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

[RS Wood]

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

A good Fluke DMM is de rigueur though, I agree, for any homeowner.

Absolutely no need to waste money on a "Fluke" branded meter. LOTS of
lower cost stuff out there that is more than accurate enough for
automotive electronics use.

This is true. I *love* my Fluke 75.
But any $10 meter will work just fine.
I agree with you.

It's the same old tools, with minor exceptions of emissions and ECU/DMU/ABS
control, isn't it?
Different brake tools for some disc brakes - torque to angle or
angle to torque adapters for "torque to tield" bolts. Special
wrenches/sockets for certain sensors - but not a lot of essoteric and
complex stuff.

I agree with you that, for the most part, there aren't a lot of special
tools needed for new cars.

I just looked in my tuneup kit, and I saw some special distributor wrenches
and a special flat file and the spark plug gappers, etc., so I think one
thing that did not change over the years is the need for special tools.

In both yesteryear and today, there are 'some' but not many special tools
needed - but for the most part - the tools needed are about the same.

I think the main difference is that a lot of us have battery-powered tools
that we never had in days of yore. We also all have air tools now.

Did everyone at home have air tools in the olden days?

 

[RS Wood]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Not just mufflers any more. They were smart enough to evolve into other
auto services like brakes, shocks, and the like. As cars get more
sophisticated the more you have to rely on the dealer also. My Genesis
was dealer service because the local guy could not get the right oil
filter for it. The NAPA nest door did not carry it as it is a low
volume item.

I agree on Midas Muffler because they do other stuff and there is no way
they're staying in business on just mufflers nowadays.

I disagree on the dealer being required for anything.

To me, the dealer is whom you go to when you're under the original factory
warranty and then that's the last time you ever go do the dealer.

I have nothing against the dealer except one thing, which is why they're
called the 'stealer'. But that's a biggie.

The only other reason you go to the dealer is to buy parts that they might
stock where you need them now (e.g., you broke a bolt or forget a gasket
and you're in the middle of the job) but expect to pay more than double for
those parts than anywhere else.

I go to an indy for alignment and clutch and tires, etc., where I couldn't
imagine payking the price for the same job at the dealer.

Of course, I *wish* I could do these jobs myself at home!
1. painting
2. alignment
3. replace/rebuild engine (or major repairs)
4. clutch replacement
5. tire mounting and balancing
6. timing belt or chain

But I think I lost my chance.
If some 30-year-old kid asked me if they should do those jobs, I'd say
"Hell yes", just as if they asked me should they hike down into the Grand
Canyon or if they should hike across the Sahara Desert (with water).

If you don't do it when you can, you'll never do it ever.
And you'll never learn anything if you never do it.

That would be my advice, anyway.

 

[RS Wood]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

If it's a 20-year-old Toyota the original exhaust was stainless, but it was
a ferritic stainless that will eventually corrode with enough heating cycles.

"Stainless Steel" is actually a whole lot of totally different things in
three different and hardly-even-related families.

I took a quick peek at the Internet and it does seem that a summary is
needed if we were to REPLACE our SS exhaust today....

"Stainless steel grades used in a car exhaust manifold"
<https://www.finishing.com/366/99.shtml>

Apparently a magnet should be helpful to determine if you have the better
400 or the less-better 300 series SS exhaust....

"What grade of stainless steel does Bob's Muffler use in its exhaust
systems, and why? "
<http://www.bobsmuffler.com/Stainless.htm>

There are two primary categories of stainless steel tubing used in
automotive exhaust systems: 300 series and 400 series.

The issue of heat cycling is of great importance.

Not only is 300 series stainless a poorer choice for exhaust systems, it is
also more expensive and would unnecessarily increase the price of an
exhaust system.

400 series stainless is not as pretty as 300 series and will have a
brownish hue to it, due to the fact that it has a higher carbon content
than 300 series.

This means the 300 series stainless will polish up better for appearance.
The carbon content in 400 series also makes it magnetic, unlike 300 series
which is a simple test to determine which series you+IBk-re dealing with.

 

[RS Wood]

tom wrote:

My 2000 Acura TL has an all stainless exhaust system. I'll never buy another
car or truck without a stainless exhaust system. That is one headache no one
needs.

I think almost all of us agree that we used to have to work on the exhaust,
but with the advent of SS exhausts, we don't need to anymore.

 

[RS Wood]

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

A cut-off wheel on a grinder or a "muffler chisel" - preterably on an
air hammer, also makes muffler repair a lot easier - but the "blue tip
wrench" is pretty universal

This is a good point in that my angle grinder would make short work of a
reticent pipe, but when I worked on mufflers, I didn't have such tools.

Did any of us have angle grinders at home in those days?
Certainly we didn't have decent battery operated tools like we do today.

I love the term "blue-tip wrench".
I have a saying that no bolt will ever win, since I have that thing!

My 16 year old taurus has stainless exhaust, as does my 22 year old
Ranger. So did my Mystique, originally - but when a flange broke for
the original owner some bandit sold him a complete walker mild steel
system. After I got it, I replaced it again with stainless. The last
car s I ownwd without factory stainless exhaust were th '90 aerostar
and the '88 New Yorker. My daughres' Honda Civic and Hyundai Elantra
both have stainless systems - the Honda's a 2008.

I think the consensus is pretty much that most of us have had SS for quite
a long time, which is why the exhaust system now lasts the life of the car
or nearly so.

I haven't bothered to search, but it's my understanding the car companies
did not do that out of goodwill toward us - but out of gov requirements
that they have to warrant the exhaust system for longer periods of time.

 

[RS Wood]

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Even wiping down with armor-all will extend the life significantly as
it contains U-V inhibitors and restores the plasticisers somewhat.

I understand that pretty tires are pretty.
But I don't understand UV protection for car tires.

I have nothing against adding UV protection for car tires.
But I have never had a cracked-sidewall car tire in recent years.

In days of yore, yes, I have (because I bought junkyard tires until I had a
bad experience and then never bought used tires ever again).

So in my today world, a tire lasts about 3 years or less. Never more.
So at 3 years, do I really need to care about UV protection additions?

Bercause EVERONE needs UV protection - one reason people wear
sun-glasses. My Crizal lenses block almost 100% of UV - by the end of
the summer I look like a racoon when I take my glasses off - no tan
behind the glasses. The UV protection is for the eyes - not the
plastic (generally)

I have never in my life worn sunglasses or sunscreen or even bring an
umbrella with me anywhere so I may not be the normal person.

I hike every single day outside off the trail (I get lost on the trails),
and I wear Rachle hiking boots (heavy as bricks) for my feet, and
TIG-welding gloves for my hands (lots and lots of poison oak) and I bring
rapelling gear (figure 8 plus 100' of rope) because it's mountainous.

I never understood sunglasses.
They're for wussies.

One problem with me understanding sunglasses though is that I wear glasses
full time, so, I've *always* had glasses. Sure I've tried the idiotic
prescription sunglasses but who wants to carry around two sets of glasses
everywhere they go. Sure I've tried that idiotic color-changing coating,
which is a POS and don't even get me started on it. Sure I've tried those
flip on flip off magnetic overhangs which make me look like the dork I am.

In the end, I gave up on all that crap.
I don't understand sunglasses.

I just don't.

 

[RS Wood]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Better material, better tolerances, possibly better design. When is the
last time you got a ring job on your car? It was common in the 1950s to
do rings and bearings at about 50,000 miles. Lubricants are a factor
too, but engines today can easily last 200,000 miles with the same
internal parts. Do you think those rings are the same?

I'm not going to argue that anything *can* be designed better.
But a ring is a pretty simple thing.
It has a certain cross section. A certain material. And that's it.

I certainly can believe that a quantum leap in either the cross section or
the material happened, but all I'm asking for is proof.

I think the argument that ring jobs were common isn't really gonna fly
because we already learned that a huge problem is gasoline liquid in the
cylinders upon startup - which itself was vastly reduced by EFI over carbs.

So, rings being better ... might ... be true.
But it's a hard one to swallow without something said about how rings are
better today.

Especially since there are really very few possible factors:
1. Material, size, and cross section of rings, then and now, or
2. Geometry inside the piston (e.g., number or spacing of rings)

What could possibly be better about rings today?

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

The carburetor sprays atomized fuel into the cylinders but when the
intake manifold, cylinder head, cylinders and pistons are cold, it's
very difficult for vapourisation to take place so liquid fuel enters the
cylinders.

Yup. I know. Just one press on a gas pedal while looking into my sixties
Chrysler New Yorker 4bbl Holley Carb would show a shitload of gasoline
squirting into the intake manifold!

So I now UNDERSTAND something I had never thought about until this thread,
which is that the amount of GASOLINE getting into the OIL is far lower with
EFI than with carburetors!

Who knew?
Perhaps all of you.
But not me.
Until now.
Thanks.

It is difficult to rebuild the oil film above the oil control ring. It
takes a little time. In that time the cylinder walls and rings don't
have the protection of the oil film and most wear will take place. That
is why cylinder bores will always wear tapered with most of the taper
occurring above the oil control ring. A vehicle in continuous use and
always warmed up, such as a taxi or a long haul truck, has much less
cylinder wear.

I always knew cold starts wore out engines far more than highway miles.
I never understood completely why.

I think just this one item ... condensed gasoline liquid ... which is we
presume far lower with EFI than with carburetors ... is a biggie.

So EFI increases engine life.
Kewl!

I love learning.
Thanks.

 

[RS Wood]

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

What's the old voltage? Something like 10K to 15K volts, right?
What is the new voltage zap?
60K plus

The whole reason that the voltage doesn't kill us when we get zapped is
that the current is low.

Someone said the *duration* is longer nowadays, but nobody mentioned
current.

Is the current about the same?

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

It's higher voltage to get a spark happening more easily in lean mixture
land but it's the *high energy* that allows the longer duration spark.

You've said "energy" before, where I discount that word because it's not
necessarily a physical entity (although I know what you mean).

There is voltage and current.
Together, that's wattage.

There's also time, which gives us things like kilowatt hours, which, I
guess is what you mean by "energy"?

It's one of the reasons manufacturers went to individual coils - only
need to supply spark to one cylinder so gets a very long dwell time with
plenty of coil saturation.

This is interesting because what you're saying is that the single smaller
coil delivers more of what you call "energy" to the spark plug.

I think you mean watts though. Do you?

What's the old voltage? Something like 10K to 15K volts, right?

Up to 20k. All the old oscilloscopes had a range, from memory, up to 25-30k.

What is the new voltage zap?

60k or better.

Thanks. So the "potential energy" (aka volts) is two to three times higher.
If the current is the same, then the wattage is two to three times higher.
If they also increased the current, then the wattage is a *lot* higher.

I'm getting your point though, which is that the ignition systems of today
are "stronger" and "longer" (probably far higher wattage and duration) than
those of yesteryear, which allows for a more reliable combustion of a
leaner mixture, which keeps gasoline out of the oil.

Keeping gasoline out of the oil goes a *long* way to increasing engine
life.

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

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.

We're talking two different things:
1. Ignition timing on a motorcycle
2. Valve clearance adjustment on a motorcycle

Both of which I have done on multiple motorcycles, where the whole point of
this thread is that just having done such things once is a *pleasure*
because the inherent *understanding* of everything you say is there.

For example, the ignition timing on a motorcycle that I did was simple, but
nothing like that of a car, in that I just put a light or buzzer or
resistance meter across the points and screwed in a dial gauge into the
number one cylinder, and adjusted the point plate so that the points opened
at the specified xx mmm before TDC.

The valve clearance was just as easy, where I simply measured the clearance
with feeler gauges and then replaced the old shim with a larger shim where
the half-moon crescent-on-a-handle tool worked perfectly slid up under to
depress the (rocker arm?) so I could remove the old shim and replace with a
thicker shim.

My main point in this thread is that there is an exquisite pleasure that I
derive from having done such things at least once, so that I can
UNDERTSTAND what is it you speak about.

For example, I REMEMBER (belatedly) that tool, which rbowman knew about.
I wouldn't have that memory if I hadn't done the job.

My main regret in such things is that I didn't do these jobs at home when I
was a kid of 30 or 40 years old in the days of yore......
1. painting
2. alignment
3. replace/rebuild engine (including VCG and head gasket)
4. clutch replacement
5. tire mounting and balancing
6. timing belt (or chain)

I am positing that it would have costs an average of about two hundred
dollars each for tools which is $1200 but that the labor costs alone for
all those jobs is 10x that, so, cost isn't the issue.

I don't know WHY I never did those jobs.
But I wish I had.

 

[RS Wood]

rbowman 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.

Oh yeah! I remember that tool! I used it on my 650 four stroke engine!

It was beautifully shaped, with a handle and a half-moon crescent.
I just looked in my tune-up box, and found a bunch of other small tools
tucked away under what I snapped a photo of ... but that lovely tool isn't
there.

I haven't seen it in decades ... but it's somewhere.
The fact you even *know* about that tool means you know what you speak of.

That's what I *love* about having done the job at least once!
(Which is the whole point of this thread, after all.)

Taking an off-color example, if you never had sex with a woman, how could
you possibly describe it accurately to someone else?

 

[RS Wood]

Steve W. wrote:

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

I think the only reason manufactures went to belts is to increase their
profits, so I wonder if there is any value to a belt AFTER you look at the
tradoffs.

The real question for a repair group would be the main factors:
1. Reliability of chain versus belt
2. Damage potential of chain versus belt
3. Repair hassle of chain versus belt

Let's ignore the marketing bullshit (e.g., lighter, quieter, etc.) for this
thread to concentrate on the reliability and repair-related issues.

As I already noted, I *wish* I had replaced a timing chain in my life, but
just like I've never owned a FWD vehicle (and I lived in a "snow state" for
decades), I have never had a belt car and I've never had a chain break on
me.

So I have no experience.
But....

I posit that:
1. The chain is *far* more reliable than the belt
2. Both can ruin an interference engine if they break
3. Repair hassle is probably about the same

The question is how long is the typical MTBF for a belt versus a chain?

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

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! ;-)

Two vehicles that are worthless to me:
1. FWD
2. Belt

 

[RS Wood]

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I have Toyotas precisely because they have a chain.
Some do, some don't. (perhaps today they all do - not sure)

Some do. Some don't. Even within the same model.
Depends on the engine chosen.

For example, here's a quote:
"Toyota's 2.7-liter 3RZ-FE engine started in production in 1995
and was still used in 2011.
There have been two variations of this motor.
It was first used as an option in 1995 Tacoma to 2011.
It was also used in the 4Runner from 1996 through 2000.
It was used in the Highlander from 2009 through 2011."

Reference:
<https://itstillruns.com/toyota-27liter-specifications-7442083.htm>

 

[RS Wood]

Frank wrote:

Chains are hardly ideal. Chains wear. The wear changes the pitch
between the links and the links no longer quite fit on the sprockets. It
turns into a self reinforcing cycle. More wear = worse fit, worse fit > accelerated wear. Eventually the poorly fitting chain will jump one or
more teeth on the crank gear or start breaking the teeth on the cam gear.

What are our choices?
1. Chain
2. Belt
3. Pushrod

Anything else?

The other effect of chain wear is retarded cam timing. The more worn
links between the crank and cam, the more the camshaft timing gets
retarded. I changed timing sets on conventional OHV engines and that
usually advanced the ignition timing from 5 to 10 degrees, suggesting
that chain wear had retarded the timing by that amount.

From a repair standpoint, how long do each typically last?
1. Chain ?
2. Belt ?
3. Pushrod ?

I don't hear anyone talking about pushrods, so, all I see here are that
chains last a *lot* longer in general than do belts, where if either one
broke on an interference engine, expensive things can happen.

But I still prefer belts. Even on a tight package like a Dodge Neon with
the 4 speed auto, the replacement isn't too bad, once you know the
routine.

If the replacement isn't bad, then the belt isn't 'as' bad.

In the general sense though, belts, I posit, are bad news multiplied.
I try not to take things from the marketing-bullshit standpoint.

My take is always from the *why* standpoint.
Why did the automakers go to belts over chains?

My supposition is that they did it to save them money.
No other reason.

The tradoffs are legendary where the owner is the one who loses in the end
calculation.

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

I love front wheel drive, especially in the snow.

Lots of cars are FWD that never see snow.

In the general sense though, FWD, I posit, is bad news multiplied.
I try not to take things from the marketing-bullshit standpoint.

My take is always from the *why* standpoint.
Why did the automakers go to FWD over RWD?

My supposition is that they did it to save them money.
No other reason.

The tradoffs are legendary where the owner is the one who loses in the end
calculation (particularly since deep snow is still on the road for what,
maybe 10 days out of 365?)

Anyone who mentions snow with FWD is falling directly into marketing hell.
Just like anyone who mentions belts are "quieter" and "lighter" is doing.

The sole reason for belts and FWD is to increase manufacturer's profits.
Everything else is marketing bullshit because the tradeoffs are legendary.

 

[RS Wood]

rbowman wrote:

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.

But my point is that none of that was *why* they build FWD cars.

They make 'em for one reason, and one reason only.

The tradeoffs are legendary, especially in a group that has to DRIVE them
and REPAIR them.

 

[RS Wood]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

The $50 figure is about 30 years old. If it was accurate at the time is
would be double that today and there was still a lot of engineering and
new tooling to pay for. That said, I have no ideal today.

I remember $1000 but they didn't pass that on to the consumer in toto.

What irks me the most isn't that they make FWD cars, just like it doesn't
irk me that they make convertibles or muscle cars or economy cars or luxury
cars.

What irks me about FWD is that the hoi polloi do not UNDERSTAND what FWD
gets them.

I posit it gets them almost nothing.

Then the hoi polloi don't understand what they lose.

I posit they lose handling.

Maybe FWD is better now ... but I think I'll have to go to my deathbed
before owning a FWD car... simply because I don't want to fall for the
marketing trap that everyone else easily falls into.

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

Hrm.+AKA- I thought that was done to lighten them -- bicyclists are
sometimes also called gram-shavers.+AKA- It provides better cooling too?

Removing mass reduces heat holding ability. The material removed does
not provide a gain in surface exposure. The real gain is providing a
path for the gasses coming off the pad surfaces to escape from between
the pad and rotor. Reduces the hovercraft effect.

I can spout marketing bullshit as well as anyone can.
I just choose not to.

If you can find a scientific study that proves for street cars that a
drilled/slotted rotor makes *any* difference over a solid rotor in braking
performance, let me know.

I'm all about logic.

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

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.

I've heard it all.
Marketing bullshit is wonderful bullshit.

We're talking street cars here.
Racing cars are nothing like street cars.

They drive on bald tires for heaven's sake!

Sometimes applying what works for racing to the street is good.
But most of the time it's marketing bullshit.

As it is with drilled and slotted rotors.
Besides, braking in cars is not happening due to the rotors anyway.

The friction coefficient of steel sucks.
You need pads which have better friction ratings than the rotors have.

So pads are what matters.
For fade, on street vehicles, mass is what matters.

If you can find a scientific study that proves for street cars that a
drilled/slotted rotor makes *any* difference over a solid rotor in braking
performance, let me know.

I'm all about logic.