What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:35:31 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

Xeno wrote:

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

BTW, how's the camber scrub issue going with your vehicle?

Get it sorted yet?

You're talking to Clare, but I also reduced my rear camber from negative 2
degrees to as close to 0 degrees as the adjustment would let me go.

I don't corner like a banshee, so, the positive effect I see is even rear
tire wear.

Woo hoo! Gotta love being able to change alignment to suit your needs!

I just wish I could have done that on my own, without paying $100 for
someone else to twist a bolt that I could have twisted myself.

You paid $10 to twist the bolt and $90 to know how far to turn what
bolt in what direction!!

 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:36:18 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

Xeno wrote:

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

Toe is last. Adjustments to camber will alter toe. Adjustments to toe
will not alter camber.

Thanks. The way I'll remember it is Caster -> Camber -> Toe.

Caster and camber are pretty well inter-related - changing one
changes the other on most non-strut suspensions. Struts are a whole
lot simpler.

 

[rbowman]

On 11/5/2017 8:13 AM, RS Wood wrote:

The only question is how much did the manufacturer save on FWD.
Someone mentioned it was only $50 but I would have guessed at $1000.

Anyone know how much cheaper it is for them to build FWD cars?

There is more to it than that. FWD is more efficient than spinning a
drive shaft and rear differential. Bending power 90 degrees costs. FWD
also allows as much if not more passenger space in the cabin. If you
ever dealt with the transmission hump from hell you know what I mean.
Admittedly it's a moot point for me since I go for two bucket seats and
a center console but I don't haul a family around. FWD designs tend to
be lighter.

When you're chasing the EPA fleet mileage, FWD looks good.

 

[rbowman]

On 11/5/2017 7:55 AM, RS Wood wrote:

All I needed was the feeler gauges at the top, plus some Suzuki shims:
https://i.imgur.com/XSW3lhK.jpg

Shim over buckets? Yamaha had a tool that would hold the bucket down for
some of their engines so you could get the shims out. Shims under the
bucket means you pull the cams.

 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

Xeno wrote:

You understand the efficacy of slotted and/or drilled rotors the first
time you experience brake fade.

Nope. Not gonna buy it. You'll have to sell that elixer elsewhere.
I have read too much practical stuff to believe in marketing bullshit.

Removing metal is not the best way to dissipate heat in a rotor.
I get the surface area stuff. I do.

Both drilling and grooving INCREASE surface area exposed to air.

I get the water-runoff stuff. I do.
I get the lighter rotor stuff. I do.

Mass is what matters when you want to dissipate heat, all else (e.g.,
airflow over the rotors).

Why do you think the biggest spec for failing rotors is thickness?

Let's not just talk. If you really think that removing mass is the way to
make rotors run cooler, then just show me a valid reference that agrees
with your point of view. (Not marketing bullshit please.)

Mass just delays the inevitable. Mass does NOT cool. Mass absorbs
(and holds) heat. Airflow and convection cool.

Enough mass prevents the brake from overheating as quickly as a lower
mass rotor - but also takes longer to cool. In racing applications
RECOVERY is the aim - so they drill and groove the rotors to both let
the outgassing from overheated pads escape, and the rotors to shed
heat more quickly. Then they use carbon fibre - which absorbs LESS
heat, and weighs less than steel, but can operate hotter and still
stop.

There is more than just mass involved with rotor thickness. There is
also the fact a thicker rotor has more strength and wont - get this -
WARP when it gets hot.

 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:47:31 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

FWD serves a purpose from what I was told. I got to ride in a Chevy
Lumina about 6 months before anyone saw them. My friend's SIL works for
GM and was driving one as part of road testing. He said the main reason
for FWD was it can be built for $50 a car less.

There is one and only one reason the manufacturers put in FWD.

And it's not handling.
Well, I'll half agree with both of you.

Front drive is LIGHTER - which is the main arguement for front drive.
It is more compact packaging - taking up less interior space - no
driveshaft hump, no transmission hump, and no space taken up by the
rear diff (and rear axles) With transverse engine mounting hypoid
gears are eliminated, increasing the efficiency of the drivetrain.
It MIGHT be less expensive to build - but that's a byproduct of the
rest of it.

As for handling - that depends what you want. Rallying competitively
for 3 years with a front wheel drive Renault 12, and having owned and
driven a "classic" mini as my first car, and driving a 204 Peugeot
estate during my time in Africa - I LIKE front wheel drive handling.
It's definitely DIFFERENT than rear drive - but the low powered
Renault beat out a LOT of bigger and more powerful rear drive cars -
Datsuns, Celicas, BMWs, MGs, "Yank Tanks", Beetles, and Porsches.

 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 15:05:12 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski 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.


Coupled with better rings, you get less blow by into the crankcase less
oil contamination..

Hmmmmm...... better rings?
Are you trying to pull a fast one on me?

I am a logical thinker.
That doesn't mean I'm always (or even ever) right.

I'm just logical.
So the "better rings" has to be better ... somehow ... in some way.

Better design, better metalurgy

Where a piston ring is a pretty simple thing (in practice).

Actually a LOT of science involved in the base metalurgy, the torsion
design, the surface finish - moly filled, chromed, etc, as well as the
thickness and tension of the rings.

NOTE: Just as with spark plugs, there is some engineer somewhere who knows
everything there is to know about designing piston rings, so I know
everything is complex at the design phase.

But a ring is a ring is a ring is a ring. AFAIK.

The ring used in a dragster engine, truck engine, and standard street
engine will all be significantly different.

Pray tell ... what on earth do you think is *better* about a ring of steel
today from that same ring of steel of yesteryear?

You just do not understand the complexity of ring sealing - how they
must twist - and bend to seal as both the rings and cyls change size
and shape as they heat and cool.

A simple cast iron flat-land ring with no taper or notches doesn't
seal or last worth a crap. It can't twist (has no torsion)

Oil ring design is every bit as complex.

No way a 1855 Chevy ring would ever go 200,000 miles if installed in
today's engines - just like it didn't back then - even WITH today's
oils.

 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 15:13:57 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

rbowman wrote:

Just like FWD cars and tricked-out cars are, to me, nearly worthless.

My first front wheel drive was an Audi 100LS in the early '70s. It was a
learning experience both for me and Volkswagen. My ex traded it for a
Rabbit and got $400 on the trade. I've come to like them. They do well
in snow.

There is one reason for FWD's predominance, and only one reason.
And that reason was *never* handling.

The whole handling thing was a MARKETING red herring so that the hoi polloi
would *think* handling is the determining factor.

The only question is how much did the manufacturer save on FWD.
Someone mentioned it was only $50 but I would have guessed at $1000.

Anyone know how much cheaper it is for them to build FWD cars?
Well, there was a LOT of design work to ammortize.

GM never made a penny on the Olds Toronado and Caddy El Dorado
because of the significantly higher cost of the powertrain (which was
also used in the GMC Motorhomes)
The Citation was also an expensive proposition for GM - cost more to
build than the old nova/ventura/ etc.

Volume has brought the price down.

Chrysler is still building RWD ( 300, charger, challenger, etc) - GM
still builds the Camaro and Corvette and Ford the 'Stang.

They are still competetive (well, not the Corvette).

Manufacturers can cheapen up any design if they can design to use
existing parts.

 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 10:33:39 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net> wrote:

On 11/4/2017 11:32 PM, RS Wood wrote:


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.

It may be minor in the scheme of things, but EFI is much better at
dosing the fuel. Running rich from the choke you can be dumping in raw
fuel and washing lubricant away, blow by into the crankcase. Especially
bad if you had a sticking choke. Back in the day of manual choke,
people often left them full on way too long.



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!

OMG, painting has drastically change. Part due to better technology,
part do to new paint formula as mandated by DEP to eliminate VOCs.

Solvent paint is gone in favor of water based. Now your car is
accurately covered by a robot rather than a guy with a hangover. Up to
about 1923 cars were painted with a brush.
They were first actually VARNISHED, then Laquered a few years later.

 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 18:13:49 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:

thumpthumpthumpthump... rather than vibration.

Doesn't matter what it sounded like. It's not rotor warp.
Not on a street car it's not.

So we have to distinguish between the term, and the measurement.

The funny thing about the term "rotor warp" is that it has two usages,
where one is just "oh, my brakes are vibrating", which is a useful term for
that even though rotor warp doesn't mean the rotors actually warped.

So you see "rotor warp" used as "my brakes are acting up" all over the
Internet, where the short term solution always works, which is to machine
or replace the rotors.

Everyone thinks they're a genius when these two things happen:
1. Rotors act up so the guy blindly assumes "rotor warp".
2. Machining or replacing the rotors solves the problem.

Instant genius, right?

The problem isn't that the short-term solution to all rotor imbalances is
the same; the problem is that the long-term solution is quite different
depending on why the vibration occurred in the first place.

The vibration is NOT that the rotors "warped" (as in a potato chip).

What happens is that the genius above comes back, time and time again,
blaming the rotors, when he said "this is my third time on this car where
my rotors have warped", where he's sick of the car, but where most of the
time, the *cause* is his own actions.

So the crime of using the term "rotor warp' is not just that nobody ever
*measures* rotor warp (they can't - it doesn't exist in practice).

The problem is that they come up with all sorts of long-term solutions that
don't and can't work, or they work (e.g., Tundra mod for the 4Runner
brakes) but for reasons completely missed by those who just blindly assume
that their rotors actually warped.


That wasn't rotor warp.
I know that because it's almost never rotor warp on a street vehicle.

Then what? It never caused problems and either it went away or I just
learned to ignore it.

One quick proof of rotor warp is so easy to do, that nobody does it, which
is measure it.

The next even quicker proof that everyone does but those who don't think
about rotor warp don't think about what I'm going to say either ... is just
take a so-called 'warped' set of rotors on a test drive, at night, on the
highway, and jam on the brakes for a few 60 to 10mph stops, sufficient to
"rebed" the deposits on the rotor.

If the vibration decreases, or markedly changes character, or even goes
away, then how could it possibly have been rotor warp in the first place?

Bear in mind, a street car *never* gets into the temperatures required to
actually warp a rotor.

I hesitate to give you a reference because I'm trying to appeal to your
cold hard logic of common sense, but we can easily find references to back
up everything I say (because what I say is scientific fact).

"The "Warped" Brake Disc and Other Myths of the Braking System"
http://www.stoptech.com/technical-support/technical-white-papers/-warped-brake-disc-and-other-myths

"Raybestos Brake Tech School, Part One: Rotors Don't Warp"
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id87

"Why Do Brake Rotors Warp?"
https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/why-do-brake-rotors-warp

I'm not saying that there aren't zillions of times "rotor warp" is
mentioned on the net as if it exists for street cars, so you have to find
the ones where the author actually knows what he's talking about.

Essentially, if an article mentions that the author is well aware of the
misnomer, then you can begin to trust it over an article where the author
is completely clueless that the misnomer exists.

The idea of ceramic brake pads is upsetting.
What's GOOD material now?

You're looking at brakes from the wrong angle.
Do not look at brake pads from the angle that MARKETING wants you to.
That's like looking at a rolex as a better watch because you're looking at
the diamonds instead of how it keeps accurate time.

Q: What's the main job of a watch?
A: Accurate time, right?

Q: Is a $50K rolex watch a better watch than a $30 Timex watch?
A: The watch that keeps better time is the better watch.

Q: What's the main job of brake pads.
A: Friction.

Q: How do you compare brake pads?
A: By cold/hot friction ratings.

Q: How do you know cold/hot friction ratings?
A: It's illegal to sell pads in the USA that don't have it stamped on them.

So, here's my simple KISS advice on brake pads.
1. Look up the friction rating for OEM pads (e.g., FF).
2. Buy *any* pad (that fits) that meets or exceeds *that* rating.

Pretty simple huh.

Not as simple as you would make it sound. They might only last 5000
miles, or they might last 50,000 miles. Same friction ratingf.

They might squal like a banshee - they might be totally quiet - same
friction rating.

The linings might fall off the backing plates il less than a yeat.
They might wear brake rotors like a grind-stone.
They might promote uneven material transfer - making brakes "thump"

Now, you can go into *further* detail, for example my Jurid/Textar
front/rear OEM FF pads have a propensity to deposit unsightly dust, so lost
of people prefer the Axxis or PBR or other FF pad that dusts a slightly
different less noxious color (all pads dust - where do you think the pad
and rotor material goes?).

You can even go into further detail as to which pads wear the longest, but
then it gets more and more subjectively away from the primary purpose of a
brake pad, which is cold/hot friction.

All pads sold in the USA have the cold/hot friction rating stamped on the
pad or the box or the backing plates. It's the law.

There is a lookup table of about 40 pages, as I recall, on the net, which
contains *all* pads currently sold so you can easily compare them. There
aren't a whole lotta friction ratings though becuase they have a wide range
in each.

E is about as good as steel on steel for friction coefficient.
F and G are common.

Actually GG is pretty UNCOMMON. - and many OEM pad sets have
different frictiom material on the inner and outer pads..

The FG Thermoquiets on my Ranger work pretty good - - - and they are
different inside to outside.
>I don't think any other rating is common but I buy FFs so I don't know.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:09:25 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 6/11/2017 1:42 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 11/4/2017 10:36 PM, RS Wood wrote:
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.

Valve adjustment with shims under the bucket can be painful. Fortunately
my Harley has hydraulic lifters and the DR650 has screw adjusters. I
checked the DL650 last year and it was still in spec.

Been there, done that, with E Series Leyland Engines. Have to say though
that if the valves and seats are decent, adjustments are not regular
events. There's a lot of margin built in. If you don't mind regular
clearance checking and adjustments, you can run closer than factory
specs and gain the effect of a hotter cam.

A set of pre-measured, marked and sorted shims is a handy thing to have
around.

I ran the 170 Valiant clearances at half the spec'd clearance -
which was responsible for it's unique exhaust note and helped produce
that 206 HP at the rear wheels through the pushbutton Torqueflight.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:10:02 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 6/11/2017 1:32 AM, RS Wood wrote:
rickman wrote:

Do some research. Polyethylene is an incomplete description. It can be
high density (milk cartons and canoes/kayaks and some lawn furniture) or low
density (and a few other newer, specialty forms). Both types are
susceptible to UV damage unless stabilizers are added.

I'm not so familiar with polypropylene and UV. I know most plastics are
susceptible unless additives are used. There are lots of references
available... read!

Fair enough.
But if someone can't just tell me the answer, then that just means one or
both of two things.

1. Nobody actually knows the answer (because if they can't simplify, they
don't know it).

2. The answer is known but it's so freaking complex that nobody can
summarize it (see #1 above).

If the answer can't be summarized *accurately*, then it's not known.
So if I look it up, I'll just find out the same thing that everyone else
already found out - which is that it's too complex to summarize accurately.

Which was my point.

Look up the process for providing UV protection for tyres. The concept
is essentially the same.
Carbon black is a major player - - -

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:12:00 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 6/11/2017 1:46 AM, RS Wood wrote:
Xeno wrote:

You understand the efficacy of slotted and/or drilled rotors the first
time you experience brake fade.

Nope. Not gonna buy it. You'll have to sell that elixer elsewhere.
I have read too much practical stuff to believe in marketing bullshit.

Removing metal is not the best way to dissipate heat in a rotor.
I get the surface area stuff. I do.
I get the water-runoff stuff. I do.
I get the lighter rotor stuff. I do.

Mass is what matters when you want to dissipate heat, all else (e.g.,
airflow over the rotors).

Why do you think the biggest spec for failing rotors is thickness?

Let's not just talk. If you really think that removing mass is the way to
make rotors run cooler, then just show me a valid reference that agrees
with your point of view. (Not marketing bullshit please.)

Pads, under extremes of heat, give off gases. It is the presence of
those gases *between* the pads and the disc that prevents the friction
from happening. The gases make the pads operate more like a hovercraft.
The slots provide a means by which the gases can quickly escape.
In a road going car, slotted rotors are probably overkill. Not so on
high performance vehicles.

100% correct - on both counts.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:40:25 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 6/11/2017 6:05 AM, Frank wrote:
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.

I trade my cars in when I'm sick of them.

I get rid of mine when they finally piss me off once too often.
Usually after 10 years or so - and I buy them 5 to 10 years old.
Sometimes significantly older.

When I get sick of fixing them, or something comes up that I decide
not to fix, it's adios amigo!!

 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 15:53:43 -0800, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>
wrote:

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?
You mean Knucklbuster boltheadrounders??

 

On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 19:58:14 -0500, "Steve W." <csr684@NOTyahoo.com>
wrote:

Xeno wrote:
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! ;-)


Chains don't mean a lot when they drop them down to bicycle sizes with
small pins. Things stretch like cheap rope.

Ever get involved with the two-chain 2.6 Chrysler MitsoShitty "hemi"
4? About 6 feet of chain that stretched like a cheap underwear
elastic.

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 10:53 AM, The Real Bev wrote:

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?

They are but I never bought any. I prefer proper ones.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 1:10 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:23:33 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid
wrote:

Xeno 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/
The biggest advantage is the fuel is injected after initial
compression, just before the spark - so the fuel is not "dwelling" in
the combustion chamber under high heat and pressure, dissassociating
and causing detonation. Can run much higher compression ratio on
regular gas.

I suggest you read up on the topic. You can have stratified charge and
homogeneous charge in the same engine and these are the two different
strategies employed. Typically, in the higher load range the charge is
homogeneous in composition and the fuel is introduced into the
combustion chamber during the intake stroke. Under part load conditions
the engine uses charge stratification with the throttle valve fully open
and fuel is injected during the compression stroke.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 1:16 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:36:18 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid
wrote:

Xeno wrote:

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

Toe is last. Adjustments to camber will alter toe. Adjustments to toe
will not alter camber.

Thanks. The way I'll remember it is Caster -> Camber -> Toe.
Caster and camber are pretty well inter-related - changing one
changes the other on most non-strut suspensions. Struts are a whole
lot simpler.

Changing camber on a strut still changes toe.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 2:24 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:40:25 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

On 6/11/2017 6:05 AM, Frank wrote:
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.

I trade my cars in when I'm sick of them.



I get rid of mine when they finally piss me off once too often.
Usually after 10 years or so - and I buy them 5 to 10 years old.
Sometimes significantly older.

When I get sick of fixing them, or something comes up that I decide
not to fix, it's adios amigo!!

I buy new and when anything more than tyres or brake pads is looming,
it's bye bye. I'll work on other people's cars but I expect my own to be
reliable and trouble free. When they are in excess of 150k kilometres,
they are, as far as I am concerned, on their last legs.









--

Xeno