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

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 3:48 PM, RS Wood wrote:

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Some of the best rotors out there are Chinese - but also some of the
worst. Consistency is the problem

I can't argue but my point is that I've heard everything.
The problem is that the advice has to be both logical and actionable.

Saying "buy only Brembo or Meyle" is actionable, but not logical.
Saying "don't buy Chinese crap" is logical but not actionable.

For advice to be useful, it has to be both actionable and logical.
I've never heard that in rotors other than buy solid and don't buy
drilled/slotted rotors.

Other than that, there's no way for a person to tell if one rotor is gonna
be better than another.

Hence pragmatically ... a rotor is a rotor is a rotor is a rotor.

In some instances (virtually never normal street use) grooved and
slotted rotors DO provide better braking. We are talking competition
use, where the rotors are glowing red hot half the time, and the pads
are off-gassing like crazy - where even 100% dry DOT4 brake fluid
boils in the calipers. Under those conditions, rotors can warp - and
even fracture (in Rallye use I've seen red hot rotors hit an icy
puddle and totally fracture)

I'm never talking racing.
They drive on bald tires for heaven's sake in racing!

Yep, far better coefficient of friction - in dry conditions.

Actually, on SOME cases you can. Look at the consistancy of the fins
in the rotors, and the even-ness of the thickness of the braking
surfaces on both sides of the fins.

I'm not gonna disagree that we all can see the mark of good quality on some
things when we have two to compare in our hand, but it's too late if you
order on the net.

How are you gonna know the metallurgy?

You don't - that's the hard part - but when you are in the business
you get to know which suppliers stand up, and which don't. If you
know the suppliers well, they will tell you which ones they have
trouble with, and which ones they don't.

Yup. I have nothing against good suppliers. I use Brembo and Meyle but if
someone else gave me a rotor at a better price, I'd consider them too.

And some rotors DO WARP. Not many - but I've had at least a bushel
basket full of genuinely warped rotors in my 25 year carreer. Most
"warped" rotors are not warped - but some are. Some DRASTICALLY - to
the point the caliper moves visibly when the wheel is turned - and if
the sliders stick the pedal jumps and the steering wheel twitches.

That's not the measure of warp.
Warp is measured on a flat bench.
Just like head warp is measured.

Or with a dial indicator - on both sides - for comparison.

More often than not though, they are either pitted or have deposit
buildup, ot they have "hard spots" due to metalurgical inclusions

The only person who says their rotors warped that I will ever trust is one
who measured the warp just like you'd measure head warp.

Use to check for warp every time.

If they haven't measured it, it's not happening.
And nobody measures it.
So it didn't happen.

Some do. I did. I also taught apprentices to measure for it.

It "could" happen. But it doesn't (on street cars).
The problem is the temperature never gets hot enough.

It can under specific circumstances. See it most often on autos in very
hilly country.

Now they can be "warped" from the factory; but that's different (and rare).

Wrong tool. The one I'm talking about has tabs that fit into the
notches on the piston face to "thread" it in as you squeese. Can
sometimes get away with the $17 "cube" but the kit you KNOW is going
to work starts at about $35 for one of questionable quality, and goes
up very quickly from there (and IT won't turn back Mazda rear calipers
- they use a different system

I think we're talking about two different kinds of disc brake systems.
I had the Nissan 300Z which had the rear disc also as the rear parking
brake, but my bimmer has the rear disc and a separate rear parking brake.

The piston arrangement is different as is the way to retract them.

You don't *twist* pistons in disc brakes that I own that don't have the
parking brake as part of the disc brake itself.

At least I don't.


Never once in my life have I found a single person who has *measured* the
warp.

I have. many times.
How?

You know why?
They don't even know *how* to measure rotor warp.
They don't have the tools to measure rotor warp
A somple dial indicator tells the tale

Nope.
How you gonna tell runut from warp with a dial gauge?

Measure disc thickness at various points around the disc. If the
thickness doesn't vary, then any runout measured on the dial indicator
is warp. Verified by back and front runout comparisons.

By the way, thickness variation checks are part of a standard disc
inspection process.

- and sometimes one side is
straight, and the other side is not - parallelism warpage - where some
fins collapse and one side of the rotor "caves in" - 1 inch thick on
one "side" of the rotor, and .875 or something like that diametrically
across the rotor. - and sometimes virtually deead flat on both
surfaces - other times with about hald paralel and the other half
"sloped"

Now you're straining credularity.

(Hint: It requires a flat benchtop and feeler gauges and it's not hard -
but they don't know that because they didn't measure a single thing.)

That won't necessarilly tell you anything. The only way to KNOW is to
use a dial indicator properly.

How you gonna tell runut from warp with a dial gauge?

Compare measurements.

And that is where YOU are WRONG.
Many technicians measure brake rotors virtually every day of their
working lives.

On the entire freaking Internet, find *one* picture (just one) of a
technician actually properly measuring brake rotor *warp*.

Just find a *single* picture please. Just one.
On the entire freakin' Internet.

Find one.

Dealerships were then REQUIRED to buy an "on-the-car lathe" to true
up rotors.

That's not warp.
Nothing on this planet is going to fix warp.
There's not enough metal to remove.

Depends on the warp severity.

A wize man learns from the mistakes of others - a fool never learns
because he "never makes mistakes"

Which is why I wish I had done these half-dozen jobs:
1. Alignment
2. Transmission
3. Engine
4. Tires
5. paint

Done all, taught 1 thru 4 at a technical college.

Yes - you are right to the extent that MOST "warped rotors" are not.
But you are absolutely WRONG when you say they never warp in
street/highway use and anyone who says they have had a warped rotor is
lying and hasn't measured the rotor to prove it.

I never once said "never" but "almost never" which is different, and we're
only talking street, and I have references that back up everything I say
whereas you provided zero references for what you said.

I'm not here to argue opinions.
I only argue using logic.

Just read the references I provided and then provide some references that
back up your point of view.

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

The 'Warped Rotor' Myth
http://www.10w40.com/features/maintenance/the-warped-rotor-myth

Warped Brake Rotors - Vibrating Reality or Internet Myth?
https://blog.fcpeuro.com/warped-brake-rotors-vibrating-reality-or-internet-myth

Stop the +IBg-Warped+IBk- Rotors Myth and Service Brakes the Right Way
http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/warped-rotors-myth/

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

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 3:48 PM, RS Wood wrote:

Xeno wrote:

Lot of us keep a car until repair cost exceeds book value.

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

For me, I get a new car when the old car has a repair that isn't worth
paying. That's less likely nowadays as I'm retired on a low budget.

I've been buying new cars since retirement - two last year.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 3:48 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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!

Ah, you mean an *oxy-spanner* or a *gas axe*

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.

Emission requirements.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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.

They have UV protection built in at manufacture.

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

If you don't keep them for longer than 10 years or, alternately, always
park in a garage, you won't.

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).

Indeed. Just like the bad girl, you don't know where she's been! ;-)

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?

No, the inbuilt tyre UV protection is typically good for 5 to 7 years.

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'd have said that!

FWIW, a sign of UV damage to eyes is cataracts.

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.

And people who won't have cataracts when they are old.

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.

Ordinary glass has a degree of UV protection anyway. Same as the
untinted windows on your car - up to 80% I believe.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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?

What they are made of, any coatings, their shape. Plenty of research
data available on the internet.

Oil control rings have to be better than before since cars use far less
oil than before - unless it's a GM product where it will use more than
before.

Almost forgot to mention - shorter stroke engines.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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?

I did, since probably 1969 when I was doing my apprenticeship and used
to see worn out GM engines at 70k miles with bores like buckets. At the
same time, the same engines in taxis could do 2-300k miles with little
measurable wear in the bore. That's because those taxis ran day and
night with never a cold start. At half a million miles those engines
were still running untouched but just about everything else around them
had been replaced.

FWIW, auto transmissions last longer when always kept at operating temps
and, most importantly, never overheated. They use ablative technologies
and friction modifiers are critical.

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.

It would be the biggest issue by far.

So EFI increases engine life.
Kewl!

I love learning.
Thanks.

It's always good!

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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?

I alluded to that when I used the term *high energy*. By *energy* I
meant current, not voltage. The use of coil packs these days in
multi-cylinder cars means that coil current is shared by, at most, 2
cylinders. In the good old days of V8s, that coil current was shared by
8 cylinders. That's why dwell time was such a critical thing - it was
the charging time for the coil. Insufficient dwell meant ignition
breakdown at high RPM since the coil had insufficient time to recharge
between plug firings. Nowadays a lot of car use an individual pencil
coil for each cylinder and each is electronically timed/triggered by the
ECU and each cylinder can vary in ignition timing from its adjacent
cylinders.

There have been huge developments in automotive technology in the past
couple of decades, most of it invisible to all but those of us who delve
deeper.

You want to see what developments have been made in engines, look no
further than the developments in HCCI engines.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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.

The higher voltage pushes more current across the gap. But that only
occurs if the *energy* is stored in the coil in the form of a magnetic flux.

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.

Especially if you have high sulphur content fuel, such as we have here,
which leads to the formation of *sulphuric acid* in the sump. Not nice!

--

Xeno

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

I've never painted a car. I suppose some day I'll give rebuilding an
automatic transmission a shot, but I've been lucky so far.

Lots of traps for the unwary in that little task.

I don't disagree that an automatic is a completely different thing to
rebuild than a manual would be for a typical rebuild.

 

[RS Wood]

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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.

Not gonna argue ad infinitum.

Just show a single reference on the Internet that shows, for street
vehicles driven normally, that braking is appreciably better with
drilled/slotted rotors versus solid rotors all else being equal.

Just one reliable reference on the entire Internet that proves your point.
And I'll read it.

First, you read this:
Rotors: Blank vs Cross Drilled vs Slotted and Warping
<http://automotivethinker.com/brakes-2/rotors-blank-vs-cross-drilled-vs-slotted-and-warping/>

BTW, I'm not talking about 124mph fade tests as shown here by GM engineers:
<http://www.ebay.com/gds/Drilled-vs-slotted-rotors-what-is-better-/10000000005243690/g.html?rmvSB=true?>

I'm talking legal normal street driving speeds because we're not talking
racing here.

 

[RS Wood]

clare@snyder.on.ca 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.


100% correct - on both counts.

Marketing bullshit and applying racing specifics to street cars is classic
bullshit moves, where we've all had this happen to us a billion times.

Just show a reliable reference on the entire Internet ... just one ... that
proves that without changing anything else ... in a normally driven street
car ... which is what we're talking about here ... that any of that above
isn't anything other than marketing bullshit.

Just one reference from the entirety of the Internet.
You show it ... I'll read it.

Until then, it's marketing bullshit.

 

[RS Wood]

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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.

We don't disagree.
In fact, I already said that in a different post in this thread.
Let me cut and paste what I said.
------ start cut and paste what I said -------
Life is one thing but the *primary* factor in brake pads is friction.

I buy $35 PBR pads with FF or GG friction ratings which last 30K miles or
so and the dust isn't objectionable.

So my factors are:
a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless)
b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners)
c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners)

Friction Coefficient Identification System for Brake Linings
<http://standards.sae.org/j866_200204/>
------ end cut and paste what I said -------

Still, the MOST IMPORTANT reason for buying pads is friction coefficient.
If you had excellent life and lousy stopping power - would you buy them?

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

Good point that a lot of brake installations squeal, but we've researched
this and it seems more depending on "situation" than on application.

By that I mean that you can put the same pads on two similar cars, and some
people complain of noise while others don't.

There is a reason, for example, they have those padded shims.
But again, my point is that you can give me all the bullshit you want to
tell me that you can't choose pads wisely and I will only counter you with
logic.

If we add noise, it doesn't change the logic one bit.
It only repeats a step.

The factors would just be:
a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless)
b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners)
c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners)
d. Noise (the only way to know is to ask owners)

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"

More of the same above.

What you're completely whooshing on is that you have no way of knowing that
crap unless you ask someone - and - even then - you have no way of knowing
if you'll get that crap on your application.

Worse ... it's NOT at all what brakes do.

If you have an EE pad that meets all your bullshit requirements, then it's
still a worthless pad, even though it
a. Has an EE rating (which makes it almost worthless as a brake pad)
b. Yet, it has no dust
c. And it lasts forever (and so does the rotor!)
d. And it's as quiet as a whisper

If I was going to market that bullshit pad above, I'd say:
"Quietest, most dustless, longest lasting pads in the business!"

That's marketing bullshit for you.
If it doesn't stop the vehicle - all that other crap is useless.

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

For my bimmer, FF and GG are pretty common.
But maybe it's different for other makes.
I haven't seen anything better than G in the real world.
But I'm sure we can look up what exists.

The FG Thermoquiets on my Ranger work pretty good - - - and they are
different inside to outside.

FG is fine as long as that's as good or better than OEM.

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

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

Normal load, not full load.

I know what you mean, which isn't technically correct, but I know what you
meant anyway.

I was talking about the guy who jacked the car up to adjust the toe, but he
already explained he uses a process which is basically:

a) measure
b) raise jack
c) adjust
d) lower jack
e) go to a and repeat until the measurement is correct.

As for why you're not technically correct, "normal" load means different
things depending on the vehicle manufacturer.

For the example I know best, on my bimmer, you load with as many pounds as
it takes to get the desired measurement of the vehicle suspension to be
such that the center of the hubcap to the center of the fender flare above
the wheel is so many centimeters.

That can take *any* number of pounds spread evenly between each seat and
the trunk, where 500 pounds total added weight is not at all abnormal.

If you're calling that 500 pounds the "normal" load, then you're
technically correct for that vehicle. But it's different for every vehicle,
where, for example, the sport suspension takes a different weight than the
M suspension which is different weight than the non-sport suspension.

You ask the customer how they use the vehicle and adjust loading
accordingly. Load will alter camber readings hence also toe. Set the
vehicle up with the load the owner normally places in it and you wont go
wrong.

I think we're talking different things.
I know what you're talking about.
I don't know that you know what I'm talking about.

Do you need me to give you a reference for what I'm talking about?

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

> You haven't worked on earthmoving machinery, that much is clear.

I am assuming we're talking only street vehicles here.

On street engines, an adjustable wrench often won't fit, and just as often
will damage the bolt.

Do you disagree?

 

[RS Wood]

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

e "better rings" has to be better ... somehow ... in some way.

Better design, better metalurgy

Sounds just like really good marketing bullshit.
It might be true. It might not be true.
That's the thing about marketing bullshit.

A ring has a metallurgy. It has a cross section. It even has a diameter in
so much as there is a slot for blowby. And there are other rings.

I know all that.

I just am saying that nobody in this thread has given any logical reason
why rings would be "better" today than in the days of yore.

How is the design better?
How is the metallurgy better?

Proof?
That's all I ask.

No proof is needed where logic prevails (as in the carb to efi story).
But proof is needed for rings having better steel or cross sections.

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.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. More bullshit.
We all know that stuff.
Really.
We do.

We're all engineers here (at least I am).
I know *everything* has details that would knock your socks off.

But at the level we're talking, for you to say rings are better and hence
engines last longer, requires *more* than bullshit opinions.

That's all.
Is proof so very hard to ask for?

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

More bullshit.
Every time someone brings in racing they're trying to defend bullshit.
Why don't you tell me to drive on the street with bald tires too?

I'm kind of sick of bullshit ... so sorry if I'm cross.
I just ask for something simple.

If you're gonna say rings improved so much that they make engines last
longer, just stammering that "metallurgy made them do it" is fine, except
nobody is gonna believe that without some proof.

Likewise with cross sections. Sure, it *can* happen. But did it?
Where's the beef?

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.

More bullshit. I'm sick of bullshit.

I know every single thing is complex when you get down to the grass roots.
Do you know how freakin' complicated a spark plug is when you get down to
the nitty gritty.

And yet, all it does is allow a spark to jump across a gap.
A ring is pretty simple in what it does and, like everything, it's complex
as all hell if you are the designer of them.

I get that.

But every bullshitter on the planet begins his bullshit with a blanket
statement and then when challenged, instead of finding proof, the
bullshitter then stammers that racers do it (we already saw that
racers-do-it bullshit on the drilled-versus-slotted rotor bullshit and on
the warped-rotor bullshit).

Then when you challenge that bullshit with logic, they then go into
marketing bullshit mode by bringing out all the bullshit that is
meaningless but which is intended to cow the recipient into submission
because the recipient isn't a piston-ring engineer.

Let's drip this because you're gonna reply with *more* bullshit, when the
only reasonable reply is factual scientific references.

I'm not gonna look them up because I can smell bullshit a mile away.
If you're not gonna look them up, then let's just drop it.

So as to stop this nonsense, I won't respond further to any
rings-are-better opinion that doesn't have a reliable reference attached.

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

I consider my *time* as being valuable and I have many better things to
do with it than work on servicing my own car.

We all spend time differently.
For example, I haven't owned a TV in many decades.
Hence I know I spent zero hours watching TV in the past 30 years.

How much time did you spend watching TV in the past 30 years?

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

You can take three weeks to do your alignment.

If it was going to take me three weeks to do a wheel alignment on my own
car, it would be taken to the professional wheel aligners and they would
get the job.

They have to do it in 1/2 hour.

It's not that they have to, it's that they *can do it in 1/2 hour*. In
fact, with the right wheel aligner, I could do a full wheel alignment in
significantly less time.

I was just pointing out that time isn't the issue for home whereas time is
everything for a shop.

That has a HUGE influence on the tools required.

Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool (and I've met a *lot* of fools
who insist you have to have a shop's equipment to do things like alignment
or replacing the clutch or changing tires - but they're just fools and
that's that).

Fools forget the tool equation is totally different for a shop.

Especially for a wheel alignment where you can do caster on day one, and
then do camber on day two and toe on day three and it won't make a
realistic difference from having done all three on day 1.

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

It'll be unheard of around here too.

My point again is that you can do a great oil change at home without the
kind of equipment that a shop has.

The tools for a shop are different than the tools for home.

How well the job is done is NOT dependent on the tools.
It's the attitude of the person changing the oil that matters.

And their education (e.g., viscosity spread, oil quality, filter quality,
new gaskets, sufficient drainage of the old oil, proper tightening of the
filter, etc.)

Time isn't the issue.
Tools aren't the issue.
Quality of results is the issue.

You don't pay the tradesman for what he does, you pay him for what he
knows and his *experience*. These days that can also include access to
TSBs and relevant factory data.

Wrong.
Dead wrong.

I don't want to count the number of times I've seen a tradesman do the job
wrong. I just don't. I have example after example after example after
example.

In no case did he not *know* he was doing the job wrong.
He just didn't care to do the job right.

You're paying him to do the job right.

 

[RS Wood]

RS Wood wrote:

Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool (and I've met a *lot* of fools
who insist you have to have a shop's equipment to do things like alignment
or replacing the clutch or changing tires - but they're just fools and
that's that).

Fools forget the tool equation is totally different for a shop.

I think I got cranky.
Apologies.

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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

Valve clearance adjustment is, well, valve clearance adjustment no
matter what type of engine it is on. Done it on all types - including
motorcycles and huge diesels. It's no different.

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.

Used to do the same with a test light and rotated the engine around. The
difference was that, in most cases, I used timing marks but mm before
TDC is really no different. You are still measuring crank angle by
another means.

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.

I used to do it for a living. I didn't derive the same exquisite
pleasure that you seem to do.

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

I know about that tool but I have never needed to do ignition timing in
that manner. There are usually easier ways.

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.

I did all those jobs and many many more. I wish now I hadn't and instead
took up a different career. I did move into auto teaching for the last
20 years of my automotive career and I found that much more satisfying.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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.

I have fabricated such tools.

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?

--

Xeno