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

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

They control the spark timing to prevent detonation and pre-ignition.
The small amount of combustion detonation sufficient to trigger the
knock sensor serves to remove potentially harmful combustion chamber
deposits.

Now that's an interesting concept!

If my bimmer requires higher-octane fuel, and if I add lower-octane fuel
instead, and if I can induce pinging, then the moment that the engine
pings, it vibrates "just enough" to shake loose carbon deposits (until the
engine timing is retarded to eliminate the pinging).

I have never heard of that, but, it kind of sort of makes sense.
Is that what you're implying can happen?

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

In the emissions world, a longer zap is what you need. A short zap can
lead to a misfire so that's a no no. In order to get a longer term
spark, there arose a need to go to high energy ignition systems.

Thank you for correcting my assumption.

So it's a higher voltage zap for a longer period of time.

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

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

Positive crankcase ventilation systems were the start of the
improvements that led to long oil life, hence longer engine life. Add to
that better metals, better combustion processes, fuel injection,
computer control, electronic ignition systems.

I see what you mean now.

Keeping the gas and combustion deposits out of the oil has to work.
Of course, so does changing the oil (and SB->SN oil quality).
And polyetheramine detergent in the gasoline.

> Getting rid of the carburetor was a big improvement.

Until this thread, I had not realized that the cylinder wall was being
washed with gasoline, but it must have been because that's what a choke
essentially does, and certainly what the accelerator pump did.

 

[RS Wood]

rickman wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which was my point.

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

No, it's not.+AKA- It's still the same steel that lasts around 4 years.

Hmmm, Last car I had for 8 years, never touched the exhaust system.

I'm with you on the exhaust.
It's a non-maintenance part nowadays.
But we *all* had to deal with exhaust in the days of yore.

So kudos to the EPA for forcing stainless steel into the mix!

PS: I wonder how "Midas Muffler" stays afloat?

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

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

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

Get it sorted yet?

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

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

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

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

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 11/5/2017 9:11 AM, RS Wood wrote:

Xeno wrote:

I have Toyotas precisely because they have a chain.

I have to agree with you that if I knew a vehicle had a belt, and
especially if it was an interference engine, for me, that car would be
nearly worthless.

I'd never buy one. Built in hefty expense.

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

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

 

[RS Wood]

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.

 

[rbowman]

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

Xeno wrote:

I have Toyotas precisely because they have a chain.

I have to agree with you that if I knew a vehicle had a belt, and
especially if it was an interference engine, for me, that car would be
nearly worthless.

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

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

 

[rbowman]

On 11/4/2017 10:36 PM, RS Wood wrote:

rbowman wrote:

For a Healey with multiple SUs 'tuneup' was very apropos. I never had
the fancy gauges so I'd just make sure they were whistling in tune.

All you needed for a tuneup on a motorcycle, at least my Japanese bike of
the time, was a screwin dial gage for the number 1 cylinder and a buzzer
for the points to let you know when they opened.

Nothing fancy needed by way of tools other than that.

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

 

[RS Wood]

The Real Bev wrote:

So anyone who *thinks* rotors warp, is an idiot.

It might have happened a little on my mom's (end eventually mine) 88
Caddy. Slight vibration when braking, but they felt OK. Until 2 of the
calipers seized 8 years later, of course :-( POS, I'll never own
another GM product.

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

Anyone who says a street rotor warped isn't following their own logic.

It's like people who point out studies that cellphone use is as dangerous
as kicking a sleeping rhino, therefore cellphone use while driving causes
accidents.

They don't even follow their own logic when they say stuff like that.

Hence, if someone suggests your rotors warped, keep your eye on them, and
slowly at first, just like you would with a sleeping rhino, step backward,
slowly, slowly, then a bit faster, and faster, and when you think you're
far enough away, turn around and run like a banshee!

These looked like a high-school first-time lathe project. Each of the
steel projections on the backing plate had dug out its own trench.

Look up the spec for grooves. It's enormous.
I'm not saying grooves and gouges can't fail a rotor.
I'm saying they have to be the size of the Grand Canyon to exceed specs.

What fails rotors the most (by far) is thickness.

Godawful noise, but the brakes still worked fine so I figured I could
wait another month :-( (Not the Caddy, this was a 68/9 LTD.)

Some pads are rated EE for cold/hot friction.
Guess what steel on steel friction is?
Yup. E.

 

[RS Wood]

Xeno wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RS Wood]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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

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

And it's not handling.

 

[RS Wood]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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

You're completely right.
There is one and only one reason the manufacturers put in FWD.

And it's not handling.

However, I would have thought the cost saving was a *lot* more than $50.
Are you sure it's not closer to $1000?

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

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

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

For example, in the olden days, how many rotted out "mufflers" did you
replace compared to today?
No lead and phosphorous in the gas makes a BIG difference - as does
more complete combustion. Stainless steel doesn't hurt either.

Yet there is a lot more aluminum in engines nowadays.

I don't see how the lead matters although we all went through the phase
where we switched from leaded cars to lead-free cars and had to change
pumps in the process.

I still don't see how the *gas* has anything to do with engines lasting
longer. Maybe it does, but I don't see the connection.

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

 

[RS Wood]

rbowman wrote:

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

I just blew the dust off my tuneup toolbox (which is built like a vault).
<https://i.imgur.com/15legK6.jpg>

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

And this yellow screw-in dial gauge for the #1 cylinder in mm-before-tdc:
<https://i.imgur.com/qkPfJ8e.jpg>

 

[RS Wood]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I still don't see how the *gas* has anything to do with engines lasting
longer. Maybe it does, but I don't see the connection.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RS Wood]

rbowman wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

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

I don't disagree that the carburetor is gone, thank God, but it's still in
airplanes and they seem to do fine with them (small planes that is).

While EFI is great stuff, I don't see that the longevity of an engine is
dependent on the fuel volatilization method.

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

Rust and corrosion control has come SO far, even since the eighties
that there is really no reason a car body should rust today - and the
bodies, although MUCH lighter, do last 2, 3, even 5 times as long.

This one I agree with you on, but I blame Detroit for making crap that they
*knew* was crap. Painting can't be all that sophisticated today compared to
yesterday. It just can't be. They just did a lousy job before, I think.

But then again, painting is a job I never did, so, maybe I didn't learn
anything!

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

Solvent paint is gone in favor of water based. Now your car is
accurately covered by a robot rather than a guy with a hangover. Up to
about 1923 cars were painted with a brush.

 

On Sunday, 5 November 2017 14:08:18 UTC, RS Wood wrote:

Xeno wrote:

Also some logic probes.

You're the second one to mention a "logic probe", which I think I used in
the early 70's for Texas Instruments TTL circuits.

But not for cars.

I'm not sure what you mean by "logic probe" for a circa 50s, 60s, 70s car.
Do you have an example on the net?

They won't be any use for that era of car They were too illogical.


NT