Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On 11/5/2017 12:48 AM, RS Wood wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
Whenever we see something with a rounded nut or bolt we think "Patrick
was here."Â Pat is one of my son's friends who NEVER had the right tool.
I think they should make adjustable wrenches illegal.
I can't for the life of me figure out a use for them.
You take an adjustible with you when you don't know what size you will
need. If you get lucky, 50% of the time it will work but 50% of the
time you go back for a box or open end.
Removing mass reduces heat holding ability. The material removed doesOn 11/05/2017 01:44 AM, Xeno wrote:
You understand the efficacy of slotted and/or drilled rotors the first
time you experience brake fade.
Hrm. I thought that was done to lighten them -- bicyclists are
sometimes also called gram-shavers. It provides better cooling too?
On 11/4/2017 4:13 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:17:09 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid
wrote:
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?
  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.
I've heard that the younger crowd trades in cars because the electronics
are outdated, not the mechanical parts.
Lot of us keep a car until repair cost exceeds book value.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 06:14:55 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid
wrote:
clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
As for "working harder" - specific power output - the amount of
torque and horsepower per cubic inch of displacement -
I'm not gonna argue that the V6 has develops more BHP than the I4 but I am
gonna let you know a little secret.
Two little secrets in fact.
1. They are completely different engines.
2. Even if they were the same engine, there are so many factors that matter
MORE to engine life than displacement that displacement isn't a major
factor in engine life anyway.
Now if you told me one engine had 10K cold starts and 20K short trips,
while the other only had 1K cold starts and had mostly long trips, then
*that* would be a factor in engine life.
Take that TOTALLY out of the equation - I said "all other things
being equal". 2 trucks. same usage. same loads -(close to limit) same
roads, same drivers, same speeds and traffic. The larger engine (if no
fatal design differences) will generally, in principal and in
practice, outlast the smaller engine. Particularly where two engines
of not TOO big a displacement difference - one being a 4 and another a
6, or an 8 - the lower number of cyls will habe larger displacement
per cyl - usually a longer stroke - and if geared to allow the smaller
engine to putout the same horsepower (needs to run fster) the piston
speed on the lower cyl engine will often be higher than the higher
number of cyl engine due to difference in stroke length - which is a
large determinator of engine life. The v6 or v8 of the same
displacement - or even larger - will also have a shorter crank and a
more rigid crankcase/block (in most cases) affecting bearing and crank
life. I know there is a lot of design variability - but over the years
it has become quite evident that the larger engine GENERALLY outlasts
the smaller engine when the capacity limit of the smaller engine is
approached, and the more cyls, even for the same displacement, the
better the life .
Yes, I'll likely end up owning another 4 cyl vehicle - with today's
trends it's inevitable - and todays 4 cyls are much better than the 4
cyl of 20 years ago - but given the choice of a 2.5 liter V6 and a 2.5
liter 4 cyl, accessibility and serviceability aside, I'll take the 6.
The amount of repairs I've needed to do an ANY of my vehicles in the
last 20 yeats is SO small "getting at" the engine is not much of a
concern to me. I've owned 2 V6 Aerostars (about as miserable as they
come) - a V6 Duratec Mystique (they don't get much uglier to work on)
and now a 3 liter Duratec Taurus - again a WHOLE lot more complex and
harder to "get to" than a vulcan - and it's only been an extra hour?
of frustration over 12 years with the duratecs over what it would
have been with a 4 cyl Mystique or a Vulcan Taurus - assuming the 4
cyl and the Vulcan gave no more trouble than the Duratecs - and other
than taking half an hour longer to change the plugs on the 3.0
Aerostars than on a typical 4 cyl pickup truck, the horrendous
packaging of the aerostar was basically a non-issue for 240,000km on
the 90, and 160000+ on the '89.
And I do virtually ALL of my own service and repairs.
If I ever have to change the catalytic converter on the back bank of
the taurus, that will be a different stoty - but it's 16 years old
now. If and when that happens I'll buy a different car - - -
But even then, it would only be one of a zillion factors.
Displacement is just not gonna be a major determinant in engine life.
Call it whatbyou may, but a small engine "works a lot harder" than a
big engine to do the same work. - and generally doesn't last as long.
You can sell that one to other people. Just not to me.
Displacement is just not gonna be a major determinant in engine life.
Not on a lightly loaded vehicle.
But that's another difference in the days of yore!
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:37:11 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/04/2017 10:24 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 21:39:37 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/04/2017 05:49 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 16:33:57 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com
wrote:
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
30+ years ago. Ratchet box wrench?
Nope - just a real shallow socket on a steel bar about 1/8 x 1/2 x
16"
I may have seen a tool like that somewhere and wondered what it was for :-(
I could only move the wrench in a <90 degree arc before it bumped into
immovable objects and I think that 16" might have been too long -- I
might have thought of slipping a hunk of pipe over the wrench if that
was possible or helpful. Putting the wrench on the bolt was the hard
part -- my fingers were right down between the fan and the bolts.
Never again!
Find a place to get the wrench through to the bolt and spin the fan -
don't need to move the handle more than a few degrees.
Any scoring on a rotor will fail it. As you say, there might be lessOn Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:46:38 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/04/2017 10:27 PM, RS Wood wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
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.
BUT you do need to replace the rotors (wrecking yard is probably OK) if
you kept putting off changing the pads until they stopped squealing and
the backing plates started grinding deep (1/4") grooves into the rotors.
Amazingly enough, braking worked just fine until the hogging-in started.
I'm confused by what you wrote, especially in context with the words "warp"
when rotors never warp (or almost never, and never in terms of mattering).
Just an aside.
So anyone who *thinks* rotors warp, is an idiot.
It might have happened a little on my mom's (end eventually mine) 88
Caddy. Slight vibration when braking, but they felt OK. Until 2 of the
calipers seized 8 years later, of course :-( POS, I'll never own
another GM product.
The replacing of rotors is also determined by idiots most of the time
because people don't have the concept of measuring the thickness because
many people don't have the concept of owning a micrometer.
I can't count the number of times I've heard someone say to replace the
rotors on the second pad change, where the real answer is to replace the
rotors when they are worn down to the minimum thickness (everything else
being ok).
In general, the rotors are ok except for pad deposition which is solely a
driver-caused problem (long story later if people ask).
Sure, grooves can be there but gouges have to be the size of the Grand
Canyon to matter (just look up the specs, you'll see) so grooves are, in
reality, not what makes rotors into paperweights.
These looked like a high-school first-time lathe project. Each of the
steel projections on the backing plate had dug out its own trench.
Godawful noise, but the brakes still worked fine so I figured I could
wait another month :-( (Not the Caddy, this was a 68/9 LTD.)
as a retired auto tech, I have to dissagree. A "plowed" rotor can NOT
bed properly to the rotor, it cannot "bed" proerly and it WILL
overheat parts of the pad before the rest even contacts the rotor. A
"scored" rotor does NOT pas an Ontario DOT test - nor should it. If a
new pad and rotor wear together and smoothe "ridges" develop, thats a
slightly different situation - but you should NEVER put new pads on a
grooved rotor -
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 19:48:11 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
On 5/11/2017 2:47 PM, RS Wood wrote:
gfretwell@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.
In the emissions world, a longer zap is what you need. A short zap can
lead to a misfire so that's a no no. In order to get a longer term
spark, there arose a need to go to high energy ignition systems.
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.
MSD - mult-spark-Discharge ignition was a performance add-on in the
late seventies - before computer controlled ignition.
The GDI engines are moving to multi spark due to stratified charge.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 19:56:38 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
On 5/11/2017 3:15 PM, rbowman wrote:
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.
I have Toyotas precisely because they have a chain.
Some do, some don't. (perhaps today they all do - not sure)
The ones I buy sure do! ;-)
On 6/11/2017 3:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/5/2017 12:48 AM, RS Wood wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
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.
I think they should make adjustable wrenches illegal.
I can't for the life of me figure out a use for them.
You take an adjustible with you when you don't know what size you will
need. If you get lucky, 50% of the time it will work but 50% of the
time you go back for a box or open end.
Especially useful where you are working on one of those bastard bits of
machinery where you have a mixture of metric and SAE bolts and nuts.
On 11/05/2017 03:31 PM, Xeno wrote:
On 6/11/2017 3:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/5/2017 12:48 AM, RS Wood wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
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.
I think they should make adjustable wrenches illegal.
I can't for the life of me figure out a use for them.
You take an adjustible with you when you don't know what size you will
need. If you get lucky, 50% of the time it will work but 50% of the
time you go back for a box or open end.
Especially useful where you are working on one of those bastard bits of
machinery where you have a mixture of metric and SAE bolts and nuts.
Are metrinch wrenches still available? Did anyone ever buy them?
On 6/11/2017 9:13 AM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 19:56:38 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
On 5/11/2017 3:15 PM, rbowman wrote:
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.
I have Toyotas precisely because they have a chain.
Some do, some don't. (perhaps today they all do - not sure)
The ones I buy sure do! ;-)
Xeno wrote:
I have Toyotas precisely because they have a chain.
I have to agree with you that if I knew a vehicle had a belt, and
especially if it was an interference engine, for me, that car would be
nearly worthless.
Just like FWD cars and tricked-out cars are, to me, nearly worthless.
I'm with you on the exhaust.
It's a non-maintenance part nowadays.
But we *all* had to deal with exhaust in the days of yore.
So kudos to the EPA for forcing stainless steel into the mix!
Sometimes things like power lock actuators and some electricalXeno wrote:
It's also that but in order to understand the improvements you would
need to delve into the books on automotive engine design such as this
one I have in my library here;
http://www.springer.com/la/book/9783211377628
It's interesting we all universally feel engines last longer, but I wonder
if it's not that the *car* lasts longer.
For example, tires last longer.
Ball joints and u-joints and wheel bearings last longer.
The body last longer.
The exhaust lasts longer.
What doesn't last longer on a car nowadays?
Xeno wrote:
The removal of the carburetor meant that the sump wasn't being
contaminated by fuel wash from incomplete combustion when the engine is
cold. The much finer fuel spray from injectors ensured reliable cold
start and improved warmup time.
Positive crankcase ventilation removed any acidic components and
prevented carbon buildup in the oil.
Those are interesting advantages of EFI which are:
a. Less gasoline dilution of cylinder walls
b. Less contamination of the oil
So, fundamentally, people seem to be saying that carburetors contaminated
everything more than does EFI, which reduced the life of the engine.
The biggest advantage is the fuel is injected after initialXeno wrote:
GDI makes it almost an order of magnitude better
again.
Bzzztt. GDI has brought the scourge of carbon buildup back.
Googling for what you mean by "GDI"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection
Pros and cons of gasoline direct injection...
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/02/pros-and-cons-of-direct-injection-engines/index.htm
What's so great about gasoline direct injection anyway?
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/whats-so-great-about-direct-injection-abcs-of-car-tech/
Might happen - but not by design. A properly running injected engineXeno wrote:
They control the spark timing to prevent detonation and pre-ignition.
The small amount of combustion detonation sufficient to trigger the
knock sensor serves to remove potentially harmful combustion chamber
deposits.
Now that's an interesting concept!
If my bimmer requires higher-octane fuel, and if I add lower-octane fuel
instead, and if I can induce pinging, then the moment that the engine
pings, it vibrates "just enough" to shake loose carbon deposits (until the
engine timing is retarded to eliminate the pinging).
I have never heard of that, but, it kind of sort of makes sense.
Is that what you're implying can happen?
Xeno wrote:
In the emissions world, a longer zap is what you need. A short zap can
lead to a misfire so that's a no no. In order to get a longer term
spark, there arose a need to go to high energy ignition systems.
Thank you for correcting my assumption.
So it's a higher voltage zap for a longer period of time.
What's the old voltage? Something like 10K to 15K volts, right?
What is the new voltage zap?
60K plus
Xeno wrote:
No, it's not.+AKA- It's still the same steel that lasts around 4 years.
Hmmm, Last car I had for 8 years, never touched the exhaust system.
I'm with you on the exhaust.
It's a non-maintenance part nowadays.
But we *all* had to deal with exhaust in the days of yore.
So kudos to the EPA for forcing stainless steel into the mix!
PS: I wonder how "Midas Muffler" stays afloat?