my Geo when it got up around 100,000 miles. I didn't know the
maintenance history on the car and assumed it had never been replaced.
iirc, the belt was around $40 and the job took a couple of hours. The
biggest problem was the limited space.

[rbowman]

On 11/04/2017 07:00 AM, RS Wood wrote:

> Long ago, in the 80's, at Sears, I bought the compressor, the sprayer, and
> the sandblaster, and the welder (but I bought gas welding equipment which
> turned out to be a mistake because the skill set needed is great compared
> to arc welding on thin metal with wires below them).

I've been going to get a gas setup with the portable tanks. I used to be
okay but it's been a long time. Gas is more versatile and works anywhere
you can drag the tanks but the inexpensive point and shoot wire machines
do make life easy over stick welding.

[rbowman]

I don't know if the new paints and HVLP guns are any better but the guys
shooting lacquer had half a buzz on to start with. The shooting isn't
bad but the prep, prep, and more prep followed by sand, sand, and more
sand and then buff and buff gets to me. I can only massage the same car
so many times before I'm utterly bored.

[rickman]

I guess that's why he is repairing cars instead of designing them. He
should be introduced to the bean counters in Detroit. They'll explain why
that bolt is there because if the designers couldn't explain it to the bean
counters, it wouldn't be there.

[rickman]

RS Wood wrote on 11/4/2017 9:00 AM:

> Bob F wrote:
>
>>> 3. replace/rebuild engine
>> Did it.
>
> The closest I came to for the engine was an Infiniti Q45 I had where my
> wife holed the oil pan somehow (she said it wasn't her fault).
>
> To replace the oil pan, I had to buy an engine "holder" where I unbolted
> the engine mounts and jacked it up from underneath and then hung it on a
> hook over this crossbar which bolted into the shock bolts.
>
> But I've never replaced an engine mostly because I never drove an engine
> into the ground that needed to be replaced. I envy people who have done it
> because it must feel great to put a new engine in yourself.

Same here. Any car of mine that needed an engine wasn't worth putting an
engine in. Older cars were not made to last and that was true for every
part of that car. Even things like seats and headliners were shot by the
time the engine was shot. My current truck has 240,000 miles on it and the
engine is one of a number of parts that shows nearly no sign of going
anytime soon. The parts that have been repaired often were not repaired
right so some have needed repairing more than once, but otherwise the truck
is very sound.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Evidently you never owned a Buick or Olds with the 3.8 engine from the
early 80's. I know of many being rebuilt/replaced. I had the engine
replaced on my '83 Cutlass and drove it until the next one died. The
car had 130,00+ miles. Not sure how many as the odometer stopped
working. I was determined to drive it until it does. Left work one
day, started the car, drove 3 feet and it died. Took the company pickup
home and stopped at a car dealer on the way and bought another car.

[Colonel Edmund J. Burke]

Dork

[The Real Bev]

Sounds like the Ford dealership jerk who replaced the starter on the 69
LTD. One loose bolt, one dropped on top of the starter and one
completely missing. He was partially right, it ran for a couple of
years afterward.

--
Cheers, Bev
I'd rather trust the guys in the lab coats who aren't demanding
that I get up early on Sundays to apologize for being human.
-- Captain Splendid

[RS Wood]

rbowman wrote:

>> I am pretty sure my biggest hurdle is that alignment takes KNOWLEDGE where
>> you have to convert degrees and inches using trig and measure a lot of
>> things to an imaginary centerpoint and to each other.
>
> After replacing the joints I aligned my pickup with a tape measure and
> plumb bob. I was not at all confident so i took it to a tire shop. It
> was within spec and didn't need any tweaking.

Each has a hurdle that has to be overcome, both in measuring and in
adjusting.

For example, adjusting toe is easy (just spin the tierod ends), but the
wheels have to slip under load, which isn't so easy.

Measuring TOTAL toe would be easy if you can clear the undercarriage, but
that's not really how the manufacturer usually specs it.

Measuring individual toe (to an imaginary centerline) isn't all that easy,
is it? How do you do it?

Then there is the problem of specs. The toe spec is often in degrees
whereas we measure in inches, so you have to think in order to convert.

Likewise, camber is easy to measure with a plumb bob, but you have to clear
the sidewall of the tire and then calculate from the centerline of the
tire, so, you have to take precise measurements and then calculate an angle
from those measurements after first clearing the sidewall somehow.

Caster is the hardest to measure directly, and I don't think we can measure
caster directly in a home setup. Can we?

So caster will take thinking, which, after all, I think is the hardest part
of an alignment. All the other jobs anyone can do - but alignment takes
thinking because of the kinds of issues above, most important being that
the spec is never (Murphy's Law) in the form of what you can measure
directly.

[RS Wood]

gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>>Spray cans for a roof? Interesting. If it works, it works! (that's my motto
>>when my wife asks me "Is that the way it's _supposed_ to be done?".

> The cans with the blue head and the wire you can see in the gap seem
> to have the best fan pattern.

This is good to know! I've seen this type. Never understood them.
Then again, _every_ can of paint I have ever used is really only a
single-use item (just like many instant glues seem to be) because of the
clogging up (and yes, I clean them out upside down).

> The trick with painting with cans is not to hold the button down all
> the time and keep the can moving. Start your sweep push the button,
> stop painting before you stop moving. It is pretty much the same with
> a gun. Then remember you are layering the paint on, you are not trying
> to cover it completely in one coat.

I envy you that you've done it.

How many spray cans would an entire car take?

[RS Wood]

rbowman wrote:

>> I don't know anyone who does their own tires but when I watch the guys, I
>> wish I had that equipment, especially the air equipment, to just remove it
>> and put it back and spin it in between.
>
>
> I do the tires on the bike with tube type tires. I would do the tubeless
> but I worry about not having enough air to get the bead to seat. I
> brought the bike to an indy shop for a new set and everything was going
> good until the front tire. Even with a high flow air systems and the
> tools he had a hell of a time. The sun was sinking in the west before
> the bead finally caught and he could inflate it.
>
> I've had problems getting the bead to seat correctly with tube tires but
> with those you can deflate, beat on it, curse, inflate, rinse and repeat
> until it goes.

I'm glad to hear nobody scream that we're all gonna die if we do any work
at home!

The reason people don't do these jobs isn't that we're all gonna die from
nuclear radiation if we do our own stuff.

I don't know anyone who does their own car tires but many motorcyclists do
their own bike tires and everyone does their own wheelbarrow and bicycle
tires.

Tires don't have the same problem as alignment because, other than safety,
you don't have to think all that much to do tires correctly.

Assuming you have a decently flowing air compressor I don't think seating
the bead is the issue usually although we've all had all sorts of times
when we just couldn't get something to seat, so I'm sure it happens. But
they're designed to seat with air so if we have air, we should be able to
seat the bead.

I think the far greater issue with doing tires at home is that you need
special tools that greatly extend your muscle power and worse - you will
never have the tools to do the dynamic balance.

So I don't see how you can ever do car tires right at home because you
can't finish the job right. For some reason, motorcycle tires work just
fine without dynamic balancing.

That's an enigma to me.

Why would bicycle and motorcycle tires work just fine without dynamic
balancing while car tires require dynamic balancing to work right?

[RS Wood]

gfre...@aol.com wrote:

> I did the bent on my wife's accord and I did the belt on her Pontiac
> Sunbird twice and noticed the second time that the lower pulley was
> defective. I drew the line on my Prelude when I saw the first step was
> "remove engine" It turns out you really just loosen the motor mount
> and tilt it up. (what the dealer did). On the other 2 you just remove
> the tire and take out the panel in the wheel well. It is a straight
> shot then. On the prelude the strut support, part of the unibody, is
> in the way.

Well, if replacing a timing belt is that easy, then maybe it's not so much
a crime that they put a 60k-mile part inside an interference engine.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> A couple sheets of tin with grease between works in a pinch for slip
> plates -

I always wondered about how to support the car on its weight and still get
the wheels to slip. I've seen the greased tin and the linoleum tiles, and
even the newspaper trick - but I always wondered how well they work.

The other problem is measuring to the imaginary centerline.

> and for camber a simple square and calculator works just
> fine.

Camber is pretty easy to measure if you have some way of keeping the tire
out of the picture.

Usually that means bolting something to the wheel that allows the digital
level to stick out away from the bulging tire.

So I think the hardest part of camber is the setup has to be bolted to the
wheel (although I've seen ways to do camber with just a plumb bob and a
ruler).

> Toe in with a few sticks and a tape measure - or a simple laser
> level (bubble level with a laser built into the one end - used to
> "extend" the wheel angle instead of using sticks) works pretty good.

I think toe is easy to measure but hard to change.

For measuring, you just have to get around the fact that the engine and
suspension gets in the way of a straight-line calculation (as you did with
the laser suggestion above).

Yet you still have to have to reduce the friction when you turn the tierod
ends with the weight of the car (as you discussed above with the greased
plates).

> Calculating caster is a bit more difficult without the proper tools,
> but a mathematical genius (that's not me) could figure it out with the
> same square, ruler, and calculator.

Here is, I think, the REAL reasons most of us don't do alignment at home.
The actual twisting of the bolts is pretty easy.
Even the toe plate and camber plates are easy if we purchase them.
So are the tape measures and digital levels.

I think the HARD part of alignment is that there is ALWAYS a need to
convert from inches to degrees and from imaginary centerline to actual
centerline, and from trigonometry if we don't measure the actual item we
have the spec for so we have to calculate to derive the value.

To summarize, the hardest part of the alignment, I think, is that you have
to THINK, whereas almost every other job we discussed, you don't have to
think all that much (other than about basic safety, for example, when
compressing springs).

Alignment is a THINKING man's game.

> The laser level will do the tracking just fine, and a digital
> protactor or electronic level would make things easier.

I don't have a laser anything but I won't disagree with you that extending
a measurement to the wall 50 feet away can be useful to measure small
degrees.

For example, toe could be specified as 1/2 degree, which is easy to measure
if you extend a line from the wheel to the wall 50 feet away but which is
really hard to measure six inches from the centerline of the wheel itself.

My point is that the TOOLS to MEASURE alignment are more and more in our
grasp at a reasonable price. Even the toe plates and camber bolting to the
wheel are within our prices.

The hurdle to alignment, I think, is that it's a THINKING man's game, more
so than any other job we're talking about. I don't have the skills myself.

Or so I think. :)

> The most important thing - from having done alignments
> professionally, using sophisticated equipment, is MNOWING what the
> effects of different adjustments are - just because a car is "within
> spec" doesn't mean it will go straight down the road and won't wear
> tires. Tayloring the caster and camber leads is part science, and
> part witchcraft.

I agree with you that alignment is a THINKING man's game, quite unlike all
the other things we talked about.

Sure it takes thinking to diagnose a slipping clutch or to diagnose an
emissions problem or to diagnose an electrical system anomaly but it
doesn't usually take a whole lot of thinking to just replace the parts once
you've figured out which ones broke (and most people just throw parts at
any job anyway which is how a lot of things get fixed).

With alignment, you have to THINK, especially if, as you noted, you're
aiming to get a performance value out of changing a value such as rear
camber for cornering or trying to increase the oversteer for handling.

In summary, I see HUGE HURDLES to alignment at home, but those hurdles have
very little to do with measuring or changing the values.

Here are the first half of my hurdles to doing a home alignment.
1. I need a toe-measuring tool that clears or avoids the undercarriage
2. I need toe plates that allow for slip of the tire under load
3. I need a camber setup on the wheel that clears or avoids the sidewall

Here are the second half.
4. I need the specs in a form that I can measure or calculate
5. I need to figure out the imaginary centerline
6. I need KNOWLEDGE because #4 will always be in something I can't measure
directly (Murphy's law of alignment specs) so I will have to calculate the
answer.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> The 69 Dart wasn't quite as radical but would do 104 all day long
> (225 slant six)

Ah yes. You reminded me. I also replaced a Holley 4-barrel carburetor!

It was fun to watch how the accelerator pump worked squirting inside, how
the throttle plate worked way down below, and how the choke plate on top
worked!

Is there a car sold today that uses a carb?
Probably not.

So that's a skill set along with dwell that we all have, but which isn't
all that useful anymore.

The kids that are 30 and 40 years old today probably don't even know what a
"condensor" is........

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> A GOOD tech cares as much as you do - mabee more - because a poor job
> reflects badly on him and can cost him BIG TIME if he gets a bed
> reputation.

I can't disagree that a good PERSON cares as much or more than you do.
But you have to agree that there are people who care more about getting
vehicles through the door than doing the job right.

If they can skip a step or save a minute, they will, but that doesn't mean
that they did a better job. It just means they did a faster job.

At home, you're never trying to do the job fast.

> I cared more about most of my customers' vehicles than they did for
> the 25+ years I was actively in the trade.

This may be true since you saw lots of abuse I'll bet.

I'll bet the people NOT on this newsgroup don't even think about their
engines all that much.

If they took a car to the shop for a cooling system overhaul, I'll bet
they're not going to look to see if all the bolts that came out went back
in, for example.

> And "redline" isn't necessarily the best or any better for your
> application/ use than what they put in.

Fair enough.
Some things matter. Some don't.

I know that with some things though, the "standard" application isn't as
good as the "better" application, but for gear lubes, it probably only
needs to be GL-4 80W90 and that's it (or whatever the car maker specified).

So, a $5/quart GL-4 80W90 is as good as a $20/quart GL-4 80W90 gear oil.

I don't know clutches but there must be "standard" and "better" clutches,
aren't there? How do you know what the shop puts in by default?

> Or they might. You just need the right shop, and the right
> technician.

That's understood where a guy who tells me that the bolt isn't necessary
isn't necessarily the right technician, is he?

[RS Wood]

rickman wrote:

> Same here. Any car of mine that needed an engine wasn't worth putting an
> engine in. Older cars were not made to last and that was true for every
> part of that car. Even things like seats and headliners were shot by the
> time the engine was shot. My current truck has 240,000 miles on it and the
> engine is one of a number of parts that shows nearly no sign of going
> anytime soon. The parts that have been repaired often were not repaired
> right so some have needed repairing more than once, but otherwise the truck
> is very sound.

You make a good point which I don't know the answer to.

In my kid days, plastic toys did not exist (transistor radios didn't exist
either), so our Tonka toys were rubber wheels and steel bodies.

Nowadays, if you leave a kid's toy car outside, the sun alone will destroy
it within a year or two.

So they certainly don't build *some stuff* the way they used to.

However ... cars *seem* to be different. Are they?

My Chrysler's and Dodges days (in the olden days, we had brand loyalties
that sprang from the brand loyalties of our fathers) showed me that a
tuneup was needed every year, bias-ply tires lasted something like 20K
miles, and, as you said, the interior was shot by the time the engine went.

And that was in the days before plastic bumpers and plastic headlights
(they were real glass bulbs in those days).

But yet, it seems to me, cars last forever now.
In those days, 100K miles was a lot.
Now, it seems, 200K miles is approaching a lot.

Do they really make cars better but nothing else is better?
How can that be?

[RS Wood]

To me, it's a double crime to put a belt inside an interference engine,
even more than the original crime of putting 60K-mile part inside an engine
in the first place.

If you're gonna put a 60,000-mile part inside an engine, then you should at
least make it easy to access.

[RS Wood]

Definitely pros and cons to gas and stick welding.
I have both.

The arc welding takes a skill that is difficult with crappy 220V equipment,
where I tend to have the ugliest beads you've ever seen, and where I
"stick" to the metal all too often.

Then again, with thin plate such as that used on a vehicle, I tend to burn
through with the gas welding.

In the end, it's a skill set that is useful, but difficult to master.

[The Real Bev]

On 11/04/2017 11:17 AM, RS Wood wrote:

> So I don't see how you can ever do car tires right at home because you
> can't finish the job right. For some reason, motorcycle tires work just
> fine without dynamic balancing.
>
> That's an enigma to me.
>
> Why would bicycle and motorcycle tires work just fine without dynamic
> balancing while car tires require dynamic balancing to work right?

My guess -- weight and speed are insufficient to cause problems.

[The Real Bev]

On 11/03/2017 07:42 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
> done?
>
> Mine are, in this order of "I wish I could do it" order
> 1. painting

Did that, along with minor bodywork repair. Sprayed orange lacquer on
my MC tank and chain guard (with a REAL sprayer, not cans), which came
out really nice. Fixed a few rust holes on the 55 Chevy with fiberglas
and bondo before letting Earl Scheib paint it. The Clymer bodywork
manual was definitely worth the money.

> 2. alignment
> 3. replace/rebuild engine
> 4. clutch replacement

Does a MC count?

> 5. tire mounting and balancing
> 6. timing belt
> 7. head gasket and vcg

Did all the work except milling the heads and final torquing down of
head bolts -- I just wasn't strong enough and didn't have a long enough
cheater. What's a vcg?

> I've done electrical, brakes, shocks, cooling systems, alternators,
> ujoints, pitman/idler arms & tie-rod ends and ball joints, tuneups,
> emissions hoses and sensors, exhaust, electrical components, fuel pumps,
> and fluids, but not the six things above.

Alternators, generators, starters, water pumps, motor mounts, brake
pads/drums, hoses, belts.

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

NONE! I did this stuff because it was cheaper to do it myself. Now I
have a used 2013 Corolla and I only looked under the hood when I bought
it because someone else lifted it. One of the tires has a slow leak
(indicated by a sensor so I don't even have to check!) which I pump back
up every month or so, and I do that with a certain amount of resentment.

Don't get the cheap $10 Harbor Freight compressor, splurge on the $35
one; trust me.)

I tried to re-wind a MC alternator. Local electrical shop loaned me a
spool of wire and said to pay for what I used. I gave up after only a
few ounces. The guy said that he knew tiny Hispanic women who could do
that. They're heroes.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

GMC = GarageMan's Companion.
I almost got 100000kn (62000 miles) on a GM
"crate" 3800 in my TranSport.

I rebuilt the 850 Mini at something lihe 196000 miles. The '53 Coronet
Hemi had almost exactly 100,000 miles on it when I got it with a
"dead" engine - I rebuilt it. The '57 Fatgo flathead six got a new cyl
head (the old one cracked) at about 250,000 miles.
I totally rebuilt the 2.6 Mitsu engine in the '85 LeBaron at about
125000 when it snapped the balance shaft chain (that also runs the oil
pump) (I bought it as a non-runner)
I replaced the heads on the '88 New Yorker 3 liter (also a Mitsu
engine - I call 'em Mit-so-shitty" for the second time at about
160,000km - they had been replaced by Chrysler at 100,000 just before
I bought it, and were still in good shape when I sold it with
240,000km on it. I replaced the clutch and timing shain at the same
time on my '81 Tercel at something like 275000 km - the belt had been
changed previously at the dealership ( I think I did it too - can't
remember) for the original owner before I bought it.

Some engines didn't last vert well at all - and others just wouldn't
quit

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:17:04 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>> A couple sheets of tin with grease between works in a pinch for slip
>> plates -
>
>I always wondered about how to support the car on its weight and still get
>the wheels to slip. I've seen the greased tin and the linoleum tiles, and
>even the newspaper trick - but I always wondered how well they work.
>
>The other problem is measuring to the imaginary centerline.
>
>> and for camber a simple square and calculator works just
>> fine.
>
>Camber is pretty easy to measure if you have some way of keeping the tire
>out of the picture.
>
>Usually that means bolting something to the wheel that allows the digital
>level to stick out away from the bulging tire.
>
>So I think the hardest part of camber is the setup has to be bolted to the
>wheel (although I've seen ways to do camber with just a plumb bob and a
>ruler).
>
>> Toe in with a few sticks and a tape measure - or a simple laser
>> level (bubble level with a laser built into the one end - used to
>> "extend" the wheel angle instead of using sticks) works pretty good.
>
>I think toe is easy to measure but hard to change.

Actually generally the easiest to change - after you get the tie-rod
sleaves un-siezed - - -

>
>For measuring, you just have to get around the fact that the engine and
>suspension gets in the way of a straight-line calculation (as you did with
>the laser suggestion above).
>
>Yet you still have to have to reduce the friction when you turn the tierod
>ends with the weight of the car (as you discussed above with the greased
>plates).
>

I almost always ELIMINATE the friction by jackin the weight off the
tire. I'm too "thick" to fit under the car with the wheels on the gr
turn the tie-rod sleeves.

>> Calculating caster is a bit more difficult without the proper tools,
>> but a mathematical genius (that's not me) could figure it out with the
>> same square, ruler, and calculator.
>
>Here is, I think, the REAL reasons most of us don't do alignment at home.
>The actual twisting of the bolts is pretty easy.
>Even the toe plate and camber plates are easy if we purchase them.
>So are the tape measures and digital levels.
>
>I think the HARD part of alignment is that there is ALWAYS a need to
>convert from inches to degrees and from imaginary centerline to actual
>centerline, and from trigonometry if we don't measure the actual item we
>have the spec for so we have to calculate to derive the value.
>
>To summarize, the hardest part of the alignment, I think, is that you have
>to THINK, whereas almost every other job we discussed, you don't have to
>think all that much (other than about basic safety, for example, when
>compressing springs).
>
>Alignment is a THINKING man's game.

Most definitely. Even with the best equipment (Which I HAVE used)

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:17:08 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>> A GOOD tech cares as much as you do - mabee more - because a poor job
>> reflects badly on him and can cost him BIG TIME if he gets a bed
>> reputation.
>
>I can't disagree that a good PERSON cares as much or more than you do.
>But you have to agree that there are people who care more about getting
>vehicles through the door than doing the job right.
>
>If they can skip a step or save a minute, they will, but that doesn't mean
>that they did a better job. It just means they did a faster job.
>
>At home, you're never trying to do the job fast.

That's why my guys were NEVER on Flat Rate - and why independent
shops where the owner is "on the floor" are generally the best.

>
>> I cared more about most of my customers' vehicles than they did for
>> the 25+ years I was actively in the trade.
>
>This may be true since you saw lots of abuse I'll bet.

From customers, dealer principal., AND my mechanics!!!
10 years as service manager can be eye-opening!!!

>
>I'll bet the people NOT on this newsgroup don't even think about their
>engines all that much.
>
>If they took a car to the shop for a cooling system overhaul, I'll bet
>they're not going to look to see if all the bolts that came out went back
>in, for example.
>
>> And "redline" isn't necessarily the best or any better for your
>> application/ use than what they put in.
>
>Fair enough.
>Some things matter. Some don't.
>
>I know that with some things though, the "standard" application isn't as
>good as the "better" application, but for gear lubes, it probably only
>needs to be GL-4 80W90 and that's it (or whatever the car maker specified).
>
>So, a $5/quart GL-4 80W90 is as good as a $20/quart GL-4 80W90 gear oil.
>
>I don't know clutches but there must be "standard" and "better" clutches,
>aren't there? How do you know what the shop puts in by default?

The "better" clutch may be better for drag racing or towing a
trailer,but may be HELL on your knees in heavy traffic - - - - There
is "better" and there is "better" - really depends on what you are
looking for.

>
>> Or they might. You just need the right shop, and the right
>> technician.
>
>That's understood where a guy who tells me that the bolt isn't necessary
>isn't necessarily the right technician, is he?

Doesn't sound like it.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:17:09 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

They sure make cars a lot better - experience and technology have
made a lot of difference. ( Remember, in 1959, the automobile, as an
object, was not as old as a 1959 car is today!!!!

The reason just about anything else you buy today is NOT better is
everyone wants it CHEAPER and expects to upgrade long before anything
with any QUALITY would require replacement. Everything is changing SO
FAST.

Most people want to buy the latest and greatest even before today's
JUNK is worn out.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:17:11 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>rbowman wrote:
>
>>> I know what you mean. All mine have been chains, where some have plastic
>>> chain guides or tensioners which need replacing - but I've never needed to
>>> replace a belt - but belts are pretty common on cars nowadays, aren't they?
>>
>> Serpentine belts are common, as are interference engines. I replaced the
>> belt on my Geo when it got up around 100,000 miles. I didn't know the
>> maintenance history on the car and assumed it had never been replaced.
>> iirc, the belt was around $40 and the job took a couple of hours. The
>> biggest problem was the limited space.
>
>To me, it's a double crime to put a belt inside an interference engine,
>even more than the original crime of putting 60K-mile part inside an engine
>in the first place.
>

Oh? used to be the rings and bearings, oil pump, lifters, and half
the other moving parts in an engine required replacement within 60,000
miles. And the fuel and ignition system parts in less than half that.

Even timing CHAINS and GEARS often required replacement in roughly
that time frame. I replaced LOTS of GM timing sprockets long before
60,000 miles - and that was a lot more work than replacing a timing
belt.

The timing chains on Mitsubishi (Chrysler) 2.6 engines seldom made
100,000 km (60,000 miles) if you followed the "normal" oil change
schedule - and they were a LOT of work to change.

>If you're gonna put a 60,000-mile part inside an engine, then you should at
>least make it easy to access.

They are a LOT easier to access than they used to be on many
engines. Transverse engines make EVERYTHING harder to change - even
on an old Mini.

There are a lot of engines that I can change a timing belt on in less
than 2 hours - even on my driveway.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 11:25:21 -0700, The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/04/2017 11:17 AM, RS Wood wrote:
>
>> So I don't see how you can ever do car tires right at home because you
>> can't finish the job right. For some reason, motorcycle tires work just
>> fine without dynamic balancing.
>>
>> That's an enigma to me.
>>
>> Why would bicycle and motorcycle tires work just fine without dynamic
>> balancing while car tires require dynamic balancing to work right?
>
>My guess -- weight and speed are insufficient to cause problems.

Many motorcycles run and ride so rough you wouldn't feel the
vibration of an out-of-balance tire - and on many of the "cruiser" and
"bagger" class of MCs, the tires DO get balanced to provide a smooth
ride.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 11:30:22 -0700, The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/03/2017 07:42 PM, RS Wood wrote:
>> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
>> done?
>>
>> Mine are, in this order of "I wish I could do it" order
>> 1. painting
>
>Did that, along with minor bodywork repair. Sprayed orange lacquer on
>my MC tank and chain guard (with a REAL sprayer, not cans), which came
>out really nice. Fixed a few rust holes on the 55 Chevy with fiberglas
>and bondo before letting Earl Scheib paint it. The Clymer bodywork
>manual was definitely worth the money.
>
>> 2. alignment
>> 3. replace/rebuild engine
>> 4. clutch replacement
>
>Does a MC count?
>
>> 5. tire mounting and balancing
>> 6. timing belt
>> 7. head gasket and vcg
>
>Did all the work except milling the heads and final torquing down of
>head bolts -- I just wasn't strong enough and didn't have a long enough
>cheater. What's a vcg?

I'm guessing Valve Cover Gasket

[RS Wood]

The Real Bev wrote:

> Did that, along with minor bodywork repair. Sprayed orange lacquer on
> my MC tank and chain guard (with a REAL sprayer, not cans), which came
> out really nice.

Given an air compressor of decent size, a vapor condenser on the end, and a
well regulated flow, it would seem to me that the paint will come out
evenly where the trick is technique.

Given that we said the trick with alignment is knowledge, and the trick
with car tires is tools, the trick with welding and painting seems to be
technique.

> Fixed a few rust holes on the 55 Chevy with fiberglas
> and bondo before letting Earl Scheib paint it. The Clymer bodywork
> manual was definitely worth the money.

Clymer. I remember them. Hanes too. And of course, the FSM which always
seemed to be written in the japinish or germinish language.

Nowadays I use the Internet for the DIYs.

>> 2. alignment
>> 3. replace/rebuild engine
>> 4. clutch replacement
>
> Does a MC count?

Maybe. But a master cylinder rebuild/replace is not on the same scale.

An alignement takes a few tools and a lot of thinking.
An engine rebuild takes a lot of tools most of all the instructions.

A clutch, by way of comparison, is easier than those two as it only needs
one or two special tools and the instructions are pretty simple by way of
comparison.

> Did all the work except milling the heads and final torquing down of
> head bolts -- I just wasn't strong enough and didn't have a long enough
> cheater.

Ain't you one of 'dem dat dere long-haired long-fingernailed high-heel
wearing members of society?

If so, you 'jes needs yo'self a bigger breaker bar!

> What's a vcg?
Valve cover gasket.
It's like doing a head gasket, only a lot easier.

> Alternators, generators, starters, water pumps, motor mounts, brake
> pads/drums, hoses, belts.

I think almost everyone has done that, where we can throw in voltage
regulators and batteries to alternators, and we can add starters and
batteries to that list.

With water pumps goes the entire assemblage of while-you're-there jobs such
as belts and fan clutches and radiators and harmonic balancers.

With motor mounts there isn't much ancillary work that people do, but with
brakes there's the whole shebang from pads and sensors to calipers and
rotors and bearings and speed sensors, and abs intricacies.

>
>> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
>> done?
>
> NONE! I did this stuff because it was cheaper to do it myself.

I get a satisfaction out of understanding what it takes.
I can't get that understanding by reading a book.
If we haven't done the job at least once, I think we can't understand it at
all.

Sure we think we understand it, but until we've actually done an alignment
or changed a tire or painted a car or replaced an engine, we really don't
know all that much IMHO.

We can just guess but guessing is 1/4 right and 3/4 wrong for most of us.

> Now I
> have a used 2013 Corolla and I only looked under the hood when I bought
> it because someone else lifted it. One of the tires has a slow leak
> (indicated by a sensor so I don't even have to check!) which I pump back
> up every month or so, and I do that with a certain amount of resentment.

I understand which is that as we get older, we do less often.
That's why I think I missed my chance on these half-dozen "big" jobs.

> Don't get the cheap $10 Harbor Freight compressor, splurge on the $35
> one; trust me.)

Harbor Freight is something that you have to get used to since sometimes
they're the only place to get cheap-enough tools (like a transmission or
motorcycle stand) while other times they're the worst place to get tools at
any price (like any of their linesman pliers or drill bits).

> I tried to re-wind a MC alternator. Local electrical shop loaned me a
> spool of wire and said to pay for what I used. I gave up after only a
> few ounces. The guy said that he knew tiny Hispanic women who could do
> that. They're heroes.

Motorcyles used to have a rotating magnet inside three static coils of
about 50 feet of copper wire coated with a baked-on heat resistant enamel.
Without that enamel, the wires will short (ask me how I know).

The winding is pretty hard by hand because you only have three wires but
you have something like 24 posts, where that post has a cap which overhangs
and when you get to the last few windings, if you didn't wind it tightly
enough, there's no room for the windings on the next post (again, ask me
how I know this).

I'm _glad_ I wound my first motorcycle coil (which failed in just 100 miles
by shorting out) and I'm glad I replaced the entire sulfuric acid content
of my battery (which also lasted for only about 1/2 year), but neither are
things I'd do again.

Then again, I'm glad I hiked (I don't remember the names exactly) the
Kaibob to the Colorado River and then back up from Bright Angel to the top
but it's not something I'll ever do again.

[Tekkie®]

rbowman posted for all of us...

>
> On 11/03/2017 08:42 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> > What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
> > done?
>

> Painting is something I have done and wish I never had... The best
> paint guy I ever knew was someone you had to catch in the zone between
> sober but shaky and falling down drunk. The runner up was a complete
> stoner.

From the paint?

--
Tekkie

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>>My guess -- weight and speed are insufficient to cause problems.
> Many motorcycles run and ride so rough you wouldn't feel the
> vibration of an out-of-balance tire - and on many of the "cruiser" and
> "bagger" class of MCs, the tires DO get balanced to provide a smooth
> ride.

That might be the reason because I don't know anyone (BMW bikes) who
balances their tires and they all mount them at home.

I think maybe another reason might be that almost no bike has crappy rims
but I don't know why motorcycle tires seem to work fine on beamers without
dynamic balancing. But they do.

The static balance is easily done with a horizontal axle.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> I almost always ELIMINATE the friction by jackin the weight off the
> tire. I'm too "thick" to fit under the car with the wheels on the gr
> turn the tie-rod sleeves.

I don't understand how it would work to lift the tire off the ground, so I
assume you just remove some of the weight off the tire.

But isn't the alignment spec with the tires weighted with full load?

How can you do a proper alignment if you don't load the suspension?

Do you (a) load, (b) measure, (c) unload, (d) adjust, (e) load (f) measure?

(Of course I know all about loading for a driver and I know all about the
BMW-style loading to "normal" conditions which is defined by BMW as a
distance from the centerline of the hubcap to the middle of the fender
flare and which typically requires about five hundred pounds spread out
evenly - but I'm just talking about the generic loading of the suspension
here with a full tank and no people in the car.)

[RS Wood]

The Real Bev wrote:

> Sounds like the Ford dealership jerk who replaced the starter on the 69
> LTD. One loose bolt, one dropped on top of the starter and one
> completely missing. He was partially right, it ran for a couple of
> years afterward.

I can't count the number of times I've seen someone use a screwdriver as a
prybar on, say, plastic twist-off hubcaps, or who used a pair of pliers
instead of a socket, or who used an adjustable wrench instead of a socket.

The only time I use a screwdriver, is as a screwdriver.
The only time I use pliers on hex nuts is when simply holding down one end.
The only time I use an adjustable wrench is ... well ... almost never.

(I can't imagine what an adjustable wrench does that the properly sized
wrench doesn't do, unless you're climbing a lighthouse tower or something
where you just can't come down to get the right tool for the bolt.)

Now vise grips. They're useful. But for different reasons.

But the point is that many mechanics use the fastest method.
Not the right method.

Hence, that's why I think we always do a better job at home.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> They sure make cars a lot better - experience and technology have
> made a lot of difference. ( Remember, in 1959, the automobile, as an
> object, was not as old as a 1959 car is today!!!!

I wonder if Japan had something to do with Detroit making cars better?

> The reason just about anything else you buy today is NOT better is
> everyone wants it CHEAPER and expects to upgrade long before anything
> with any QUALITY would require replacement. Everything is changing SO
> FAST.

That's what I don't get.

Why is everything but cars and computers cheaper and less reliable?

Cars are not cheaper but more reliable.
Computers are both cheaper and more reliable.

I understand the magic of computers getting more reliable but what's the
magic in cars getting more reliable?

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> Oh? used to be the rings and bearings, oil pump, lifters, and half
> the other moving parts in an engine required replacement within 60,000
> miles.

I hear you that engines used to last only about 100K miles in those days,
but is that true.

Are engines really far more reliable today?
Why?

Is it because they're mostly Japanese?

> And the fuel and ignition system parts in less than half that.

I do agree that PCV valves and condensers and points and carbs required
maintenance basically yearly or every two years at the longest.

Now, they're "almost" lifetime parts because they don't exist.

> Even timing CHAINS and GEARS often required replacement in roughly
> that time frame. I replaced LOTS of GM timing sprockets long before
> 60,000 miles - and that was a lot more work than replacing a timing
> belt.

I'll agree with you that engines seem more reliable today than in
yesteryear.

But why?
What's the magic that makes a 150K-mile engine into a 300K-mile engine?

> The timing chains on Mitsubishi (Chrysler) 2.6 engines seldom made
> 100,000 km (60,000 miles) if you followed the "normal" oil change
> schedule - and they were a LOT of work to change.

That's bad.
I have never replaced a timing belt or a timing chain.
And I've gone well over 150K miles on cars with chains.

> They are a LOT easier to access than they used to be on many
> engines. Transverse engines make EVERYTHING harder to change - even
> on an old Mini.

I never had a FWD car in my life.
Nor a 4WD.

Luckily, 2WD RWD cars spread out the "stuff" in manageable ways.

> There are a lot of engines that I can change a timing belt on in less
> than 2 hours - even on my driveway.

I don't even do an oil change in 2 hours. I take my sweet time.

I think for a home mechanic, time only matters when the car is still on
blocks on Monday morning when you have to get to work (if you still work).

Otherwise, time isn't the issue.

[RS Wood]

RS Wood wrote:

> I don't even do an oil change in 2 hours. I take my sweet time.
>
> I think for a home mechanic, time only matters when the car is still on
> blocks on Monday morning when you have to get to work (if you still work).
>
> Otherwise, time isn't the issue.

I should expound that time is the major factor in a shop where time isn't
at all a factor at home.

That reality ends up making a huge difference in everything.

For example, dumb people say you can't align a car at home because you
don't have the $100K (or whatever) to spend on equipment that a shop
spends, but the equation is completely different for them than it is for
you.

You don't have to handle all cars.
Just your cars.

You can take three weeks to do your alignment.
They have to do it in 1/2 hour.

My oil changes easily take me a couple of hours.
A two-hour oil change at a shop would be unheard of.

I admit that on Monday morning, the car better be road ready if you need to
get to work, and, if you have to match parts, you'd better get that part to
the dealer or parts store before they close at 6pm, but other than those
two circumstances, why would time matter to a home mechanic?

What I mean here is that the weight of tool factors is completely different
for shops than it is for home users. I'll bet almost every job we mentioned
can be done at home with a cost investment of just a few hundred bucks.

Sure, it takes longer to do an alignment or change a tire or put a new
clutch in with only three hundred dollars worth of additional tools for
each job, but I'll bet we can do the job BETTER at home simply because we
care more.

So the tradeoff, I think, is
TIME <> QUALITY

I think only in painting, will the quality of results probably never match
that of a shop (because we just can't afford the tools they use and they
have too much experience that we will never have).

[rickman]

They make things to last as long as the consumer demands. Kids toys were
not all built solidly when we were kids. Tonka was a high priced toy.
Today they still make quality toys. I don't know if Tonka uses UV
stabilizers, but I know there are some kids plastic playhouses that seem to
last for many years outside.

Likewise I recall any number of metal toys that were assembled by bending
sheet metal tabs over. You could do this once and possibly twice if you
need to repair something, but try it a third time and the tabs would be in
your hand. There have always been cheap toys.

Cars didn't get better until the Japanese showed the US consumer there was a
choice. Detroit and Wolfsburg, etc only learned after the Japanese started
eating their lunches.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[RS Wood]

rickman wrote:

> They make things to last as long as the consumer demands. Kids toys were
> not all built solidly when we were kids. Tonka was a high priced toy.
> Today they still make quality toys. I don't know if Tonka uses UV
> stabilizers, but I know there are some kids plastic playhouses that seem to
> last for many years outside.

The only plastic that I know of which lasts forever outside is whatever
plastic the garbage company uses for those blue, green, and gray wheeled
bins!

I wish *all* plastic things were made out of *that* plastic, especially
pool tools.

> Cars didn't get better until the Japanese showed the US consumer there was a
> choice. Detroit and Wolfsburg, etc only learned after the Japanese started
> eating their lunches.

I think I may tend to agree with you which is why I mentioned that Japan
may have had a lot to do with Detroit making more reliable cars.

I think also the EPA forcing the manufacturer to warrant the emissions
system for longer periods of time helped.

For example, in the olden days, how many rotted out "mufflers" did you
replace compared to today?

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:17:03 UTC, RS Wood wrote:
> rbowman wrote:
>
> >> I don't know anyone who does their own tires but when I watch the guys, I
> >> wish I had that equipment, especially the air equipment, to just remove it
> >> and put it back and spin it in between.
> >
> >
> > I do the tires on the bike with tube type tires. I would do the tubeless
> > but I worry about not having enough air to get the bead to seat. I
> > brought the bike to an indy shop for a new set and everything was going
> > good until the front tire. Even with a high flow air systems and the
> > tools he had a hell of a time. The sun was sinking in the west before
> > the bead finally caught and he could inflate it.
> >
> > I've had problems getting the bead to seat correctly with tube tires but
> > with those you can deflate, beat on it, curse, inflate, rinse and repeat
> > until it goes.
>
> I'm glad to hear nobody scream that we're all gonna die if we do any work
> at home!
>
> The reason people don't do these jobs isn't that we're all gonna die from
> nuclear radiation if we do our own stuff.
>
> I don't know anyone who does their own car tires but many motorcyclists do
> their own bike tires and everyone does their own wheelbarrow and bicycle
> tires.
>
> Tires don't have the same problem as alignment because, other than safety,
> you don't have to think all that much to do tires correctly.
>
> Assuming you have a decently flowing air compressor I don't think seating
> the bead is the issue usually although we've all had all sorts of times
> when we just couldn't get something to seat, so I'm sure it happens. But
> they're designed to seat with air so if we have air, we should be able to
> seat the bead.
>
> I think the far greater issue with doing tires at home is that you need
> special tools that greatly extend your muscle power and worse - you will
> never have the tools to do the dynamic balance.

>
> So I don't see how you can ever do car tires right at home because you
> can't finish the job right. For some reason, motorcycle tires work just
> fine without dynamic balancing.
>
> That's an enigma to me.
>
> Why would bicycle and motorcycle tires work just fine without dynamic
> balancing while car tires require dynamic balancing to work right?

I've watched truck tyres being changed by hand on non-split rim wheels. Not having a power tool to compress the thing proved a real pain in the ass. All he had was a sledge hammer and a tyre lever. No compressor either.


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:17:09 UTC, RS Wood wrote:

> Ah yes. You reminded me. I also replaced a Holley 4-barrel carburetor!
>
> It was fun to watch how the accelerator pump worked squirting inside, how
> the throttle plate worked way down below, and how the choke plate on top
> worked!
>
> Is there a car sold today that uses a carb?
> Probably not.

I assume the hindustan ambassador does


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 4 November 2017 20:13:22 UTC, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> Most people want to buy the latest and greatest even before today's
> JUNK is worn out.

correction, the latest and most hyped piece of junk


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

car tyres are made unbalanced, the rubber thickness is not well controlled and the inside rough. Maybe bike tyres are made better in that respect.


NT

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 21:19:45 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>> I almost always ELIMINATE the friction by jackin the weight off the
>> tire. I'm too "thick" to fit under the car with the wheels on the gr
>> turn the tie-rod sleeves.
>
>I don't understand how it would work to lift the tire off the ground, so I
>assume you just remove some of the weight off the tire.
>
>But isn't the alignment spec with the tires weighted with full load?
>
>How can you do a proper alignment if you don't load the suspension?

You can adjust it with the tie-rod on the bench if you want to and
are smart enough to figure out how many turns it takes. Only the
measurement requires the suspension to be loaded.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>>How can you do a proper alignment if you don't load the suspension?
>
> You can adjust it with the tie-rod on the bench if you want to and
> are smart enough to figure out how many turns it takes. Only the
> measurement requires the suspension to be loaded.

Thanks for answering as I know that the measurement is what takes loading
of the suspension.

I guess, at home, time isn't the issue, but it is a pain to load, measure,
unload, adjust, load, measure (repeat).

Then again, it doesn't really matter if it takes a week to do the alignment
as it's not a critical issue if it's close enough and not driven for long.

Of course, it has to be checked again after doing the camber and caster.

I forget the proper order from high school mechanics class.
I think it's either caster, then camber, then toe?
Or it might (offhand) be the other way around?

If toe is last, then unloading, adjusting, reloading makes more sense.

[The Real Bev]

On 11/04/2017 01:32 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Did that, along with minor bodywork repair. Sprayed orange lacquer on
>> my MC tank and chain guard (with a REAL sprayer, not cans), which came
>> out really nice.
>
> Given an air compressor of decent size, a vapor condenser on the end, and a
> well regulated flow, it would seem to me that the paint will come out
> evenly where the trick is technique.
>
> Given that we said the trick with alignment is knowledge, and the trick
> with car tires is tools, the trick with welding and painting seems to be
> technique.

You need a viscosity meter and the willingness to pay attention to it.
You also can't spray an arc, you have to keep the spray perpendicular to
the surface. And you have to move at the right speed. Lacquer is way
more forgiving than enamel. We painted a school bus with white enamel,
but it didn't look all that nice, although it was OK from a distance. A
guy passing by saw it and traded his 58 Chevy pickup for it. A good
bargain for us, anyway. We hauled our motorcycles in it for a lot of
years and my son drove it back and forth to Berkeley for a year.

>> Fixed a few rust holes on the 55 Chevy with fiberglas
>> and bondo before letting Earl Scheib paint it. The Clymer bodywork
>> manual was definitely worth the money.
>
> Clymer. I remember them. Hanes too. And of course, the FSM which always
> seemed to be written in the japinish or germinish language.

The Clymer manuals were better than the others, although the Ducati
manual was kind of weird. It had a full-page labeled blowup of a spark
plug and a full-page labeled blowup of the entire engine. I could have
done without the sparkplug illustration. It also said that if I lost
the key I should replace it with a piece of metal of similar size.
Given that the key was made of 1/8" square stock, this was not
unreasonable. I replaced it with three canopy switches which had to be
positioned properly to let it start. You also had to prime the carb
very carefully with 3 full-throttle kicks and then three no-throttle
kicks. I'm sorry I gave it away.

> Nowadays I use the Internet for the DIYs.
>
>>> 2. alignment
>>> 3. replace/rebuild engine
>>> 4. clutch replacement
>>
>> Does a MC count?
>
> Maybe. But a master cylinder rebuild/replace is not on the same scale.

No, but I think I replaced one, along with some wheel cylinders.

> An alignement takes a few tools and a lot of thinking.
> An engine rebuild takes a lot of tools most of all the instructions.
>
> A clutch, by way of comparison, is easier than those two as it only needs
> one or two special tools and the instructions are pretty simple by way of
> comparison.
>
>> Did all the work except milling the heads and final torquing down of
>> head bolts -- I just wasn't strong enough and didn't have a long enough
>> cheater.
>
> Ain't you one of 'dem dat dere long-haired long-fingernailed high-heel
> wearing members of society?

You mean like the woman in heels and pearls on the label of the
snow-chain box? No.

> If so, you 'jes needs yo'self a bigger breaker bar!
>
>> What's a vcg?
> Valve cover gasket.
> It's like doing a head gasket, only a lot easier.

Thread helps!

>> Alternators, generators, starters, water pumps, motor mounts, brake
>> pads/drums, hoses, belts.
>
> I think almost everyone has done that, where we can throw in voltage
> regulators and batteries to alternators, and we can add starters and
> batteries to that list.
>
> With water pumps goes the entire assemblage of while-you're-there jobs such
> as belts and fan clutches and radiators and harmonic balancers.

I cut my hands to ribbons on the first water pump -- the fan (which had
to be removed) was attached with at least 4 bolts which could only move
1/4 turn without repositioning the 12-point box wrench, the only thing
that would fit. I swore I'd never do that again no matter how much it
cost -- until I found out how much it DID cost. Some of us are too
cheap for our own good.

> With motor mounts there isn't much ancillary work that people do,

The old one wouldn't come out. I spent a lot of time with my fingers in
an excellent position to be removed if the jack holding up the engine
failed. I ended up just slapping the new one on top of the old one.

> but with
> brakes there's the whole shebang from pads and sensors to calipers and
> rotors and bearings and speed sensors, and abs intricacies.

The ones I did were simple. The hard part was remembering how the damn
springs on the drums went. I couldn't believe how easy pads were; it
took me longer to find the C-clamp than to do the work :-(

>>> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
>>> done?
>>
>> NONE! I did this stuff because it was cheaper to do it myself.
>
> I get a satisfaction out of understanding what it takes.
> I can't get that understanding by reading a book.
> If we haven't done the job at least once, I think we can't understand it at
> all.

That's true. Knowledge is good, but it comes at a price which I'm no
longer willing to pay.

> Sure we think we understand it, but until we've actually done an alignment
> or changed a tire or painted a car or replaced an engine, we really don't
> know all that much IMHO.

Hints from those who have done it are useful, of course.

> We can just guess but guessing is 1/4 right and 3/4 wrong for most of us.
>
>> Now I
>> have a used 2013 Corolla and I only looked under the hood when I bought
>> it because someone else lifted it. One of the tires has a slow leak
>> (indicated by a sensor so I don't even have to check!) which I pump back
>> up every month or so, and I do that with a certain amount of resentment.
>
> I understand which is that as we get older, we do less often.
> That's why I think I missed my chance on these half-dozen "big" jobs.

I just hit the 3/4 century mark. I'm going for 1-1/4 :-)

Daughter did the Angel's Rest (?) thing in Zion. She's fortunate she
didn't inherit my lack of endurance. I need to rest 3 times per 1-mile
downhill ski run :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
The stone age didn't end for lack of stones.
-- Troy the Troll

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 21:19:48 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>> They sure make cars a lot better - experience and technology have
>> made a lot of difference. ( Remember, in 1959, the automobile, as an
>> object, was not as old as a 1959 car is today!!!!
>
>I wonder if Japan had something to do with Detroit making cars better?

Most definitely!

>
>> The reason just about anything else you buy today is NOT better is
>> everyone wants it CHEAPER and expects to upgrade long before anything
>> with any QUALITY would require replacement. Everything is changing SO
>> FAST.
>
>That's what I don't get.
>
>Why is everything but cars and computers cheaper and less reliable?
>
>Cars are not cheaper but more reliable.
>Computers are both cheaper and more reliable.


>
>I understand the magic of computers getting more reliable but what's the
>magic in cars getting more reliable?

That's easy - Computers!!!

[Clifford Heath]

On 05/11/17 08:19, RS Wood wrote:
> cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>> They sure make cars a lot better - experience and technology have
>> made a lot of difference. ( Remember, in 1959, the automobile, as an
>> object, was not as old as a 1959 car is today!!!!
>
> I wonder if Japan had something to do with Detroit making cars better?
>
>> The reason just about anything else you buy today is NOT better is
>> everyone wants it CHEAPER and expects to upgrade long before anything
>> with any QUALITY would require replacement. Everything is changing SO
>> FAST.
>
> That's what I don't get.
>
> Why is everything but cars and computers cheaper and less reliable?
>
> Cars are not cheaper but more reliable.

> ... what's the

> magic in cars getting more reliable?

I suspect that better computer simulation, especially thermal
modeling, has the most to do with it. There are manufacturing
breakthroughs also, like bearing seals that actually seal the
bearings, and better materials. Better anti-corrosion chemistry.
Stuff like that.

Clifford Heath

[olds...@tubes.com]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:09:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:

>On 11/3/2017 10:42 PM, RS Wood wrote:
>> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
>> done?
>>

>> Mine are, in this order of "I wish I could do it" order
>> 1. painting

>> 2. alignment
>> 3. replace/rebuild engine
>> 4. clutch replacement

>> 5. tire mounting and balancing
>> 6. timing belt
>> 7. head gasket and vcg
>>
>

>I've done or assisted in most of those and a bunch of others except #6.
>These days I buy new cars and don't even do oil changes.
>
>If you really want to tackle #3, it is easy enough to do. Buy a new
>Corvette and for an extra $5000 you can go to the plant and assemble
>your own engine. Of course, they have a pro with you.

I dont know why this is posted to sci.electronics.repair, but since it's
here, I have done all of the 7 on the list above. As far as 2.
alignment, I cant say it was a perfect job. I did it with a tape measure
and boards, after replacing some front end parts. I got it close, so I
could at least drive it, but I took it to an alignment shop soon after.
That is one thing a homeowner just cant do accurately without proper
equipment. I never rebuillt an entire engine, but I replaced a few as
well as transmissions. In my old age, I dont work on a much of that
stuff as I did years ago. I still do my own brakes, and oil changes and
stuff like that. But I wont tackle engine changes or any of that heavy
work anymore. And I wont mount tires anymore. That was always a tough
job withoiut a tire machine and only saved me about $12. Not worth the
hassle.

I once painted a whole truck with a paint brush. I added some stuff to
make the paint flow nicely. A lot of people thought I was crazy, and
said you need a sprayer. In the end, it turned out pretty good. It was
an old truck anyhow, but the paint made it look better and stopped a lot
of rusting. Although spraying is easier to apply, the taping and
preparation offsets any time savings. With a quality brush, I cut in a
good edge around windows and chrome and other body stuff.

To get back ON TOPIC, I have done a lot of car wiring and changing
radios and that sort of thing. Knowing electronics makes car wiring very
easy, except it's often hard to get to some of the wires, especially
under the car, and under the dashboard.

The mini van I drive now, was at a used car lot. The guy said he could
not sell it to me until someone fixed the headlights (they did not
work). He had already replaced the bulbs and the switch. He told me to
come back the next day, after he got a wiring professional there to fix
it. I went there the next day. When I got there, he had a guy under the
hood trying ot fix them. I watched the guy and he was not succeeding. A
half hour later that guy told the seller that he could not fix it, and
the car would have to be taken to the dealership.

After that guy left, I offered to buy the car AS-IS for $500 less thn
the asking price. The seller said that according to his dealers license
he is not supposed to sell a car without headlights, but he would note
in writing on the sales slip "headlights do not work", and accepted my
offer, except he said I had to pay for the new headlight bulbs. (about
$20). I accepted the offer.

When I got it home, I had the headlights working in less than an hour.
There are relays under the hood, in the fuse box, and one of them was
bad. For me, that was a simple fix. Apparently the so called
"professional" who he had working on it, was not very bright!!!

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 21:19:50 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>> Oh? used to be the rings and bearings, oil pump, lifters, and half
>> the other moving parts in an engine required replacement within 60,000
>> miles.
>
>I hear you that engines used to last only about 100K miles in those days,
>but is that true.
>
>Are engines really far more reliable today?
>Why?
>
>Is it because they're mostly Japanese?

No, it's because of advances in metalurgy, lubrication,
manufacturing, and to a VERY large extent, advances in engine
controls.

Lead free gasoline has a LARGE effect on the improvement of engine
life, as along with the lead, phosphorous was also virtually
eliminated in the fuel. This means a lot less acids in the oil,
exhaust, etc. With the replacement of carb and chike with EFI, there
is less fuel dilution - and electronic ignition and timing advance
just adds to the improvements. In 1959, the auto was still an
adolescent - it has matured over the ensuing decades in SO many ways.

Rust and corrosion control has come SO far, even since the eighties
that there is really no reason a car body should rust today - and the
bodies, although MUCH lighter, do last 2, 3, even 5 times as long.

Car finishes as well - was not uncommon for a 3 or 4 year old car to
require a repaint in the old days - now MOST go to the scrapyard
wearing their original coat of paint - - - - even with water based
paints!!!!

>
>> And the fuel and ignition system parts in less than half that.
>
>I do agree that PCV valves and condensers and points and carbs required
>maintenance basically yearly or every two years at the longest.

Often TWICE a year - spring and fall tuneups were common.

>
>Now, they're "almost" lifetime parts because they don't exist.

Even spark plugs go 100,000 km plus - - -

>
>> Even timing CHAINS and GEARS often required replacement in roughly
>> that time frame. I replaced LOTS of GM timing sprockets long before
>> 60,000 miles - and that was a lot more work than replacing a timing
>> belt.
>
>I'll agree with you that engines seem more reliable today than in
>yesteryear.
>
>But why?
>What's the magic that makes a 150K-mile engine into a 300K-mile engine?

Better design, engine controls, lubricants, and no more leaded gas.

>
>> The timing chains on Mitsubishi (Chrysler) 2.6 engines seldom made
>> 100,000 km (60,000 miles) if you followed the "normal" oil change
>> schedule - and they were a LOT of work to change.
>
>That's bad.
>I have never replaced a timing belt or a timing chain.
>And I've gone well over 150K miles on cars with chains.

Most did - but there were (natable) exceptions.
Also, how long have you been driving? What is the oldest car you have
owned??

>
>> They are a LOT easier to access than they used to be on many
>> engines. Transverse engines make EVERYTHING harder to change - even
>> on an old Mini.
>
>I never had a FWD car in my life.
>Nor a 4WD.
>
>Luckily, 2WD RWD cars spread out the "stuff" in manageable ways.

They ARE easier to repair - in general.

>
>> There are a lot of engines that I can change a timing belt on in less
>> than 2 hours - even on my driveway.
>
>I don't even do an oil change in 2 hours. I take my sweet time.
>
>I think for a home mechanic, time only matters when the car is still on
>blocks on Monday morning when you have to get to work (if you still work).
>
>Otherwise, time isn't the issue.

You don't have a wife????

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 21:49:28 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

No lead and phosphorous in the gas makes a BIG difference - as does
more complete combustion. Stainless steel doesn't hurt either.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 22:37:59 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>>>How can you do a proper alignment if you don't load the suspension?
>>
>> You can adjust it with the tie-rod on the bench if you want to and
>> are smart enough to figure out how many turns it takes. Only the
>> measurement requires the suspension to be loaded.
>
>Thanks for answering as I know that the measurement is what takes loading
>of the suspension.
>
>I guess, at home, time isn't the issue, but it is a pain to load, measure,
>unload, adjust, load, measure (repeat).
>
>Then again, it doesn't really matter if it takes a week to do the alignment
>as it's not a critical issue if it's close enough and not driven for long.
>
>Of course, it has to be checked again after doing the camber and caster.

That's why you set the camber and caster FIRST!!!!

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 16:33:57 -0700, The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

SNIPP

>
>>> Alternators, generators, starters, water pumps, motor mounts, brake
>>> pads/drums, hoses, belts.
>>
>> I think almost everyone has done that, where we can throw in voltage
>> regulators and batteries to alternators, and we can add starters and
>> batteries to that list.
>>
>> With water pumps goes the entire assemblage of while-you're-there jobs such
>> as belts and fan clutches and radiators and harmonic balancers.
>
>I cut my hands to ribbons on the first water pump -- the fan (which had
>to be removed) was attached with at least 4 bolts which could only move
>1/4 turn without repositioning the 12-point box wrench, the only thing
>that would fit. I swore I'd never do that again no matter how much it
>cost -- until I found out how much it DID cost. Some of us are too
>cheap for our own good.

KD makes a special tool for that - at the value O put on skin and
suffering, cheap at twice the price

>
>> With motor mounts there isn't much ancillary work that people do,
>
>The old one wouldn't come out. I spent a lot of time with my fingers in
>an excellent position to be removed if the jack holding up the engine
>failed. I ended up just slapping the new one on top of the old one.
>
>> but with
>> brakes there's the whole shebang from pads and sensors to calipers and
>> rotors and bearings and speed sensors, and abs intricacies.
>
>The ones I did were simple. The hard part was remembering how the damn
>springs on the drums went. I couldn't believe how easy pads were; it
>took me longer to find the C-clamp than to do the work :-(

A cell phone camera makes all of that SO much simpler!!!
>

[rbowman]

On 11/4/2017 12:17 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Well, if replacing a timing belt is that easy, then maybe it's not so much
> a crime that they put a 60k-mile part inside an interference engine.

It'd the suspense that kills you. My Harley has a belt drive and the
belt failed at around 45000. No sign of damage or deterioration just a
clean break. I rode to work in the morning, came out, started the
engine, let the clutch out and didn't go anyplace.

Replacement is fairly easy on a Sportster but Harley is very proud of
their belts, around $150 iirc. All things considered that's cheaper than
chains if you put significant miles on a bike.

[rbowman]

On 11/4/2017 12:17 PM, RS Wood wrote:

> So I don't see how you can ever do car tires right at home because you
> can't finish the job right. For some reason, motorcycle tires work just
> fine without dynamic balancing.

The bike I have that has tube tires is a DR650, dual spot, enduro,
whatever you want to call it. I'm not sure if you ever tell if the tire
was balanced with knobbies. Dunlop 606s are really rough but the Kendas
I have on now aren't a Cadillac smooth ride.

You get good at changing them because those style of tires are good for
about 6000 miles at the outside.

[rbowman]

The paint fumes didn't help but the #1 guy's choice was Budweiser. #2's
choice was anything he could get his hands on but speed makes painting fun.

[Clifford Heath]

On 05/11/17 11:33, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 21:19:50 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>

>> I do agree that PCV valves and condensers and points and carbs required
>> maintenance basically yearly or every two years at the longest.
> Often TWICE a year - spring and fall tuneups were common.

My grandfather had a pair of Jowett Javelins in the 1950's.
With the Solex carbies, tuneup's were more of a morning *and* afternoon
thing.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>>Of course, it has to be checked again after doing the camber and caster.
>
> That's why you set the camber and caster FIRST!!!!

Thanks for reminding me that it's caster, then camber, then toe!

I don't know if they teach auto mechanics anymore in high school, but that
class was a godsend, even for me, a college-prep kid.

I used that shop class more than I used calculus in my life.
I betcha they don't even have woodshop for the boys anymore.
Or homeec for the girls.

My grandkids are taking coed cooking classes in high school, but they don't
even offer the shop classes we had when I was a kid.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>>For example, in the olden days, how many rotted out "mufflers" did you
>>replace compared to today?
> No lead and phosphorous in the gas makes a BIG difference - as does
> more complete combustion. Stainless steel doesn't hurt either.

Yet there is a lot more aluminum in engines nowadays.

I don't see how the lead matters although we all went through the phase
where we switched from leaded cars to lead-free cars and had to change
pumps in the process.

I still don't see how the *gas* has anything to do with engines lasting
longer. Maybe it does, but I don't see the connection.

[RS Wood]

gfre...@aol.com wrote:

> My neighbor still has a "Step 2" picnic table and teeter totter we
> bought for our grand kids 15 years ago. His grand daughter is
> outgrowing it now but they are still holding up.

That reminds me. The white plastic topped and steel legged Costco picnic
tables are *all* cracked and sunburned with holes in the corner.

I've been meaning to return mine to Costco to give them a piece of my mind
since the tables have "lifetime warranty" molded into the cheap plastic.

They should make everything that is plastic intended for outdoors out of
whatever plastic it is that they use for those wheeled garbage bins from
the garbage company.

[RS Wood]

Clifford Heath wrote:

> I suspect that better computer simulation, especially thermal
> modeling, has the most to do with it. There are manufacturing
> breakthroughs also, like bearing seals that actually seal the
> bearings, and better materials. Better anti-corrosion chemistry.
> Stuff like that.

Oh. That's interesting. What you're saying is that the manufacturers are
using computers to make cars, which helps make better cars.

That may very well be the case, since computers can be used to easily hone
quality, bit by bit by bit, simply because of the inherent re-use that
computers easily allow.

You're right but I don't understand why we used to pack wheel bearings
periodically and now we don't. Who doesn't remember glopping grease on your
palm and then slapping a bearing through that grease?

A kid of 30 or 40 years old doesn't know what we're talking about.

Likewise, who hasn't squirted grease into a ball joint until it squirted
back out of the pregnant rubber cup making farting sounds? Or a driveshaft
u-joint where is just squirted out noiselessly.

What's with bearings nowadays. Why don't wheel bearings need to be packed
anymore and u-joints not need lubrication and ball joints not need it?

What did they do differently?

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>>I understand the magic of computers getting more reliable but what's the
>>magic in cars getting more reliable?
> That's easy - Computers!!!

Computers help make a lot of things not break.

For example, fuel injection and a distributorless single coil per spark
plug with a nice high voltage all by themselves prevented a billion
tuneups.

The EPA making exhaust systems have to last longer under warranty made the
manufacturers make them out of stainless steel instead of pre-rusted
Detroit steel.

There are computers in plenty of other places (for example, ABS), but other
than the fuel injection, where did computers play a role in engine
longevity?

I'm not saying they didn't, but I don't see how they play a role in engine
longevity other than in the tuneup arena where they were an immense help.

[RS Wood]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> When was the last time you replaced the old "points plugs and
>> condenser" That used to be a once or twice a year thing.
>>
>
> Don't forget better lubricants too.

Are the lubricants really contributing to longevity of the engine?

The main lubricant, of course, is motor oil, which has gone from SB to SC,
to SD to SE .... now to somewhere around SL, SM, SN ... but has *that* been
contributing to engine life by a lot?

The other lubricants, of course, are the gear oils, but again, GL4 and GL5
are pretty old stuff.

I don't remember seeing Zerk fittings lately, so I think one thing with
respect to lubrication is they made permanently lubricated driveshaft
u-joints and suspension balljoints.

But really. Do we have any evidence that lubrication is why engines seem to
last longer nowadays?

[RS Wood]

gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>>I understand the magic of computers getting more reliable but what's the
>>magic in cars getting more reliable?
>

> More quality in the manufacture along with the fact that a lot of the
> things that used to fail were replaced by computers that do a far
> better job that Mr Venturi.

I'm going to have to agree that I think the only thing that really changed
over time was the quality.

I think Japan took half of Detroit's profits, and that was the sole
determinant that made Detroit start thinking about quality.

If that's the case, you have to hand it to Japan for even coming up with
the idea of quality in the first place.

> When was the last time you replaced the old "points plugs and
> condenser" That used to be a once or twice a year thing.

Wow. My timing light is still packed away, along with the dwellmeter. Every
once in a while I use the feeler gauges that I used to use for points, but
for something else. Even the spark plug gapper is used, but nowadays only
on the home tools like the leaf blower. I have a contraption that has a
heavy duty switch for "bumping" the engine. I forget even why I *built*
that thing.

Why did we bump the engine? I forget why.

I also still have a dial gauge that I screwed into the number one cylinder
on a motorcycle to time the points on the bike where there is no concept of
a timing light. The points open in millimeters before TDC.

It's rare though for tools to go out of style. I'm still using my first
Christmas gift of Sears Craftsman open-end wrenches, for example.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> No, it's because of advances in metalurgy, lubrication,
> manufacturing, and to a VERY large extent, advances in engine
> controls.

I'm not going to disagree that engines seem to last twice what they used
to, but is metallurgy really different? There's a lot more aluminum
nowadays, and certainly too much plastic, but rubber is rubber and steel is
steel and I don't think either got all that much better in the interim.

Engine controls maybe. But they're mostly emission related nowadays.

The actual danger zone parts are the oil pressure sensor, coolant
temperature sensor, oil lever sensor, etc., and I don't think they're all
that sophisticated compared to the days of yore, do you?

> Lead free gasoline has a LARGE effect on the improvement of engine
> life, as along with the lead, phosphorous was also virtually
> eliminated in the fuel.
> This means a lot less acids in the oil, exhaust, etc.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... really? The fuel contributes to engine life?
I don't dispute. I just don't compute.

> With the replacement of carb and choke with EFI, there

> is less fuel dilution - and electronic ignition and timing advance
> just adds to the improvements. In 1959, the auto was still an
> adolescent - it has matured over the ensuing decades in SO many ways.

I don't disagree that the carburetor is gone, thank God, but it's still in
airplanes and they seem to do fine with them (small planes that is).

While EFI is great stuff, I don't see that the longevity of an engine is
dependent on the fuel volatilization method.

> Rust and corrosion control has come SO far, even since the eighties
> that there is really no reason a car body should rust today - and the
> bodies, although MUCH lighter, do last 2, 3, even 5 times as long.

This one I agree with you on, but I blame Detroit for making crap that they
*knew* was crap. Painting can't be all that sophisticated today compared to
yesterday. It just can't be. They just did a lousy job before, I think.

But then again, painting is a job I never did, so, maybe I didn't learn
anything! :)

> Car finishes as well - was not uncommon for a 3 or 4 year old car to
> require a repaint in the old days - now MOST go to the scrapyard
> wearing their original coat of paint - - - - even with water based
> paints!!!!

I wish I knew more about painting.

> Often TWICE a year - spring and fall tuneups were common.

I agree that points were a weak link that just had to go. I'm not sure why
timing changed, because, as I recall, we twisted the distributor to time
the engine where, the distributor would have no reason to twist back once
locked down.

I think they also used lower-voltage coils in those days, where the wires
seemed paradoxically to require replacement more often. I remember once
diagnosing a misfire where I accidentally worked until it got dark and then
realized there was a light show going on with all the sparks to ground.

Heh heh heh ... working on coils and ignition wires teaches a youngster
with a steel screwdriver a *lot* about electricity wanting to get to
ground!

>>Now, they're "almost" lifetime parts because they don't exist.
> Even spark plugs go 100,000 km plus - - -

Oh yeah. I forgot about spark plugs. I had a two-stroke motorcycle, for
example, which couldn't go five hundred miles on a set of plugs.

Now you can easily go 100K where the technology isn't all that fancy on a
plug. It's just a chunk of platinum-plated metal near a few J hooks of cold
steel. I think the higher voltages helped, which, again, paradoxically,
you'd think the higher coil voltages would eat the plugs faster ... not
slower by the process of electrodialectric machining.

> Better design, engine controls, lubricants, and no more leaded gas.

Well, it's *something* that makes car engines last twice what they used to,
but I don't see that we've nailed it yet.

I still think it's simply that Japanaese cars existing made Detroit build
better engines overall.

> Most did - but there were (natable) exceptions.
> Also, how long have you been driving? What is the oldest car you have
> owned??

Most of us old timers have at the very least a million miles under our
belts. When we were kids, all our cars started at 10 or 15 years old, where
that was new to us.

In my salesman days, a car lasted 3 years, but now I'm back to the 15 or 20
year range since I retired long ago.

Such things change over time.

>>Luckily, 2WD RWD cars spread out the "stuff" in manageable ways.
>
> They ARE easier to repair - in general.

I found that 2WD RWD cars are a LOT easier, for the most part, and also if
you have the option, the six cylinder options when an 8-cylinder option
exists or the 4 cylinder option when a 6 cylinder option exists is a
Godsend because you have so much more room in that engine bay.

>>Otherwise, time isn't the issue.
> You don't have a wife????

She's somewhere in the garden, not the garage.
The kids have kids already too, so they're off somewhere to play.

I get to see them on Thanksgiving though. Thank God for holidays!
You pay for their school. You pay for their grad school.
And then you only get to see them on holidays.
Or when they need their cars fixed! :)

[RS Wood]

You're confusing me because you're talking about a drive system for the
rear wheel, where there are three types on motorcycles
a. Chain (most common)
b. Shaft (common on beamers for example)
c. Belt (common harleys I guess)

We were talking about timing belts inside car engines.

The problem with timing belts on some engines is when they break, the
pistons can contact the valves, which is the dumbest bit of engineering I
have ever seen in my life.

In that case, I would agree that the suspense is what kills you because
they may last 60K miles but they may not.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> KD makes a special tool for that - at the value O put on skin and
> suffering, cheap at twice the price

This is the interesting thing about tools for working on cars.

Very few of the common jobs require any special tools that you don't
already have, which are the common tools that everyone has.

Every once in a while, you need a special waterpump holding tool, or a
special brake caliper hex wrench size or a special clutch spline alignment
tool or a special balljoint separator tool or a special bearing puller or a
special harmonic balancer puller or a special transmission jack.

The nice thing is that the money you save on labor almost always has you
more than break even on the tool costs, except in your very first jobs in
your life when you're just a kid.

When you're just a kid, you have to buy jack stands for the first time, and
ramps for the first time and brakespring pliers for the first time and a
dwellmeter and timing light for the first time and feeler gauges for the
first time and a floor jack for the first time, and so on.

Truth be told, you often buy the major tools twice, since you try to go
cheap the first time, so, for example, you buy the tube-type cheaper $15
jack stands (the ones with holes drilled in a pipe) and finally, when
you're older, you spring for the notched ones instead.

Likewise you buy the small cheap floor jack, when years later you spring
for the heavy duty one.

The worst is that you buy the least amount of wrenches and sockets in the
beginning, then you learn later (way later) that you ended up buying one by
one a million extender bars and u joints and deep and shallow and impact
sockets, that you should have just sprung for the $1000 set in the first
place.

But you never had the money when you bought the tools for the first time
(just as you stored them in hand tool boxes until you sprung for the big
boy years later).

So, yeah, you buy tools twice sometimes, but that's only because you didn't
have the money and you didn't have anyone to advise you when you were a
kid.

>>The ones I did were simple. The hard part was remembering how the damn
>>springs on the drums went. I couldn't believe how easy pads were; it
>>took me longer to find the C-clamp than to do the work :-(
> A cell phone camera makes all of that SO much simpler!!!

Yup. The cellphone camera replaced pen and paper diagrams!

[RS Wood]

The Real Bev wrote:

>> but with
>> brakes there's the whole shebang from pads and sensors to calipers and
>> rotors and bearings and speed sensors, and abs intricacies.
>
> The ones I did were simple. The hard part was remembering how the damn
> springs on the drums went. I couldn't believe how easy pads were; it
> took me longer to find the C-clamp than to do the work :-(

That's the thing about brakes that gets me.

Most people I know pay upwards of $1K for a 4-wheel brake job at the
dealer, where (a) I would never go to the dealer, and (b) I would never pay
even $100 for someone else to do a brake job.

Most brake jobs are so easy that it's not funny since disc brakes are so
easy to work on that it's not even close to funny. Drum brakes are harder
simply because of the intricacies of the springs, but they're only harder
because disc brakes are so easy.

Pads cost about $50 per set and all you aim for is FF or GG or FG, or
whatever cold/hot heat rating you want. That's another thing about doing a
job yourself, which is parts selection.

If you do it yourself, you have to buy the parts, and if you buy the parts
you figure out what matters.

Most of us follow the same rules for buying parts, do we not?
a. First we figure out what the OEM parts are, and, then,
b. We figure out how much it costs for better parts.

Sometimes the OEM parts are the best, but just as often, the aftermarket
parts are better.

In the case of brake pads, we look up the cold/hot friction ratings for the
OEM pads. Let's say that they're FG. Then we look at the aftermarket for
better pads. Let's say we find GG pads. We look at the cost difference.
And we usually buy the better pad.

As for rotors, there's a truckload of hype around slotted, drilled, drilled
and slotted, etc., where at least motorcycle rotors are stainless steel and
where looks matter a lot. On cars, looks only matter if you have wheels
that show off your brakes, so drilled and slotted or all that other purely
pretty stuff doesn't matter. Solid is the way to go. The cheaper the
better. For example, you can get Brembo rotors for less than the OEM
rotors, where a rotor is a rotor is a rotor.

About $50 per axle for pads, and about $50 per wheel for rotors, and you're
out the door with parts (a few dabs of high-temperature grease later).

Notice that when you do the work yourself, you LEARN what matters. If
you're smart about it, you don't fall for the marketing hype.

And one more thing. Since you do the work yourself, you buy the tools,
where brake jobs don't necessarily take special tools (although calipers
sometimes need oddball-sized hex wrenches on German cars).

All you need is a mic to measure thickness and a dial gauge and stand to
measure runout, and if you're doing drums, two types of brake-spring
pliers, and you're good to go with tools.

One more thing, the word "brake warp" or "rotor warp" is banished from your
vocabulary. Anyone who uses those two words, is simply proving they're an
utter fool.

That's the kind of stuff you learn by doing the job yourself.

[tom]

"RS Wood" <rsw...@is.invalid> wrote in message
news:otm0no$3eb$2...@solani.org...

+++++++++++++++++++

The lead fowled the plugs pretty quickly. Now they can last 100k miles.

[rickman]

RS Wood wrote on 11/4/2017 5:49 PM:
> rickman wrote:
>
>> They make things to last as long as the consumer demands. Kids toys were
>> not all built solidly when we were kids. Tonka was a high priced toy.
>> Today they still make quality toys. I don't know if Tonka uses UV
>> stabilizers, but I know there are some kids plastic playhouses that seem to
>> last for many years outside.
>
> The only plastic that I know of which lasts forever outside is whatever
> plastic the garbage company uses for those blue, green, and gray wheeled
> bins!

That's your standard? Things have to last "forever"???

> I wish *all* plastic things were made out of *that* plastic, especially
> pool tools.

You can ask about the materials when you buy stuff. It's not the plastic,
but whether the plastic has UV resistance additives.

>> Cars didn't get better until the Japanese showed the US consumer there was a
>> choice. Detroit and Wolfsburg, etc only learned after the Japanese started
>> eating their lunches.
>
> I think I may tend to agree with you which is why I mentioned that Japan
> may have had a lot to do with Detroit making more reliable cars.
>
> I think also the EPA forcing the manufacturer to warrant the emissions
> system for longer periods of time helped.
>

> For example, in the olden days, how many rotted out "mufflers" did you
> replace compared to today?

I still have to replace the exhaust system ever four years. That part
hasn't changed. If you know anything about why they fail, you would
understand the only alternative is stainless steel which is *much* more
expensive. You could get a stainless steel exhaust system the first time
you replace it, but you would need to keep the vehicle for twenty more years
to make it pay off.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[RS Wood]

gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>>I still don't see how the *gas* has anything to do with engines lasting
>>longer. Maybe it does, but I don't see the connection.
>

> Lead free along with EFI is why plugs last forever.

That's an enigma to me, but if I think it through, EFI allowed for higher
voltages which I'd think would melt a spark plug even more than the lower
voltages, but maybe what happened is a higher voltage zap keeps the plugs
from fouling. The zap may even be shorter for all I know.

The lack of tetraethyl lead, I guess, besides meaning harder valve seats,
means fewer deposits on the plugs I guess, where deposits that conduct
electricity cause the voltage to bleed off down the center electrode to the
threads.

Is that how the lead and efi helped plugs last forever?

The enigma is that the higher voltage "should" eat the metal faster.

[RS Wood]

rickman wrote:

>> The only plastic that I know of which lasts forever outside is whatever
>> plastic the garbage company uses for those blue, green, and gray wheeled
>> bins!
>
> That's your standard? Things have to last "forever"???

I leave plastic stuff outside and within a year or two, it crumbles in my
hands. So two years is too short.

Meanwhile, the garbage bins last forever outside.

Why can they make a garbage bin last forever but not a Costco picnic table?

>> I wish *all* plastic things were made out of *that* plastic, especially
>> pool tools.
>
> You can ask about the materials when you buy stuff. It's not the plastic,
> but whether the plastic has UV resistance additives.

Is that what makes those garbage bins last forever outside?
If so, that's what I want in my picnic table from Costco!
And in all the pool equipment.

> I still have to replace the exhaust system ever four years. That part
> hasn't changed. If you know anything about why they fail, you would
> understand the only alternative is stainless steel which is *much* more
> expensive.

I used to patch mufflers, like we all did.
And we all know what a pain it was to get the old ones off.
Forget about those u-bolt nuts ever twisting off.

But I haven't replaced a muffler in decades.
Why?
I'm not sure why.

> You could get a stainless steel exhaust system the first time
> you replace it, but you would need to keep the vehicle for twenty more years
> to make it pay off.

I don't even look at the exhaust anymore, it's that reliable.
I thought the whole thing from the cat back was stainless steel.
Is it not?

[RS Wood]

tom wrote:

> The lead fowled the plugs pretty quickly.
> Now they can last 100k miles.

I didn't know that the lead deposits fouled the plugs but it makes sense
since lead will conduct (but that's only elemental lead which tetraethyl
lead may or may not end up as on a plug).

Having had a two stroke motorcycle, I know all about fouled plugs, where I
still have, somewhere, a cigarette-lighter-socket operated spark plug
sandblaster, which I forgot all about until you mentioned this plug fouling
stuff.

We all used to gap plugs and file the electrode to get flatter tops and
sharper corners because that's where the electrical lines of force
concentrate. But that's also where the heat of the zap eats away the metal.

I suspect the platinum coating made a big difference in the plug life, but
I don't know that for a fact. The multiple electrodes may have helped
although only one will carry the spark in general.

[tom]

"RS Wood" <rsw...@is.invalid> wrote in message

news:otm0o7$3eb$9...@solani.org...

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I agree that points were a weak link that just had to go. I'm not sure why
timing changed, because, as I recall, we twisted the distributor to time
the engine where, the distributor would have no reason to twist back once
locked down.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The rubbing block wears down. The points gap gets smaller.

[RS Wood]

tom wrote:

> The rubbing block wears down. The points gap gets smaller.

Yeah. I forgot. I even have in my toolbox a set of distributor bolt
wrenches, one curved and the other kind of L shaped.

I wonder if I'll ever find a use for them again? I should put them in the
same box as the dwellmeter, timing light, ignition bumper, spark plug gap
gauges, spark plug sandblaster and grease gun.

What's odd is that those are all *oldtimer tools* where I don't think there
are any newtimer tools other than a good OBD scanner and, if you're so
inclined, the bluetooth and computer based ECU readers.

Are there any newtimer repair tools that we never needed in the past that
we need now?

I remember I have a fuel-injection light bulb which snapped into the fuel
injector but that hasn't been used itself in decades.

Other than OBD scanners, what is a *new* tool that we have needed that we
didn't use in the days of yore?

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 03:32:11 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

That's because you are not an automotive professional, and you have
not studied the subject. Leaded gas, without additional additives,
would quickly foul the engine with lead. They use a scavenging agent
to get rid of the lead. Those scavenging agents, such as ethyl
Dibromide, and 12 dichlorethane,

These compounds form corrosive byproducts which accumulate in the
exhaust and in the crankcase.

Lead oxide was the main cause of short valve life and also contributed
to ring wear. Lead Btomide wasn't much better, but it boiled off at a
lower temperature than lead oxide..

Other additives were also used in the leaded gas era, which are not
used any more.

The stainless steel I was referring to was the exhaust system.

Aluminum conducts heat a lot better than iron or steel, so aluminum
heads allow higher compression ratios without causing detonation than
iron heads. Aluminum is also a lot lighter, reducing fuel consumption.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 03:32:18 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Clifford Heath wrote:
>
>> I suspect that better computer simulation, especially thermal
>> modeling, has the most to do with it. There are manufacturing
>> breakthroughs also, like bearing seals that actually seal the
>> bearings, and better materials. Better anti-corrosion chemistry.
>> Stuff like that.
>
>Oh. That's interesting. What you're saying is that the manufacturers are
>using computers to make cars, which helps make better cars.

The cars are also VERY heavily comuterized. Every car sold since 1996
has more computing powewr onboard than was used to put the first man
on the moon.

>
>That may very well be the case, since computers can be used to easily hone
>quality, bit by bit by bit, simply because of the inherent re-use that
>computers easily allow.
>
>You're right but I don't understand why we used to pack wheel bearings
>periodically and now we don't. Who doesn't remember glopping grease on your
>palm and then slapping a bearing through that grease?

The new bearings are sealed, and lubricated with better greaase than
existed in the sixties - a lot of it a product of the space race.

>
>A kid of 30 or 40 years old doesn't know what we're talking about.
>
>Likewise, who hasn't squirted grease into a ball joint until it squirted
>back out of the pregnant rubber cup making farting sounds? Or a driveshaft
>u-joint where is just squirted out noiselessly.

Damaging the boot on the ball joint - letting dirt and water in.
Again, better materials, and better lubricants, have made "sealed for
life" ball joints etc last longer than the ones you greased every 3
months.

>
>What's with bearings nowadays. Why don't wheel bearings need to be packed
>anymore and u-joints not need lubrication and ball joints not need it?
>
>What did they do differently?

EVERYTHING.

[rbowman]

On 11/4/2017 9:32 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> We were talking about timing belts inside car engines.
>
> The problem with timing belts on some engines is when they break, the
> pistons can contact the valves, which is the dumbest bit of engineering I
> have ever seen in my life.

A belt is a belt. The point I was trying to make, albeit awkwardly, was
visual inspection of the belt tells you nothing in most cases. You
replace the thing after N miles based on the mean time to failure. If
you have a timing belt that fails before that and an interference engine
you can plan on replacing valves too. There are many things on an
automobile that give you hints they should be replaced; timing belts
just break.

Timing chains used to be less dependable but the newer ones are greatly
improved. I'm happy my Toyota has a chain. I haven't researched it but I
do believe some manufacturers are going back to chains. Belts are
cheaper but pissed off customers aren't.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 03:32:20 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

The computer controls fuel mixture and ignition timing, making the
engine burn more efficiently and more cleanly - reducing carbon
loading of the engine oil, as well as almost completely eliminating
fuel dilution and cyl wall washdown - which makes the rings last a lot
longer, as well as bearings and timing gears/chains/tensioners.

The vast majority of engine wear was caused in the startup and warmup
mode. Computer control has virtually eliminated those problems.
(mainly the elimination of the choke and better atomization of fuel
using port injection. GDI makes it almost an order of magnitude better
again.

[rbowman]

For a Healey with multiple SUs 'tuneup' was very apropos. I never had
the fancy gauges so I'd just make sure they were whistling in tune.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 03:32:21 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>> When was the last time you replaced the old "points plugs and
>>> condenser" That used to be a once or twice a year thing.
>>>
>>
>> Don't forget better lubricants too.
>
>Are the lubricants really contributing to longevity of the engine?
>
>The main lubricant, of course, is motor oil, which has gone from SB to SC,
>to SD to SE .... now to somewhere around SL, SM, SN ... but has *that* been
>contributing to engine life by a lot?

Yes. Definitely.

>
>The other lubricants, of course, are the gear oils, but again, GL4 and GL5
>are pretty old stuff.
>
>I don't remember seeing Zerk fittings lately, so I think one thing with
>respect to lubrication is they made permanently lubricated driveshaft
>u-joints and suspension balljoints.
>
>But really. Do we have any evidence that lubrication is why engines seem to
>last longer nowadays?

The manufacturers and oil companies do.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 03:32:23 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rsw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>I understand the magic of computers getting more reliable but what's the
>>>magic in cars getting more reliable?
>>
>> More quality in the manufacture along with the fact that a lot of the
>> things that used to fail were replaced by computers that do a far
>> better job that Mr Venturi.
>
>I'm going to have to agree that I think the only thing that really changed
>over time was the quality.
>
>I think Japan took half of Detroit's profits, and that was the sole
>determinant that made Detroit start thinking about quality.
>
>If that's the case, you have to hand it to Japan for even coming up with
>the idea of quality in the first place.
>
>> When was the last time you replaced the old "points plugs and
>> condenser" That used to be a once or twice a year thing.
>
>Wow. My timing light is still packed away, along with the dwellmeter. Every
>once in a while I use the feeler gauges that I used to use for points, but
>for something else. Even the spark plug gapper is used, but nowadays only
>on the home tools like the leaf blower. I have a contraption that has a
>heavy duty switch for "bumping" the engine. I forget even why I *built*
>that thing.
>
>Why did we bump the engine? I forget why.

To get the engine in the correct position to agust points, or adjust
valve clearances, usually.

[The Real Bev]

On 11/04/2017 02:19 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Sounds like the Ford dealership jerk who replaced the starter on the 69
>> LTD. One loose bolt, one dropped on top of the starter and one
>> completely missing. He was partially right, it ran for a couple of
>> years afterward.

I needed 2 feet of extensions to tighten the bolts. I suppose that sort
of explains why the jerk did such a crappy job.

> I can't count the number of times I've seen someone use a screwdriver as a
> prybar on, say, plastic twist-off hubcaps, or who used a pair of pliers
> instead of a socket, or who used an adjustable wrench instead of a socket.

Whenever we see something with a rounded nut or bolt we think "Patrick
was here." Pat is one of my son's friends who NEVER had the right tool.

--
Cheers, Bev
"If you like to stand on your head and spit pickles in the snow, on the
Internet there are at least three other people just like you."
- Langston James Goree VI

[RS Wood]

rbowman wrote:

> Belts are cheaper but pissed off customers aren't.

I agree. They can't save enough money on a belt to compensate for the fact
that we wouldn't purchase the car.

[RS Wood]

rbowman wrote:

> For a Healey with multiple SUs 'tuneup' was very apropos. I never had
> the fancy gauges so I'd just make sure they were whistling in tune.

All you needed for a tuneup on a motorcycle, at least my Japanese bike of
the time, was a screwin dial gage for the number 1 cylinder and a buzzer
for the points to let you know when they opened.

Nothing fancy needed by way of tools other than that.

[RS Wood]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>>But really. Do we have any evidence that lubrication is why engines seem to
>>last longer nowadays?
> The manufacturers and oil companies do.

I guess then, that the longevity is due to two things in general (so far).

1. Better lubricants and seals
2. Better fuels (for example detergents and loss of lead)

Interesting that it's not better design of engines.