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

[RS Wood]

RS Wood wrote:

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.

I think I got cranky.
Apologies.

 

[Xeno]

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

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

The chain will give you fair warning - it will rattle before it breaks.
A belt will not.

3. Repair hassle is probably about the same

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

typical belt replacement interval 40-60k miles. For chains, double or
triple that without an issue.

--

Xeno

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

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

They have UV protection built in at manufacture.

Makes sense since they are rated for longer than it takes me to wear them
out.

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.

I forgot about the garage. Good point. Yes. I garage mine.
So UV protection is not for me.

> the inbuilt tyre UV protection is typically good for 5 to 7 years.

That's more than twice the time I need!

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

It's a little more complex than that (last I spoke to my eye doctor), but
you're right, that ordinary glasses "usually" block a lot of UV.

The details are that they recommend a UV coating for *some* of the
materials, but they know all that so when I'm buying glasses, that's when I
ask (because I don't remember without looking it up).

 

[Xeno]

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

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

The past half dozen cars I've had have been FWD. I don't have a problem
with them. My first FWD car was a Morris Mini back in 74 and I have had
heaps of them since. Had heaps of RWD cars too. Totals in the hundreds.

--

Xeno

 

[RS Wood]

RS Wood wrote:

If you have an EE pad that meets all your bullshit requirements, then it's
still a worthless pad

I think I got cranky.
Apologies.

 

[Xeno]

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

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 =orse 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

Pushrod is a false comparison because they can be gear, chain or belt
driven.

Just add gear to your list and delete pushrod. We are talking about
driving the *camshaft*. gear, chain, belt. There are a few varieties of
chain in use; single row, double row, hyvo.

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

That's because pushrods don't drive camshafts. Pushrods are *driven* by
camshafts.

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.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

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

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.

Cars are cheaper now than they were when I was a boy.

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.

They gain handling as long as they understand it's *different 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.

FWD works for me.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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.

Far more than most people realise. Even more complex now that trans
operation is integrated with a TCU and the ECU.

--

Xeno

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

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.

You *can* measure warp with a dial indicator if you control the centerline
precisely, but nobody sane would do it that way.

I'm only speaking logic. If you have a head that you need to know if it's
warped, would you use
a. a dial gauge or
b. a flat benchtop with a feeler gauge?

Pick one.

> Use to check for warp every time.

With a dial gauge?
Or a flat bench and feeler gauge?

I'm not saying it's hard to check warp (heck, people do it for heads all
the time I suppose). I'm just saying that warp doesn't happen for the most
part in street cars (I already have a half dozen references) and yet
*every* idiot out there *thinks* his rotors warped.

Every time I asked anyone to prove it, they *said* all sorts of bullshit,
but they can't even tell me *how* they'd prove it. If they use a dial
gauge, for example, while the rotor is on the vehicle for example, then I
have to wonder how to respond because that just proves my point.

Nobody who ever said their street rotors warped ever supplied proof.
They all are bullshit artists.

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.

Measuring it is trivial if you have a bench and a feeler gauge.

But show me a single picture on the entire Internet that shows someone
measuring a street rotor for warp.

Just one.

Now show me the bullshit of someone saying they measure warp all the time.
(HINT: We don't enough space on the Internet for the bullshit references.)

There has never been a topic more filled with bullshit than rotor warp, and
all the "experts" who claim they measure it and yet can't show a single
picture of anyone on the planet doing that (not themselves either) for a
street rotor.

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.

I give up.

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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/

I did and they agree with me on why rotors are slotted. BTW, I don't
agree with cross drilled rotors anytime.

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=ue?

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

In the old days of asbestos in brakes, brake fade was valid even in
street cars. These days asbestos is no longer used so fade is much less
a problem on street cars driven normally. Again, your link agrees with me.

The pads on my Toyotas are good for 60k miles so they definitely arent
the asbestos pads of old. For sure you don't get the smell of fried
Ferodo like you once did.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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 pads on my car(s) have both long life and good braking ability. Did
I mention they don't squeal too. They are the OEM Toyota pads that came
with the car and that's what they will be replaced with.

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.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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.

I know but I adjust for the load the driver usually has in the car. For
a traveling salesman, for instance, his car might be fully loaded all
the time. Adjust wheel alignment in that situation.

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?

--

Xeno

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:50:30 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

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.

Detonation is generally not an issue at higher speed, so the
stratified charge provides the advantage I ststed. Under full throttle
at speed homogenous charge is not a problem.

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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?

Up to a point, I agree with you. Where I disagree is that most people
use them incorrectly (backwards) or size them inappropriately. They are
no different to an open end spanner when used correctly and, need it be
said, they are of a decent quality. When working on earthmoving
equipment, the most common adjustables I used were 15". 18" and 24". You
have no idea how many different spanners those three adjustables
replaced. In field work you need to cart *all your tools* with you. You
always look to minimise that load.

--

Xeno

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:51:59 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

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.

I didn't say it didn't. camber has a lot less effect on camber, and
vice versa on a strut system than on a double wishbone system

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:

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?

Fractionally more than you. I watch the news on TV. That's it.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:18 PM, RS Wood wrote:

RS Wood wrote:

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.

I think I got cranky.
Apologies.

It does tend to deter people from responding when you do that.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:21 PM, RS Wood wrote:

Xeno wrote:

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

They have UV protection built in at manufacture.

Makes sense since they are rated for longer than it takes me to wear them
out.

That is precisely the idea.

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.

I forgot about the garage. Good point. Yes. I garage mine.
So UV protection is not for me.

You just have ozone issues in the garage. Look that one up, it's very
interesting.

the inbuilt tyre UV protection is typically good for 5 to 7 years.

That's more than twice the time I need!

That's the allowance for low mileage drivers.

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

It's a little more complex than that (last I spoke to my eye doctor), but
you're right, that ordinary glasses "usually" block a lot of UV.

I have worn glasses since I was 8 years old. I know all about it. Lots
of my non glasses wearing friends are now suffering from cataracts but,
so far so good, I'm not at 65.

The details are that they recommend a UV coating for *some* of the
materials, but they know all that so when I'm buying glasses, that's when I
ask (because I don't remember without looking it up).

--

Xeno

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:59:13 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

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.

I (generally) buy then at roughly 100000klm and drive them another
100 or so - generally with VERY little repairs and problems.The
current one was over 10 years old with 54000 KM - now up to 112000 and
I plan on keeping it another year or two. My wife would like a newer
car. Likely won't end up putting it over 200,000km - possibly not
over 150,000.

I bought my truck at 307000km and 16 years of age. 354000km on it
now, with only very minor issues. Still original rear brakes and just
about everything else. 47000km in 5 years - so it's not heavily used
and I hope to keep it going at least another 5 years.

My cars have always been reliable and virtually trouble free because I
stay ahead of them.

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:35 PM, RS Wood wrote:

Xeno wrote:

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.

You *can* measure warp with a dial indicator if you control the centerline
precisely, but nobody sane would do it that way.

I'm only speaking logic. If you have a head that you need to know if it's
warped, would you use
a. a dial gauge or
b. a flat benchtop with a feeler gauge?

Pick one.

Use to check for warp every time.

With a dial gauge?
Or a flat bench and feeler gauge?

I'm not saying it's hard to check warp (heck, people do it for heads all
the time I suppose). I'm just saying that warp doesn't happen for the most
part in street cars (I already have a half dozen references) and yet
*every* idiot out there *thinks* his rotors warped.

Warped rotors will cause steering shimmy but not brake pumping. I
haven't seen many but I have seen some.

Every time I asked anyone to prove it, they *said* all sorts of bullshit,
but they can't even tell me *how* they'd prove it. If they use a dial
gauge, for example, while the rotor is on the vehicle for example, then I
have to wonder how to respond because that just proves my point.

Nobody who ever said their street rotors warped ever supplied proof.
They all are bullshit artists.


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.

Measuring it is trivial if you have a bench and a feeler gauge.

But show me a single picture on the entire Internet that shows someone
measuring a street rotor for warp.

Just one.

Now show me the bullshit of someone saying they measure warp all the time.
(HINT: We don't enough space on the Internet for the bullshit references.)

There has never been a topic more filled with bullshit than rotor warp, and
all the "experts" who claim they measure it and yet can't show a single
picture of anyone on the planet doing that (not themselves either) for a
street rotor.

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.

I give up.

--

Xeno