What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never done?

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!

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.

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

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

In days of yore, yes, I have (because I bought junkyard tires until I had a bad experience and then never bought used tires ever again).

So in my today world, a tire lasts about 3 years or less. Never more. So at 3 years, do I really need to care about UV protection additions?

I have never in my life worn sunglasses or sunscreen or even bring an umbrella with me anywhere so I may not be the normal person.

I hike every single day outside off the trail (I get lost on the trails), and I wear Rachle hiking boots (heavy as bricks) for my feet, and TIG-welding gloves for my hands (lots and lots of poison oak) and I bring rapelling gear (figure 8 plus 100' of rope) because it's mountainous.

I never understood sunglasses. They're for wussies. :)

One problem with me understanding sunglasses though is that I wear glasses full time, so, I've *always* had glasses. Sure I've tried the idiotic prescription sunglasses but who wants to carry around two sets of glasses everywhere they go. Sure I've tried that idiotic color-changing coating, which is a POS and don't even get me started on it. Sure I've tried those flip on flip off magnetic overhangs which make me look like the dork I am.

In the end, I gave up on all that crap. I don't understand sunglasses.

I just don't. :)

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?

Yup. I know. Just one press on a gas pedal while looking into my sixties Chrysler New Yorker 4bbl Holley Carb would show a shitload of gasoline squirting into the intake manifold!

So I now UNDERSTAND something I had never thought about until this thread, which is that the amount of GASOLINE getting into the OIL is far lower with EFI than with carburetors!

Who knew? Perhaps all of you. But not me. Until now. Thanks.

I always knew cold starts wore out engines far more than highway miles. I never understood completely why.

I think just this one item ... condensed gasoline liquid ... which is we presume far lower with EFI than with carburetors ... is a biggie.

So EFI increases engine life. Kewl!

I love learning. Thanks.

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?

You've said "energy" before, where I discount that word because it's not necessarily a physical entity (although I know what you mean).

There is voltage and current. Together, that's wattage.

There's also time, which gives us things like kilowatt hours, which, I guess is what you mean by "energy"?

This is interesting because what you're saying is that the single smaller coil delivers more of what you call "energy" to the spark plug.

I think you mean watts though. Do you?

Thanks. So the "potential energy" (aka volts) is two to three times higher. If the current is the same, then the wattage is two to three times higher. If they also increased the current, then the wattage is a *lot* higher.

I'm getting your point though, which is that the ignition systems of today are "stronger" and "longer" (probably far higher wattage and duration) than those of yesteryear, which allows for a more reliable combustion of a leaner mixture, which keeps gasoline out of the oil.

Keeping gasoline out of the oil goes a *long* way to increasing engine life.

We're talking two different things:

1. Ignition timing on a motorcycle
2. Valve clearance adjustment on a motorcycle

Both of which I have done on multiple motorcycles, where the whole point of this thread is that just having done such things once is a *pleasure* because the inherent *understanding* of everything you say is there.

For example, the ignition timing on a motorcycle that I did was simple, but nothing like that of a car, in that I just put a light or buzzer or resistance meter across the points and screwed in a dial gauge into the number one cylinder, and adjusted the point plate so that the points opened at the specified xx mmm before TDC.

The valve clearance was just as easy, where I simply measured the clearance with feeler gauges and then replaced the old shim with a larger shim where the half-moon crescent-on-a-handle tool worked perfectly slid up under to depress the (rocker arm?) so I could remove the old shim and replace with a thicker shim.

My main point in this thread is that there is an exquisite pleasure that I derive from having done such things at least once, so that I can UNDERTSTAND what is it you speak about.

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

My main regret in such things is that I didn't do these jobs at home when I was a kid of 30 or 40 years old in the days of yore......

1. painting
2. alignment
3. replace/rebuild engine (including VCG and head gasket)
4. clutch replacement
5. tire mounting and balancing
6. timing belt (or chain)

I am positing that it would have costs an average of about two hundred dollars each for tools which is $1200 but that the labor costs alone for all those jobs is 10x that, so, cost isn't the issue.

I don't know WHY I never did those jobs. But I wish I had.

Oh yeah! I remember that tool! I used it on my 650 four stroke engine!

It was beautifully shaped, with a handle and a half-moon crescent. I just looked in my tune-up box, and found a bunch of other small tools tucked away under what I snapped a photo of ... but that lovely tool isn't there.

I haven't seen it in decades ... but it's somewhere. The fact you even *know* about that tool means you know what you speak of.

That's what I *love* about having done the job at least once! (Which is the whole point of this thread, after all.)

Taking an off-color example, if you never had sex with a woman, how could you possibly describe it accurately to someone else?

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?

Two vehicles that are worthless to me:

1. FWD
2. Belt

Some do. Some don't. Even within the same model. Depends on the engine chosen.

For example, here's a quote: "Toyota's 2.7-liter 3RZ-FE engine started in production in 1995 and was still used in 2011. There have been two variations of this motor. It was first used as an option in 1995 Tacoma to 2011. It was also used in the 4Runner from 1996 through 2000. It was used in the Highlander from 2009 through 2011."

Reference:

What are our choices?

1. Chain
2. Belt
3. Pushrod

Anything else?

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 chains last a *lot* longer in general than do belts, where if either one broke on an interference engine, expensive things can happen.

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.

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.

But my point is that none of that was *why* they build FWD cars.

They make 'em for one reason, and one reason only.

The tradeoffs are legendary, especially in a group that has to DRIVE them and REPAIR them.

I remember $1000 but they didn't pass that on to the consumer in toto.

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.

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.

I can spout marketing bullshit as well as anyone can. I just choose not to.

If you can find a scientific study that proves for street cars that a drilled/slotted rotor makes *any* difference over a solid rotor in braking performance, let me know.

I'm all about logic.

I've heard it all. Marketing bullshit is wonderful bullshit.

We're talking street cars here. Racing cars are nothing like street cars.

They drive on bald tires for heaven's sake! :)

Sometimes applying what works for racing to the street is good. But most of the time it's marketing bullshit.

As it is with drilled and slotted rotors. Besides, braking in cars is not happening due to the rotors anyway.

The friction coefficient of steel sucks. You need pads which have better friction ratings than the rotors have.

So pads are what matters. For fade, on street vehicles, mass is what matters.

If you can find a scientific study that proves for street cars that a drilled/slotted rotor makes *any* difference over a solid rotor in braking performance, let me know.

I'm all about logic.

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

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

Use to check for warp every time.

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

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

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

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

Compare measurements.

Depends on the warp severity.

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

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

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

Emission requirements.