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

On 11/07/2017 12:21 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
> The Real Bev posted for all of us...
>
>> > When's the last time you saw a roll-down window?
>>
>> Our 70 Dodge pickup has them. What you can't get is the stuff that
>> keeps the windows from rattling.
>
> Have you tried a place like Classic car parts? You may be able to get the
> weatherstripping or clips from them.

Probably. This was at least 10 years ago. We haven't driven it for a
couple of years now, so it's not a high priority :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
"Tough? We drink our urine and eat our dead!"
-- N. Heilweil

On 11/07/2017 03:25 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Especially if you have an old car/truck.
>
> Thanks for commenting on my hypothetical summary of WHY most of us don't do
> those five jobs that most of us don't do at home.
>
> 1. transmission (auto more so than manual) +knowledge
> 2. alignment +thinking
> 3. engine +time
> 4. tires +lazy
> 5. paint +skill
>
>> The one local shop that said
>> they could do it on the 1970 Dodge pickup couldn't. I found another
>> shop 20 miles away that said they could and actually did it -- I could
>> feel it in the vastly-improved steering afterward.
>
> Since I never did an alignment in the days of old, nor today, I have
> trouble feeling that inherently. I know most of my vehicles don't have
> caster, camber, and toe adjustments on all four wheels, so from that
> standpoint, alignment may be easier today.
>
> But why would alignment be harder in days of yore, than today?
> (I'm not arguing ... I'm asking.)

Not a clue, other than all the shops that said they couldn't do it. The
one who did it badly is a local race shop and was full of self-confidence.

>> I watched the guy do it. He used Channellocks during one of the
>> procedures and was amused when I called them water-pump pliers. Is
>> there an actual difference?
>
> That's an age-old question too (the name, not the use).
> Nobody has any business using them for alignment, but as for the name, I
> think we all come up with some kind of name for them.

Maybe he used them to bend a cotter pin. No idea. Whatever he did
worked, he can use whatever tool he wants!

> Channellocks is named by a particular brand, I think (although I use
> Craftsman brand pliers).

I know.

> The other is named by a particular use, although my bimmer takes a special
> tool to hold down the waterpump.
>
> There must be a good name for those slip-joint long-handled pliers that we
> can all agree on though.

Nobody ever has enough of them. I have at least 6 sizes, from the tiny
3" long ones to over a foot. A few duplicates. I'm especially fond of
the ones I found long ago while I was putting chains on -- they were
exactly the right tool to use to snug down the red thingy that folds
back and holds them together. Tough luck for the guy who left them!

Z-chains with the giant O-ring are just SOOOO much better than the ones
made of real chain.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Tough? We drink our urine and eat our dead!"
-- N. Heilweil

rbowman wrote:

> The first FWD cat I had was an Audi 100 that was renamed to the A6 in
> 1995. Go buy an A6 and get back to me on cheap. I guess the FWD variant
> is cheaper than the Quattro AWD.

Anyone who doesn't know why FWD exists by now, will never learn.

The only reason for FWD is profits.

You can continue to shoot the messenger.
But it doesn't change what is a fact.

Whether or not the user sees those profits depends a lot on Marketing,
whose job is to NOT let you see those profits.

The more they can sway you, the more you will pay.
Supply and demand doesn't follow technical logic.

Use logic some day in your life.

List the top ten best handling RWD sedans sold in the USA.
List the top ten best handling FWD sedans sold in the USA.

Tell me what you find.

Vic Smith wrote:

> I don't know why you keep saying cheap, but it doesn't make logical sense
> since most cars are FWD. If you mean all FWD cars are cheap, you're wrong.

There is only one reason manufacturers went to FWD cars.

Find a reference that claims otherwise.
You can't.

> Snow and rain handling FWD is better.
> Unless you put 3-400 pounds of sandbags in the trunk.

You have to separate "rain and snow" from "deep snow", where the difference
is immense. In deep snow, having an inordinate amount of weight over the
drive wheels helps - but in deep snow, you're not going all that fast so
it's not really all that useful - but it's nice to have weight over the
drive wheels.

But that weight that is over the drive wheels is not over the other wheels,
which makes your entire weight balance equation horrid when you're not in
deep snow. That's a big deal because the percentage of time you're not in
deep snow is astronomical compared ot the amount of time you drive in deep
snow.

As for lousy traction conditions (aka rain, snow, ice), the FWD and RWD
slide differently. FWD slams into the tree on the corner at the front
driver side fender while RWD hits at the rear quarter panel.

They slide differently.

You guys are all a bunch of bro-science aficionados since you seem intent
on justifying that which can't possibly be justified on the basis of logic.

There is one reason and one reason only for FWD, and it's not handling.
I don't even need to start discussing the fact that plenty of states never
see snow in their lives.

But you bro-science boys will try to defend the marketing bull**** to your
dying days so let's just leave it at the fact that you actually *believe*
that FWD is for handling.

OK. You keep believing that the best handling cars on earth are all FWD
cars.

Xeno wrote:

> I drive a FWD car because of the packaging arrangements, not the cost.

That's a perfectly logical reason to own a FWD car.

I commend you that it's not bro science trying to justify lousy weight
distribution and atrocious understeer.

>> Cheap is not a crime.
> So why make a big deal out of it?

Do you understand absolutely nothing in any given conversation?
Nothing?

The crime I said *many* times isn't that FWD is cheap.
The crime is something else.

If I have to explain the crime *again*, and *again* and *again* and
*again*, then you're just proving to me you're incapable of understanding
the simplest of concepts.

>> What's a crime is when you say you drive a FWD car for its handling, which
>> is exactly like saying you drive a dump truck for its handling.
>
> Dump trucks, laden, have incredible slip angles.
>
> When you talk about handling, you should be referring to slip angles.

Slip angle is critical, where people tend to increase the slip angle when
they get into a scary situation (or when purposefully drifting).

Handling is a *lot* of things, but you'll note I used the term "chronic
understeer" in the previous post that I think you're responding to.

There's also weight balance to consider and acceleration issues (e.g.,
liftoff understeer).

The simple summary is that it's incredibly difficult to have a well
handling FWD car, and if you do, it won't ever be close to cheap.

>> The only way you can support that argument is with bro science.
>
> No such an animal as bro science.

Exactly my point.

Everyone who tries to *justify* FWD based on their lies to themselves based
on the marketing myth has to use "bro science" since real science fails
them.

> When you talk about handling with nary a mention of slip angles, it's
> you who is relying on bro science.

It's more than slip angles.

There are many tradeoffs that FWD has with respect to RWD besides just
steering. There's generally better weight balance in RWD, distribution of
power and steering is better, weight transfer is better, power handling is
greater, even transmissions are better in RWD (because they can have larger
transmissions).

There's no other reason for FWD other than profits.

The other stuff that people claim is why they bought FWD just happens to
come with FWD as a bonus, which is the room inside the cabin and the
sliding straighter and tremendous unbalance of weight over the drive wheels
in deep snow.

Remember *why* FWD exists.

1. Bean counter comes up with great idea to increase profits $1000/car.
2. Marketing ponders how to "spin" it so the populace will buy it.
3. Marketing pushes bro science without noting the huge negatives.

Voila!
Yet another never-ending topic where idiots try to claim that high-octane
gas gets them better MPG, and that blue coolant is the only way to go if
it's a European car, otherwise red or pink is the way to go if it's an
Asian car, and, oh yeah, you bought FWD for its handling.

On 8/11/2017 2:00 AM, RS Wood wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> I owned Chrysler & Dodge, as you know.
>>
>> I never owned either of those two companies. I guess I was too poor.
>> What's it like to be a rich engineer company owner?
>
> You can insult me for explaining logic to you, but anyone here who knew
> those cars knows what I say is a fact, where it was so *easy* to snap a lug
> bolt that I lost more than one before I realized they're threaded backward.

I was taught to look at a thread if it was taking an unreasonable amount
of force to break the limiting friction. You obviously need to learn by
your mistakes. That is a great pity.
>
> Now, you can fault me for being stupid after the first one, and I admit, it
> never occurred to me that lug bolts were threaded backward on *one side* of
> the vehicle.
>
> But it happened, where I'm glad it did, because you want to know something?
> Lug bolts are *easy* to snap.
>
> You'll never permanently bend a typical rotor on that car with lug bolts.

You know this for a fact? Or are you guessing? I have seen it done.
>
>>> As you may know, the lug bolts, in those days, were reverse threaded on one
>>> side of the car.
>>
>> Yes, I did know that. Never snapped one off either - even as a kid.
>
> Then you never learned what I learned, which is that lug bolts are so easy
> to snap that you will never bend a rotor on that car with a lug bolt no
> matter how much torque you think you can apply.
>
What I learnt from 50 years in the trade is how much force a bolt needs
- relative to its size - the make its fixing secure. I learnt to use a
tension wrench, I learnt to look at thread forms, I learnt to *think*
first, then act.
>
>>> I snapped a few before I realized it (I was just a kid at the time).
>>
>> Never snapped one off either - even as a kid.
>
> Point is, that a rotor on that car isn't going to be bent by applying
> torque to a lug nut. You can avoid that logical fact all you want but it
> doesn't change that it's a logical fact.
>
Your *logical fact* doesn't explain why my experience shows it to be a
fallacy.
>>
>> Missed the imprinted *L* on the end of the stud, did you?
>
> Yes. I didn't even *think* that one side of the car was R and the other
> side of the car was L. I had cars before that, and cars after that, but
> only this one had reverse-threaded lug bolts and nuts - so I never tested
> lugbolt strength since then (which was in the sixties or maybe very early
> seventies as I recall).

*All* Chrysler products had a tendency to use LH threads on the LH side,
even their trucks. LH threads are not at all uncommon in the trade. It
all depends on circumstances so, when treading unfamiliar ground, it's
wisest to look first.
>
> Point is that it's so easy to snap a lug bolt on that car that you'll
> *never* get anywhere near the torque required to permanently bend a rotor
> with lug bolts no matter how much torque you apply to that car.
>
> If you can show some *other* car has superhuman tensile strength lug bolts,
> then let's look at your specs.
>
Look at the torques most *wheels* are tightened to, then compare that to
what maximum torque a lug of that size, tensile strength and thread form
is capable of and you will see the disconnect in your logic.

The term *rock ape* comes to mind when I think of broken off wheel studs.
>
>>> The amount of torque you need to *bend* a rotor would snap a lug bolt well
>>> before you ever got close to permanently bending a rotor.
>>
>> These vans;
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...4397562%29.jpg
>>
>> Had an integral front hub and drum. It was easily possible to warp the
>> drum purely by overtightening the wheel nuts. Why was that? Was the
>> casting designed by an engineer who was thinking logically that a bolt
>> would snap before the drum warped. Hey, he stuffed up big time.
>
> You don't provide enough data because we need to know a lot about the drums
> but we have been talking *ROTORS* all along, and not drums since we've been
> discussing disc brakes.

Drums, rotor, they all distort when wheel nuts are tightened unevenly or
are overtightened.
>
> I don't doubt drums suffer from similar issues than disc brakes but the
> entire geometry is immensely different (as you know) and besides, what
> matters first and foremost is the tensile strength of the lug bolts anyway.

See above.
>
> What's the typical torque applied to those lug bolts?

45 - 55 ft lb.

> What's the tensile strength of those lug bolts?

Go look it up. Look up the grade of bolt, the diameter and the thread
form form. All engineering books have appropriate charts. You want to
argue a point, you do the research. I used to teach the topic but I have
discarded all my class notes now.
>
> Without that basic information, we can't move forward on your drum brake
> example, even though we've been clearly talking disc brakes so far.

The issue applies to drums and discs. The effect felt by the driver will
differ somewhat but distortion will definitely occur.
>
>>> Doesn't anyone here think logically?
>>>
>> It's looking a lot like you don't.
>
> Classic argument which I've seen for fifty years, so it's not unexpected.
> Anyone faced with basic logic for the first time always *attacks* the
> messenger.

I have often been faced with illogical arguments dressed up as logic.
>
> The good news is that you will mellow, days, months, years, and maybe
> decades from now such that you'll think before you start trying to defend
> marketing bull****.

Having been retired for a number of years now, I consider myself very
mellow. It's the only reason I'm bothering to reply to your posts.

<snipped>

--

Xeno

On 11/7/2017 10:13 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> Use logic some day in your life.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass. All you can say is
cheap, cheap, cheap like a frigging sparrow.

rbowman wrote:

> You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass. All you can say is
> cheap, cheap, cheap like a frigging sparrow.

There is nothing wrong with cheap as long as you argue cheap when you buy
cheap.

You don't take a fat dumb smelly girlfriend because she gives a good
blowjob and then tell your friends she's gorgeous svelte and a rocket
scientist.

You simply smile in the morning when you meet your friends because you're
very happy and you know why you chose her in the first place.

Xeno wrote:

> I was taught to look at a thread if it was taking an unreasonable amount
> of force to break the limiting friction. You obviously need to learn by
> your mistakes. That is a great pity.

You can keep insulting me but that doesn't change the logical fact that you
can't put enough torque into a lug bolt/nut to permanently bend a rotor.

>> You'll never permanently bend a typical rotor on that car with lug bolts.
>
> You know this for a fact? Or are you guessing? I have seen it done.

We discussed this many decades ago when people first started discussing
rotor warp on the net and I don't know if it's archived in Google's
rendition of dejanews or not, nor do I remember if it was on a web forum or
even on a bulletin board, it was that long ago.

A mechanical engineer (Richard Kinch perhaps or maybe Bruce Hamilton, who
is a different kind of engineer as I recall perhaps?) went into all the
details which would make a college professor proud.

Suffice to say that I don't have proof and neither do you.
All we can use is logic.

Here's the logic:
1. If you *can* apply enough torque to a lug nut to permanently bend a
rotor, the you can permanently warp a rotor by torquing lug nuts
incorrectly.

2. Otherwise, you can't.

In addition, there's *this* bit of logic:
3. How much do they typically overtighten lug nuts in the shop? Maybe to
100 foot pounds, right?

Is 100 foot pounds enough to permanently bend a rotor?

You have proven you like to use insults.
I try to use logic.

> What I learnt from 50 years in the trade is how much force a bolt needs
> - relative to its size - the make its fixing secure. I learnt to use a
> tension wrench, I learnt to look at thread forms, I learnt to *think*
> first, then act.

You like to insult so that you can avoid using logic.
That's ok. I understand you.
Many people who argue bro science are that way.
It's ok.

All I care about is the logic of how you're going to permanently bend a
rotor with the amount of torque typically applied to a lug bolt, and even
if it's grossly overtorqued, how are you gonna not snap that lug bolt?

> Your *logical fact* doesn't explain why my experience shows it to be a
> fallacy.

Again, I understand you.
You're trying to defend bro science.

You can't find a *single* reference that backs up your bro science.
Not one.

So you bring up exactly 0 references to back up your point.

Hence, you're forced to use bro science to back up your point.
It's ok. It works for you.

But I gave you a half dozen references which directly refute your point.
You see, I've dealt with people like you for 30 or 40 years.

You're all the same.
You're attached to an idea that has no logic behind it.
So you come up with all sorts of bro science to back it up.

Nobody but you believes in your bro science.
But my facts and references will never convince you.

So until you bring in a reliable article that backs up your bro science,
let's stop discussing it because actual logic and your bro science don't
agree.

> *All* Chrysler products had a tendency to use LH threads on the LH side,
> even their trucks. LH threads are not at all uncommon in the trade. It
> all depends on circumstances so, when treading unfamiliar ground, it's
> wisest to look first.

Yup. I'm glad I did it because I learned a great lesson which you haven't
learned yet it seems.

1. People trust their intuition more than they trust facts contrary to
their intuition.

You trust your intuition that rotors warped, because your intuition trumps
facts that show that street rotors just don't warp (they don't get hot
enough to warp and you can't torque a lug nut or bolt down well enough to
make 'em warp).

When I was a kid, young and stupid, I trust(ed) my intuition on the
right-hand-rule for removing lug nuts on my 70's era Dodge, but my
intuition was only right 50% of the time on that vehicle.

>> If you can show some *other* car has superhuman tensile strength lug bolts,
>> then let's look at your specs.
>>
> Look at the torques most *wheels* are tightened to, then compare that to
> what maximum torque a lug of that size, tensile strength and thread form
> is capable of and you will see the disconnect in your logic.

You and I know that the torque of a lug nut is around 60 to 100 foot
pounds, depending on the spec. I think my Toyota lug nuts are about 84 foot
pounds, and I think the bimmer (which has lug bolts) is fewer than 10 foot
pounds greater than that (as I recall).

I could look it up, but we can use <100 foot pounds as a general rule.

> The term *rock ape* comes to mind when I think of broken off wheel studs.

I get that you're desperate to back up your bro science with anything you
can come up with, but let's just get back to logic and forget about the lug
torque, shall we?

I gave you a half dozen references which mention the myth of warped rotors.
Did you *read* those references?

If so, do you have any references which refute their findings?

> Drums, rotor, they all distort when wheel nuts are tightened unevenly or
> are overtightened.

I get that you're desperate.
I've seen this many times in the past 40 or so years discussing warp.

Let's get back to reference since they are publicly available and if they
sucked, someone would write about it.

I gave you a half dozen references that speak logical facts about warp.
Why don't you find a *single* reference, that mentions both sides of the
equation, and that concludes that warp *does* happen all the time on street
cars.

Bear in mind the temperature has to be enormous, but let's see what you
come up with to back up your very solid intuition.

>> What's the typical torque applied to those lug bolts?
>
> 45 - 55 ft lb.

Mine seem to be higher than that, so we can *double* your numbers, and
still be within a safe range, logically.

>> What's the tensile strength of those lug bolts?
>
> Go look it up. Look up the grade of bolt, the diameter and the thread
> form form. All engineering books have appropriate charts. You want to
> argue a point, you do the research. I used to teach the topic but I have
> discarded all my class notes now.

I blurted out my coffee when you said "go look it up!".
I know you better than you know you.

Do you see what you just did?

YOU are making the argument that rotors warp under typical lug bolt
torques, and I'm saying that's a red herring since street rotors don't warp
under far worse conditions than that - and I provided a half dozen
references which proved that.

Then you bring up bro science, and then you ask me to disprove *your* bro
science.

I know you very well because anyone who trusts their intuition more so than
facts to the contrary does that. So do people who believe in marketing
bull****, who try to defend the marketing bull****.

They bring up red herring fallacies, and then they confront the logical
person with the onus of disproving your completely bogus argument.

Please stop defending your bro science.
It's not personal. I don't even know whom I'm speaking with.
I don't take names.

The crime here is that you actually believe your own bro science.
And yet, you have zero references to back up your bro science.

> I have often been faced with illogical arguments dressed up as logic.

Again, your bro science mind is exemplary.
I know you all too well, even though I don't even know whom I'm responding
to.

People like you trust your intuition more than you trust facts contrary to
your intuition. To people like you, the sun really does revolve around the
earth (that's just an example of the way you're thinking).

Even though the sun *looks* to intuitive people that it revolves around the
earth, facts show otherwise. So facts trump intuition.

You intuitively feel that you've seen rotor warp, and yet it's very likely
you *never* once measured it, and it's just as likely you didn't even
*read* the references provided which prove otherwise.

I know you better than you know you because I've met people like you so
many times that I already know that you believe in bro science and there is
no amount of logic that you will accept because you won't even *read*
logical articles.

You want me to disprove your imaginary bro science.
Which I already did with the logical articles already provided.

You want *more* disproof of your bro science.
I know you. I've met people like you so many times, I just cry.

> Having been retired for a number of years now, I consider myself very
> mellow. It's the only reason I'm bothering to reply to your posts.

I'm retired too, and very mellow.
I just think it's sad that people have lost the ability to think.

Did you *read* any of the warp articles I provided.

Bear in mind, some of them contradict the others so I don't agree with
everything they say - but they all conclude the same thing - which is the
important part.

Bear in mind on the "mellow" thing that I don't even look at whom I'm
responding to, so it's not personal in the least. I only respond to what
you write.

On 11/7/2017 11:00 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 01:13:40 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood > wrote:
>
>> Vic Smith wrote:
>>
>>> <snipped some nonsense about Hummers and dump trucks>
>>
>> It wasn't nonsense.
>>
>> Saying you drive a FWD for its "handling" is like saying you drive a dump
>> truck for its handling.
>>
> Snow and rain handling. FWD is better. Not snowing or raining?
> Doesn't matter to me, I'm not racing.
>

Best car I ever had in the snow was RWD. Yes, my '62 Corvair

You can argue the merits or each, but, snow aside, the fact is, 99% of
the drivers can't see the difference 99% of the time. The typical
commute to work or shopping is under conditions that you cannot see the
variance in handling.

Present and last car are AWD. It varies from F/R 40/60 normal, 50/50 in
snow mode and if the front or rear are on slippery road it can shift to
either 90/10 to 10/90 depending on traction. It was great one day in
the snow going up a hill passing 3 cars stuck or struggling. Retired
now, I have no plans to drive in the snow.