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

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:03:55 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 6/11/2017 2:28 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
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.

The go with any Mitsubishi timing chain system was to use *only*
Mitsubishi genuine spares. None of the aftermarket crap was up to spec.

The oem stuff was crap too - and the biggest problem was Chtysler
didn't encourage people to change oil on the "extreme" schedule.
Changing the oil often with good oil extended the lifespan
significantly - but they were still trouble with a capital T.

Can't sell a Mits around here - even with their extreme warranty
every dealership around here has failed.

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:52 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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.

It is the stratified charge that *removes* the possibility of
detonation. You can only generally get detonation with homogeneous charge.

--

Xeno

 

[Xeno]

On 6/11/2017 5:53 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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

That depends entirely on *where* you adjust that camber on the strut.

--

Xeno

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:16:20 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 5/11/2017 8:19 AM, RS Wood wrote:
clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Oh? used to be the rings and bearings, oil pump, lifters, and half
the other moving parts in an engine required replacement within 60,000
miles.

I hear you that engines used to last only about 100K miles in those days,
but is that true.

Are engines really far more reliable today?
Why?

Is it because they're mostly Japanese?

And the fuel and ignition system parts in less than half that.

I do agree that PCV valves and condensers and points and carbs required
maintenance basically yearly or every two years at the longest.

Now, they're "almost" lifetime parts because they don't exist.

The fuel system *still exists*. It just no longer looks like a carburetor.

Even timing CHAINS and GEARS often required replacement in roughly
that time frame. I replaced LOTS of GM timing sprockets long before
60,000 miles - and that was a lot more work than replacing a timing
belt.

I'll agree with you that engines seem more reliable today than in
yesteryear.

But why?

Technology, pure and simple. And competition from OS makes.

What's the magic that makes a 150K-mile engine into a 300K-mile engine?

The timing chains on Mitsubishi (Chrysler) 2.6 engines seldom made
100,000 km (60,000 miles) if you followed the "normal" oil change
schedule - and they were a LOT of work to change.

They were underrated for the task. It's something that immediately came
to my notice the first time I did a timing chain change on one.

The problems they had with lubrication to the balance shafts didn't
help the bicycle chain they had driving them and the oil pump

That's bad.
I have never replaced a timing belt or a timing chain.
And I've gone well over 150K miles on cars with chains.

A decently rated timing chain should be good for 200k miles at the
least. That would see most engines out.

They are a LOT easier to access than they used to be on many
engines. Transverse engines make EVERYTHING harder to change - even
on an old Mini.

I never had a FWD car in my life.
Nor a 4WD.

I've had all sorts. I prefer FWD.

Luckily, 2WD RWD cars spread out the "stuff" in manageable ways.

There are a lot of engines that I can change a timing belt on in less
than 2 hours - even on my driveway.

I don't even do an oil change in 2 hours. I take my sweet time.

I think for a home mechanic, time only matters when the car is still on
blocks on Monday morning when you have to get to work (if you still work).

Otherwise, time isn't the issue.

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

I actually enjoy doing some of it - been 26 or 27 years since I did
it for a living - in my retirement as long as I have place to work, I
don't mind.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:28 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
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!


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.

And only a total fool buys everything on the net. I can generally buy
off the shelf for close to the same price, with no hassle returns and
I get to see-feel EXACTLY what I'm buying.

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.

Can't even BUY Brembo for my daughter's car.

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.

Not in the real world. On a large percentage of rotors doing it your
way is totally impossible. And my way (the industry standard) I can
measure warpage/runout ON THE CAR and know if it's a problem before
taking ANYTHING apart beyond moving the rim.

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.

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

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

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.

Really crappy system - sorry.


I've worked on everything from a moskovitch to a Rolls, with Jags,
Rovers, Toyotas, Fiats, Ladas, VWs, Nissans as well as just about
every North American brand

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.

I'm talking in general - not the limited vehicles of your experience.

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 in more than 2 places -

- 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.

No I'm not. Seen it many times

(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?

Watch the needle move.

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*.

The internet doesn't show EVERYTHING. What you know comes from the
web. What I know comes from tears in the trade (including teaching the
trade)

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.

That is totally dependent on how much warp. And what, other than
"warp" will cause a rotor to develop "runout" if it is totally true
when installed.

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

Ond I've dome them all at least once.

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.

You have references I have experience.

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

Reality defies 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

Only the stop-tech article is written by a pro (Can't open the
raybestos link so it's useless)

The rest could be written by you - same level of cred. They are
written by enthusiasts who have read articles.

They are correct in most of what they say - but real warpage DOES
exist, because not all rotors are properly manufactured and stress
relieved and heat treated - like the problem Toyota had in the early
'80s, and many of the "crap" rotors in the aftermarket - as I have
explained before. In the "ideal world" they would never warp. Also,
not all rotors spend their life in "normal" conditions - other
problems in the braking system, or abuse, can cause a lot more heat
than normal driving - which is why the accurate stement is:

"Under normal operating conditions, properly manufactured and
installed brake rotors very seldom actually WARP. Poor quality rotors
can warp, as can rotors that are severely overheated due to abuse or
certain braking system falures. When you experience brake pulsation,
actual brake rotor warpage is UNLIKELY to be the problem - but
stranger things HAVE happened. Uneven friction material transfer due
to either poor intial bedding of the pads or improper use of the
brakes is much more likely, and some brake pads are more prone to
causing these issues due to their composition. In areas where winters
are more severe and salt is used on the roads some pad compostions are
more likely to cause problems - particularly the hard-spotting and
pitting of rotors due to localized overheating caused by uneven
friction material transfer. Many brake problems tend to be regional in
nature for this reason. Rustout of cooling fins of a rotor, for
instance, would be unheard-of in arizona or alabama, but fairly common
in the northeat and the "rust belt".


NEVER say never and ALWAYS avoid always.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:30 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

Xeno wrote:

Any scoring on a rotor will fail it. As you say, there might be less
than 50% of the pad surface in contact with the rotor surface. No way
will that bed in properly. You will get localised overheating both on
the pad and on the rotor.

I'm not gonna argue vehemently because, in practice, while I've seen those
"wavy" rotors too, my rotors tend to be smooth so I don't deal with
"scoring".

However, anyone who says "any scoring of rotors will fail it" has NOT looke
up the manufacturer's spec for scoring tests.

I have. Long ago.

The result was shockingly huge.

I don't remember the actual number but I remember being shocked at how huge
it is. Something like tens of thousanths of an inch in width huge.

We're talking Grand Canyon in rotors.

I may be wrong but if someone says "any" scoring, that's just preposterous.
Let's see a manufacturer's spec for anyone who says that.

Sorry. It's just not logical that 'any' scoring fails a rotor.

ANY mechanical damage fails the rotor on DOT test. Some smoth wear is
allowed - but you NEVER install new pads on rotors that have an uneven
friction surface because it is virtually impossible to properly bed
the new pads to the uneven rotor withot localized overheating

At the price of rotors today even on your Bimmer, it just is not
worth it. The pads cost more than the rotors on MOST vehicles today.
No reputable shop will do it because comebacks are expensive - and
real mechanics KNOW the comebacks will happen if they do something
stupid like installing new pads on badly worn rotors.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:32 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:

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?

I wish I could remember when I stopped noticing it. I might have done a
hard stop to test whether the seat belts were still working properly...

It's impossible to diagnose brake-related judder/shudder/vibration on the
Internet - but - most of the time - the cause is the simplest most obvious
reason.

You drive hard on the highway and then stop hard at the bottom of an exit
ramp at a light where you sit there with your foot on the brake for a
period of time.

Guess what happens?

For a hard-to-understand reason, the teeeniest tiniest pad imprint tends to
grow over time. I don't really understand why, but it does. It gets almost
imeasurably larger over time, until you finally feel it while braking at
speed.

Not hard to understand at all. Uneven friction causes uneven heating,
and localized overheating causes enhanced friction material transfer -
which just cascades.

What's the solution?
Simple.

SHORT TERM: Scrape that deposit off.

Short term? Gently re-bed the pads. Works high percentage of the
time if you don't allow it to get progressively worse to the point you
get cabide inclusions in the rotors.

LONG TERM: Change your braking habits.

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.

Ha. My $25 Casio atomic solar watch has been providing accurate time
since 2008 with no attention whatsoever. The beautiful 195x Omega
Seamaster is sitting in a box somewhere because it needed to be cleaned
every couple of years. Apparently the lubricant breaks down -- it
doesn't seem that dirt could get into a waterproof watch. I guess it
was accurate, I didn't have anything to check it against but the nice
lady on the phone who told me the time.

I have a few Rolex watches (most received as gifts).
They suck at keeping time.

The Rolex my dad bought when I was born (basic Tudor model - 1952)
has been rebuilt twice and still keeps extremely accurate time.

Also, ALL Rolex watches are made in Switzeraland - if it says Tolex
Japan it is NOT a Rolex (I have one of those)

For brake pads, the thing you care about is friction, cold and hot.
Nothing else is close in importance (although dusting is key for some).

So pick your pads by what the OEM pads were and try to meet or exceed that.
Most pads are around FF but every pad says what it is or it can't be sold
in the USA.

The (SAE J866a) charts are all over the net.
Just look for 'brake pad friction ratings' or something like that.

I drive roughly 4K miles/year and front pads on other cars generally
were OK for 40K miles (rear shoes double that). ~20K now. I'll
remember this just as long as I can

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/

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:34 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Adjustable wrenches should be banned as a menace to society.
They are totally fine for some applications - but NOT bolts on a
car!!

I was joking, but I still don't get why I see people use them all the time
when they slip too much because they fit so badly and only on a few edges
and they are huge compared to the right-sized box wrench so they don't fit
in a car.

I'm gonna start a "Save the bolts" non-profit political group to enact
stringent adjustable-wrench control laws!

One rounded bolt head is too many.

One skinned knuckle is one too many!!!

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:35 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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!!

Good point.
But I would rather have paid $100 for the tool to measure to know that I
twisted the bolt as far as it could go.

In the case of my rear camber, it was maxed out at 0 degrees, so, in
hindsight, I guess I could have done it sans any measurement at all.

You paid $90 to find that out. Consider it money well spent and move
on with your life.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:45 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

Frank wrote:

10W 40 would coke up faster than 10W 30, for what it's worth.

I just mentioned that, but I didn't look for references.
Do we all generally agree that the *spread* is what causes the coking?

0W30 has a spread of 30
5W30 has a spread of 25
10W40 has a spread of 30
30W40 has a spread of 10 <--- this has the lowest coking

Never seen 30W40 and 0W30 is a synthetic, so MUCH more coke resistant
than any conventional oil. Use the oil recomended by the manufacturer
- in the case of my Fords and my daughter's Hyundai that is a 5w20 or
0W20 synthetic oil - which I change twice a year, which is less than
10,000KM per change

If we agree on that concept of coking:spread, then the question is how much
does coking actually matter and under what conditions does coking matter?

No - "spread" does not cause coking. Heat and time does. The
"spread" in conventional oil means the viscosity index will break down
faster than a narrow spread - it will loose it's ability to maintain
viscosity at temperature due to "shearing" of the long-chain polymers
used in VI improvers.
High spread synthetic oils suffer a LOT less from this problem - and
in the vast majority of "coking" problems, the simple expediency of
changing the oil on the "severe service" schedule will totally
eliminate the ptoblem. Also, the use of the much more chemically
stable synthetic oil virtually eliminates the problem.

Even the "viscosity shear" is NOT a problem with 3000 mile or 5000km
oil changes.

EDxtended drain intervals have made garages more money, and cost car
owners more money, that the money saved on oil changes by a pretty
good margin.

Coking matters - it reduces oil flow which causes higher temperatures
which cause more coking, which further reduces oil flow, and if any of
those "diamods" brak loose they play hell on bearings, or can cause
pressure regulator valves to stick/leak, or tear the heck out of
timing chain tensioners.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:47 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

What doesn't last longer on a car nowadays?
Sometimes things like power lock actuators and some electrical
connections

I was watching a video by the MythBusters on how to get out of a car that
is sinking in a pond (pool in their case) where someone mentions to roll
down the windows ... heh heh ...

When's the last time you saw a roll-down window?

Every car I've owned except for my Mark 1 Mini has "wind down" windows
- just because they are electric doesn't change the fact they are
"wind down" and the window motors WILL run under water - at least
once.
The mini had "sliders"

 

[Steve W.]

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
3. Repair hassle is probably about the same

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

Depends on the particular engine. Most belts are around 60K change
interval, and many are not hard to do. Then you have vehicles with
chains, a good design will go 2-300K with no real issues. The shitty
designs fail around 50-60K and do more damage than just the valves if it
drops into the lower sprocket on a stick that rolls a bit.
GMs 3.6 and some others use a VERY light chain that stretches and breaks.


--
Steve W.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:49 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Snipped for brevity

I don't think I've seen rust on my cars in decades, but when I lived back
east with my Z cars, they rusted out like crazy.

So a lot of this stuff depends on the environment.

Corect

And they're still cheap as they always were.

Not sure if you call $14.99 each cheap - sometimes available on sale
for just under $10 (Autolite double platinum) or Motorcraft SP515
plugs at $20.75 Canadian (for Ford Triton 5.4)

I haven't bought plugs in a while.
I'm thinking half the price you're quoting.
But it has been a while.

Depends what you drive and what plugs it needs. Waste spark engines
basically require double platinum plugs (they fire in both polarities)
and 5.4 Tritons use a very specific specialized plug.

The cold starts USED to be the big issue with carbureted engines -
due to cyl wash, fuel dilution, and poor barrier lubrication - not so
much today.

I stand edified that carbs to EFI is a *major* factor in improving engine
life. Less liquid gas in the oil is a good thing for engine life.

Everthing else being the same - which is seldome the case, an engine
run at over 90% output for half it's life will not last as long as an
engine run at less than 30% output for over 75% of it's life.

Gearing matters.

If I have a Ford Ranger with a 2.5 4 cyl and one with a 4.0 V6 - and I
run them both at rated capacity on the highway under the same
conditions, the bigger motor will last longer / wear less than the
smaller engine - whether the gearing is different or not.

I don't believe it.
You don't have to. It's true -

A car engine is almost never run at full bore BHP.

My mini and my bug were run wide open almost all the time.
>And gearing makes a huge difference anyway.
and the final drive gearing can be identical between engines - and if
not the little engine is reving a lot higher. Gearing cannot change
the power output - only the road torque. You trade rpm for torque by
gearing.

Sounds good that bigger engines last longer but I don't believe it.
We'd need some facts.

Things like load. Sure - if like MOST pickups on the road today they
are never loaded or worked - no difference.

Exactly my point.
But if loaded - BIG difference.

If a car is just tooled around town with 1 or 2 people in it - no
difference. Neither one is ever being worked hard enough to hurt
itself.

Exactly my point.

Load that 2.4 liter PT cruiser with 4 adults and luggage for a 3 week
road trip - then drive it throgh the laurentians and back through the
appalachians and tell me it's not working like a sled dog.

Now if you use the truck at full bore BHP to pull an airplane to takeoff
speeds on the airport runway, then the bigger engine should last longer.

How about pulling a house trailer up 4th of july pass in idaho -
something like 13 miles of 5% grade - or up the Coquahala at Hope BC.

Now if you told me one engine had 10K cold starts and 20K short trips,
while the other only had 1K cold starts and had mostly long trips, then
*that* would be a factor in engine life.

Take that TOTALLY out of the equation - I said "all other things
being equal".

I agree with you that we'd have to compare the life of a big engine veruss
a small engine in a vehicle where they both do the same things which we can
assume are normal things.

If you pull redwood trees uphill, then I can see bigger engines lasting
longer.

But if you just tool around town, like I do, I can't imagine that a bigger
engine has any longevity over a smaller engine all else being equal.

Gears make a bigger difference.

They make a bigger difference on my bicycle which I tool around town
on - - -

The amount of repairs I've needed to do an ANY of my vehicles in the
last 20 yeats is SO small "getting at" the engine is not much of a
concern to me.

But have you needed to do any of these repairs?
1. painting
Just some touchup where the tinted clearcoat pealed on the 02 Taurus
2. alignment
Nope
3. replace/rebuild engine (or major work)

Nope - not since replacing the heads on the 88 New Yorker 3.0 liter
Mitsoshitty engine
>4. clutch replacement (or major work)
Paid my brother to replace the clutch when I bought the truck because
I was busy earning money
>5. tire mounting and balancing
Nope - I paid to have my Haks and Michelins installed for the truck,
and the Tiger Paws on the Taurus. Bought the used snows on rims for
the taurus (virtually new)
>6. timing belt
Last one I did on my own car was the '81 Tercel. Haven't had a belt
that required replacement since

To me, these half-dozen repairs almost nobody does at home, but I *wish* I
had done at home when I had the chance.

Most people will never require 1,3, or 4 - and very few will require
#6 either since so many have gone back to chains

My recommendation to a kid of 30 or 40 years old would be to *do* them when
he has the chance, just as I'd tell him to climb that mountain he always
wanted to climb.

Only do it if theyenjoy it - rather climb that mountain in the time
it would take to do the repair - and do what you do well and get paid
well for - and use that money to pay the guy who does that job well.
Thats what keeps the economy going.

When he gets older, he won't be able to do it anymore, and the economics of
the benefits will be less as he ages.

The actual economics / benefits are often less than you think when
all is said and done - - - Break off a bolt or a spark plug
(thinking Triton 5.4 here) and the cost goes WAY higher than paying
the guywho knows to do it right in the first place - - - - -

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:51 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

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?

Nope. They cost almost as much back then when the dollar was worth a
LOT more. Didn't have Chines tools pushing the price down, and the
volume up.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:53 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
wrote:

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.

Thankfully many customers felt differently when I was in the
dealership - where I made sure the customers got good value for their
money and their loyalty.
There are things the dealer KNOWS about the car that the average
mechanic may NEVER know - things to look for to prevent problems from
ocurring. - like making sure the diff vent valves on RWD Toyotas are
free every time the car is on the hoist - meaning you virtualkly NEVER
need to replace axle bearings and seals - which will leak quickly if
the vent sticks.

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

Some are - some are not. I had the highest customer retention of any
Toyota dealer in Canada - usually well over 100% - which meant we
regularly serviced more cars than we sold - even after they were out
of warranty.

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.

Not always true. I've found many parts are the same price or cheaper
at the dealer than at the local jobber - and cheaper than buying from
Rock Auto and payinf shipping and brokerage.

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.

A good independent and a good dealer can both come in handy. My
brother operated an independent shop for several decades (after
working for several dealers and independents) while I worked for both
dealers and insdependents

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.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:48:58 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
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!

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.

They only need to warrant it to the last converter and sensor.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:49:02 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
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?
As I posted earlier - a LOT.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:49:07 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
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?

It is high enogh to kill you if it hits you at the right point in the
heart-beat and actually flows through the heart (depends where you get
grounded) 100 miliamps can kill you as dead as 100 amps.

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:49:14 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
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.

No, chains stretch - belts don't. Belt timing is more accurate and
consistant. Belts are more efficient at transmitting power.
Belts are much easier and cheaper to replace

The real question for a repair group would be the main factors:
1. Reliability of chain versus belt
It can be pretty much a wash
2. Damage potential of chain versus belt
When a chain goes bad, it does more damage than a belt
3. Repair hassle of chain versus belt
A lot more hassle when a chain brakes.

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
Not necessarilly true
2. Both can ruin an interference engine if they break

Correct - and the cain causes more damage and is more expensive to
repair

3. Repair hassle is probably about the same
Nope - an order of magnitude worse with a chain

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

Belts - 60- 100 thousand Km in the past - some last a lot longer but
don't take the chance on an interference engine. an hour or 2 to
change it, and mabee 50 bucks for the belt vs 6 hours plus the cost
of tensioners and sprockets and chain (often over $200) for the chain
- which SHOULD last longer than 2 or 3 belts - but the average car
will only have the belt changed 3 times in it's lifetime

 

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:49:16 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>
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

Absoltely no biggy, on either count.
I like FWD. I like RWD. in NORMAL driving, there is basically no
difference - and the flat floor of a FWD is nice - and with the weight
of the engine over the drive wheels traction is snow is MUCH superior
to the traction of a rear wheel drive car with no extra weight in the
rear - - -

I've had my say on belts