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

I only really started learning *after* I completed my apprenticeship - and I've never stopped learning ever since.

--

Xeno

Wouldn't work here. My wife is anal about dust.

--

Xeno

I have a TV, I also have cable. They are for my wife.

I watch docos, etc on the internet. I prefer to schedule my own viewing.

--

Xeno

That is the easiest providing you have a good understanding of the underlying systems, possess a good range of diagnostic equipment and, finally, know how to use it. For judgemental issues, know first what is

*normal*, then you can easily recognise *abnormal*.

--

Xeno

snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...

What about suspenders?

--
Tekkie

news:ec4MB.70902$ snipped-for-privacy@fx44.iad...

Pantyhose - her knees go up and down while you're shagging her.

You stop learning only when you're dead.

I learned a LOT in this thread, particularly about WHY engines last forever, and why exhausts last forever, and why bearings last forever, and why ball joints last forever.

That's all good.

I didn't learn a thing on rings that I didn't already know though. :)

I'm all prepared to learn how the metallurgy or shape of rings is different nowadays versus yesteryear, but I haven't seen any reference that shows even the slightest improvement over the years.

It might be there, but saying it's there isn't the same as it being there. Proof in logic is always very simple.

If you think FWD is all about handling, then "your" logic should have a ton of references to back it up.

If you think slotted rotors make any real difference on the street, then you should be able to find a ton of reference that proves that (and not some EBC marketing bullshit).

If you think rotors warp in street use then you should be able to find a ton of references to back up your logic.

On any topic you see me take a stand on, it's not "my" logic but the logic that has tons of references that back it up. Witness the fact that I gave you a ton of references on rotor warp.

Now I understand that people don't think things through, so I understand the 20-year-old kid who thinks FWD is all about handling because he falls for the marketing bullshit. I understand all that.

But if you're over 70, you should have figured out that marketing is almost all bullshit and very little logic by now.

You're not a young kid anymore. Logic has to show up sometime in your life. It just has to.

I don't know everything and I actually don't know much but I use logic on it all and I've been on car forums for decades, where there always young kids who fall for the marketing bullshit every time.

Not only do they fall for the marketing bullshit about FWD, rotor warp, drilled rotors, pad friction, and so on, but they also desperately want to BELIEVE the marketing that their car is special.

I can't count the number of "red" coolant "blue" coolant threads there are from kids on Toyota and BMW forums respectively who want to desperately feel that their engines are somehow special and therefore they require special fluids (when water works as well).

These are all age-old arguments along the lines of "what oil" that I'm just sick of. So it shows here and I get cranky, especially last night.

You completely whoooshed on what I said, which is that I'll believe anything if someone proves it. Anything. I believe in gravitons for heaven's sake, and string theory, and that spacetime is warped by mass.

I'll believe anything if someone has a logical argument for it. But if their "logical" argument is that Detroit came out with FWD for handling reasons, not only is that illogical by failing every logical argument known to mankind, but it's nothing new. It's the same crap the 18 year old kids spew on the car forums.

It's the lack of logic I decry.

The whole brake warp idiocy suffers from the same complete lack of logic. So does the drilled versus solid rotors.

If people actually followed their own logic, they'd be forced to undertand, but they don't.

Take octane ratings for example, which we haven't covered. Do you know how many times I've heard morons tell me that there is a lot of octane in gasoline? Do you want to know how many times I hear people say they put the high-test into an engine that isn't spec'd for resistance to knocking and they declare they get better performance and mpg?

Morons all follow their own convoluted logic but it always stops short of finding a reference that backs them up.

That's why here, I kept asking for reference, which I *knew* would never exist because I could logically see the fallacy that they emotionally cannot.

Mind you I don't take names. I just don't. If a post says something stupid and it happens to be from my mother, I'll call the post out for it. And if the post says something intelligent and I happened to have reamed that person five minutes prior for idiocy, I'll thank them and congratulate them.

You *should* know people like me. We're called logical people.

We don't believe only in Marketing Bullshit. I *hope* you know people like me.

Dear God. I hope.

I'm into biomedical engineering.

I disagree but I understand why you say that.

You would presume that the dealer knows the most about the car. That hasn't been my experience.

The parts guys are horrendously bad and the service guys marginally better.

I don't think it stems from ignorance as much as not caring.

This is mostly Toyota and BMW I'm talking though, so maybe your dealer is a different brand.

Being a diagnostician has always been the challenge. How many times have we seen people throw parts at the problem? That works. For older cars (20 years) it might even be a good idea.

Diagnostics is sometimes easy and sometimes hard. It's always hard when you don't fully understand how the system works.

It's a lot easier in some cases, especially when you understand how the system works.

The hardest things to diagnose are the intermittent's that only happen while moving at speed.

Rotors warp in street use all the time when the kids at the chain store use impact wrenches instead of a proper torque wrench to take tires off and put them back on.

And of COURSE the chain store blames the driver, the tires, the phase of the moon, for it. "You must be going over potholes too hard."

--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I don't have a TV but the kids have monitors for their consoles which, I guess, could be used as a TV if we had an antenna or cable - but we don't.

I get my news off the radio when driving and the Internet and my phone, which is better than TV because I can skim pretty fast (that's one thing I'm better at than the average person for some reason. They had me in a special speed-reading class when I was a kid and the government funded them, and I went to an ivy-league school before completing high school - where speed reading came in handy there also).

Point is that TV is too slow for me. The data doesn't come in hard and fast.

I liked that someone posted a paper for me to read, but the problem with that paper was that I finished it, and then read it again, and then I had to wonder what kind of logic *they* were using.

The paper didn't prove a single thing of what they implied it would.

It irks me that people aren't logical.

It's ok. You were implying that I'm stupid because I don't watch TV. That's ok. I don't take *anything* personally. What irks me the most is when people can't learn, like with the rotor warp or the friction materials or the real reason for FWD, etc., because they all fall prey to marketing bullshit.

That irks me and I get cranky. You can't imagine how many "blue coolant" threads there are on the BMW forums, for example, or "red versus pink" on Toyota. Just like with the drilled/slotted marketing bullshit, there are people who tend not to use logic and there are people who use logic.

In the end, I should just plonk those who can't handle logic because I can't fix them. They want to believe in marketing bullshit so badly that they'll believe that an iPhone can do everything an Android phone can do, and that's just marketing bullshit. It can't. Anyone knows that who can think logically. But they can't.

The good news is that I don't take names. I don't even look at whom I'm responding to. So he can say something stupid and I'll tell him that's stupid and the next he can say something logical and I'll commend him for using his brain.

I'm very well read. As are many people who have multiple higher degrees and who are many (many) decades old.

In the days of yore, people respected the sage wisdom of their elders. :)

I don't have anything against TV. My only point is that people always bring up that they have better use for their time than changing oil which is where that issue came up.

I said I take my sweet time changing oil and someone said the cliche that they have better use for their time which always means the same thing because they don't use logic when they say it.

There is only one person on this planet who can make that argument and that's a person who NEVER does anything but one thing in their entire life (sort of how they say Bernard Montgomery was). Those people who have one and only one interest in their entire lives are the only people who, logically, can say what I was responding to.

Anyone else, e.g., someone who watches TV for even one hour a month, has no business, logically, making that idiotic argument about not having time to change their oil.

YOU are the one who brought in all the merits of watching TV. Not me.

And then you argue with me for responding to YOUR issues. You're not being logical here.

I watch a *lot* of stuff on the net, so, I can see a lot of how it's made.

You failed the simplest logic test. Someone posited that piston rings are far better now than in days of yore. I simply asked for proof.

The only proof that came out was a high-school level paper where some kid doing a thesis (yes, I know it wasn't for high school but it may as well have been) with lots of pretty pictures. Whoever proposed it was wowed by all the pretty pictures, but clearly they didn't *read* the paper because I did and it said nothing of the sort.

Now did I complain that they wasted my time? No.

I simply responded with logic.

What you seem to hate, is logic. Why?

Interesting. Makes sense. Are gears prevalent? If not, is the main reason the cost?

We covered that in the car forums about three decades ago, where you have to wonder how anyone could say what you just said.

I haven't *looked* at the problem you speak of for more than 30 years, but let's take it step by step in really big steps here.

1. How many footpounds *can* you torque a lug nut to before the bolt snaps?
2. Let's put *that* amount of torque on ONE of six bolts, shall we.
3. A rotor isn't solid, but let's assume a solid rotor for a moment.
4. How much torque would it take to *bend* a solid rotor?

QUESTION FOR YOU THAT WE ASKED 30 YEARS AGO OF OTHERS: Q: How much torque on one bolt would it take to bend a rotor?

Correct. The "service" is more than checking pads. It's PRIMARILY making sure all moving/sliding parts are free - and knocking off any rust scale build-up on the edges of the rotors.

a hand full of loose nuts and bolts thrown into closed body sections by disgruntled union workers during "job action" was the worst one I had to deal with - AMC in '72??

A friend found a full can of beer inside e tire that wouldn't balance

- I believe it was a GM in the sixties? Early in the canned beer era, anyway.

Depends what you mean by "how long does it typically last?"

Timing sets on OHV engines typically wouldn't totally fail at under

100,000 miles. Most of those sets were used in the days when cars were junked at about that mileage. Alot of those cars were junked because the timing set failed.

But I'd guess timing set wear would retard cam timing around 1/2 to 1 degree every 10,000 miles. If we set an arbitrary failure spec of, say 3 degrees, then the set would have gone out at 30 to 60,000 miles. Of course, the car would run even if the camshaft were retarded more than this and the driver usually became acclimated to the poorer performance and gas mileage.

I don't know. My car requires belt replacement every 100,000 miles or six years. I replaced the belt at eight years and it looked perfect. There's no significant timing change as the belt ages, until it fails. An insignificant number fail before the required maintenance time.

I don't know what you're getting at. Most US pushrod engines drive the cam with sprockets and a chain. A few used gears. A few antique motorcycles used tower shafts and bevel gears. Maybe some auto engines? dunno.

Pushrod engines can be interference engines. Not sure what you're getting at.

Easiest belt replacement I ever did was on an early Fox body Mustang with the 2.3 liter 4. Take of the drive belts, take off the timing belt cover, swap the belts. With some practice and preperation, it would be a clean, 15 minute job.

Much easier and cleaner than replacing a chain timing set!!

Camshaft timing.

Belts became important when Overhead cams became important. A worn chain in a cam in block engine has, off the top of my head, 10 links between the crank sprocket and the cam sprocket. What about a OHC motor? Say 30 links? 10 worn links might retard cam timing 5 degrees. What about 30 worn links?

Bullshit. Here in Chicago, traffic flows much better in the snow than it did 30 years ago. In fact, I haven't seen a car stuck in the snow in at least a couple of years.

Stuck RWD cars used to impede rush hour traffic on a routine basis. Nowadays, I haven't been late to work because of the snow in those two years.

Or, maybe it's the FIRE OF MARKETING HELL that's taking care of the snow. Either way, I'll take it.

I know. The "donut in a snowy parking lot" crowd is almost extinct.