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.
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.
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
BTW, I'm not talking about 124mph fade tests as shown here by GM engineers:
I'm talking legal normal street driving speeds because we're not talking racing here.
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.
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
------ 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?
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)
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.
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.
FG is fine as long as that's as good or better than OEM.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I used to do it for a living. I didn't derive the same exquisite pleasure that you seem to do.
I know about that tool but I have never needed to do ignition timing in that manner. There are usually easier ways.
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.
Makes sense since they are rated for longer than it takes me to wear them out.
I forgot about the garage. Good point. Yes. I garage mine. So UV protection is not for me.
That's more than twice the time I need! :)
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).
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.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.