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

rbowman wrote:

>> I know what you mean. All mine have been chains, where some have plastic
>> chain guides or tensioners which need replacing - but I've never needed to
>> replace a belt - but belts are pretty common on cars nowadays, aren't they?
>
> Serpentine belts are common, as are interference engines. I replaced the
> belt on my Geo when it got up around 100,000 miles. I didn't know the
> maintenance history on the car and assumed it had never been replaced.
> iirc, the belt was around $40 and the job took a couple of hours. The
> biggest problem was the limited space.

To me, it's a double crime to put a belt inside an interference engine,
even more than the original crime of putting 60K-mile part inside an engine
in the first place.

If you're gonna put a 60,000-mile part inside an engine, then you should at
least make it easy to access.

rbowman wrote:

>> Long ago, in the 80's, at Sears, I bought the compressor, the sprayer, and
>> the sandblaster, and the welder (but I bought gas welding equipment which
>> turned out to be a mistake because the skill set needed is great compared
>> to arc welding on thin metal with wires below them).
>
> I've been going to get a gas setup with the portable tanks. I used to be
> okay but it's been a long time. Gas is more versatile and works anywhere
> you can drag the tanks but the inexpensive point and shoot wire machines
> do make life easy over stick welding.

Definitely pros and cons to gas and stick welding.
I have both.

The arc welding takes a skill that is difficult with crappy 220V equipment,
where I tend to have the ugliest beads you've ever seen, and where I
"stick" to the metal all too often.

Then again, with thin plate such as that used on a vehicle, I tend to burn
through with the gas welding.

In the end, it's a skill set that is useful, but difficult to master.

On Saturday, November 4, 2017 at 3:00:16 AM UTC-10, RS Wood wrote:
>
> My observation with repair people is that it's hard to find one who cares
> to do what he was trained to do.
>
> Recently a bolt was missing from a repair job and when I came back to ask
> why, the guy told me it didn't do anything.
>
> I reflected that the car still works fine without the bolt, but there is no
> way they put that bolt there in the first place if it didn't do anything.
>
> He didn't believe me.

I'll typically have a few bolts left over after doing a big job. It's really quite amazing.

On 11/04/2017 11:17 AM, RS Wood wrote:

> So I don't see how you can ever do car tires right at home because you
> can't finish the job right. For some reason, motorcycle tires work just
> fine without dynamic balancing.
>
> That's an enigma to me.
>
> Why would bicycle and motorcycle tires work just fine without dynamic
> balancing while car tires require dynamic balancing to work right?

My guess -- weight and speed are insufficient to cause problems.

--
Cheers, Bev
I'd rather trust the guys in the lab coats who aren't demanding
that I get up early on Sundays to apologize for being human.
-- Captain Splendid

On 11/03/2017 07:42 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never
> done?
>
> Mine are, in this order of "I wish I could do it" order
> 1. painting

Did that, along with minor bodywork repair. Sprayed orange lacquer on
my MC tank and chain guard (with a REAL sprayer, not cans), which came
out really nice. Fixed a few rust holes on the 55 Chevy with fiberglas
and bondo before letting Earl Scheib paint it. The Clymer bodywork
manual was definitely worth the money.

> 2. alignment
> 3. replace/rebuild engine
> 4. clutch replacement

Does a MC count?

> 5. tire mounting and balancing
> 6. timing belt
> 7. head gasket and vcg

Did all the work except milling the heads and final torquing down of
head bolts -- I just wasn't strong enough and didn't have a long enough
cheater. What's a vcg?

> I've done electrical, brakes, shocks, cooling systems, alternators,
> ujoints, pitman/idler arms & tie-rod ends and ball joints, tuneups,
> emissions hoses and sensors, exhaust, electrical components, fuel pumps,
> and fluids, but not the six things above.

Alternators, generators, starters, water pumps, motor mounts, brake
pads/drums, hoses, belts.

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

NONE! I did this stuff because it was cheaper to do it myself. Now I
have a used 2013 Corolla and I only looked under the hood when I bought
it because someone else lifted it. One of the tires has a slow leak
(indicated by a sensor so I don't even have to check!) which I pump back
up every month or so, and I do that with a certain amount of resentment.

Don't get the cheap $10 Harbor Freight compressor, splurge on the $35
one; trust me.)

I tried to re-wind a MC alternator. Local electrical shop loaned me a
spool of wire and said to pay for what I used. I gave up after only a
few ounces. The guy said that he knew tiny Hispanic women who could do
that. They're heroes.

--
Cheers, Bev
I'd rather trust the guys in the lab coats who aren't demanding
that I get up early on Sundays to apologize for being human.
-- Captain Splendid

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:38:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 11/4/2017 12:24 PM, rickman wrote:
>> RS Wood wrote on 11/4/2017 9:00 AM:
>
>>> But I've never replaced an engine mostly because I never drove an engine
>>> into the ground that needed to be replaced. I envy people who have
>>> done it
>>> because it must feel great to put a new engine in yourself.
>>
>> Same here.* Any car of mine that needed an engine wasn't worth putting
>> an engine in.* Older cars were not made to last and that was true for
>> every part of that car.* Even things like seats and headliners were shot
>> by the time the engine was shot.* My current truck has 240,000 miles on
>> it and the engine is one of a number of parts that shows nearly no sign
>> of going anytime soon.* The parts that have been repaired often were not
>> repaired right so some have needed repairing more than once, but
>> otherwise the truck is very sound.
>>
>
>Evidently you never owned a Buick or Olds with the 3.8 engine from the
>early 80's. I know of many being rebuilt/replaced. I had the engine
>replaced on my '83 Cutlass and drove it until the next one died. The
>car had 130,00+ miles. Not sure how many as the odometer stopped
>working. I was determined to drive it until it does. Left work one
>day, started the car, drove 3 feet and it died. Took the company pickup
>home and stopped at a car dealer on the way and bought another car.


GMC = GarageMan's Companion.
I almost got 100000kn (62000 miles) on a GM
"crate" 3800 in my TranSport.

I rebuilt the 850 Mini at something lihe 196000 miles. The '53 Coronet
Hemi had almost exactly 100,000 miles on it when I got it with a
"dead" engine - I rebuilt it. The '57 Fatgo flathead six got a new cyl
head (the old one cracked) at about 250,000 miles.
I totally rebuilt the 2.6 Mitsu engine in the '85 LeBaron at about
125000 when it snapped the balance shaft chain (that also runs the oil
pump) (I bought it as a non-runner)
I replaced the heads on the '88 New Yorker 3 liter (also a Mitsu
engine - I call 'em Mit-so-****ty" for the second time at about
160,000km - they had been replaced by Chrysler at 100,000 just before
I bought it, and were still in good shape when I sold it with
240,000km on it. I replaced the clutch and timing shain at the same
time on my '81 Tercel at something like 275000 km - the belt had been
changed previously at the dealership ( I think I did it too - can't
remember) for the original owner before I bought it.

Some engines didn't last vert well at all - and others just wouldn't
quit

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:17:04 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> A couple sheets of tin with grease between works in a pinch for slip
>> plates -
>
>I always wondered about how to support the car on its weight and still get
>the wheels to slip. I've seen the greased tin and the linoleum tiles, and
>even the newspaper trick - but I always wondered how well they work.
>
>The other problem is measuring to the imaginary centerline.
>
>> and for camber a simple square and calculator works just
>> fine.
>
>Camber is pretty easy to measure if you have some way of keeping the tire
>out of the picture.
>
>Usually that means bolting something to the wheel that allows the digital
>level to stick out away from the bulging tire.
>
>So I think the hardest part of camber is the setup has to be bolted to the
>wheel (although I've seen ways to do camber with just a plumb bob and a
>ruler).
>
>> Toe in with a few sticks and a tape measure - or a simple laser
>> level (bubble level with a laser built into the one end - used to
>> "extend" the wheel angle instead of using sticks) works pretty good.
>
>I think toe is easy to measure but hard to change.

Actually generally the easiest to change - after you get the tie-rod
sleaves un-siezed - - -
>
>For measuring, you just have to get around the fact that the engine and
>suspension gets in the way of a straight-line calculation (as you did with
>the laser suggestion above).
>
>Yet you still have to have to reduce the friction when you turn the tierod
>ends with the weight of the car (as you discussed above with the greased
>plates).
>
I almost always ELIMINATE the friction by jackin the weight off the
tire. I'm too "thick" to fit under the car with the wheels on the gr
turn the tie-rod sleeves.
>> Calculating caster is a bit more difficult without the proper tools,
>> but a mathematical genius (that's not me) could figure it out with the
>> same square, ruler, and calculator.
>
>Here is, I think, the REAL reasons most of us don't do alignment at home.
>The actual twisting of the bolts is pretty easy.
>Even the toe plate and camber plates are easy if we purchase them.
>So are the tape measures and digital levels.
>
>I think the HARD part of alignment is that there is ALWAYS a need to
>convert from inches to degrees and from imaginary centerline to actual
>centerline, and from trigonometry if we don't measure the actual item we
>have the spec for so we have to calculate to derive the value.
>
>To summarize, the hardest part of the alignment, I think, is that you have
>to THINK, whereas almost every other job we discussed, you don't have to
>think all that much (other than about basic safety, for example, when
>compressing springs).
>
>Alignment is a THINKING man's game.

Most definitely. Even with the best equipment (Which I HAVE used)
>
>> The laser level will do the tracking just fine, and a digital
>> protactor or electronic level would make things easier.
>
>I don't have a laser anything but I won't disagree with you that extending
>a measurement to the wall 50 feet away can be useful to measure small
>degrees.
>
>For example, toe could be specified as 1/2 degree, which is easy to measure
>if you extend a line from the wheel to the wall 50 feet away but which is
>really hard to measure six inches from the centerline of the wheel itself.
>
>My point is that the TOOLS to MEASURE alignment are more and more in our
>grasp at a reasonable price. Even the toe plates and camber bolting to the
>wheel are within our prices.
>
>The hurdle to alignment, I think, is that it's a THINKING man's game, more
>so than any other job we're talking about. I don't have the skills myself.
>
>Or so I think.
>
>> The most important thing - from having done alignments
>> professionally, using sophisticated equipment, is MNOWING what the
>> effects of different adjustments are - just because a car is "within
>> spec" doesn't mean it will go straight down the road and won't wear
>> tires. Tayloring the caster and camber leads is part science, and
>> part witchcraft.
>
>I agree with you that alignment is a THINKING man's game, quite unlike all
>the other things we talked about.
>
>Sure it takes thinking to diagnose a slipping clutch or to diagnose an
>emissions problem or to diagnose an electrical system anomaly but it
>doesn't usually take a whole lot of thinking to just replace the parts once
>you've figured out which ones broke (and most people just throw parts at
>any job anyway which is how a lot of things get fixed).
>
>With alignment, you have to THINK, especially if, as you noted, you're
>aiming to get a performance value out of changing a value such as rear
>camber for cornering or trying to increase the oversteer for handling.
>
>In summary, I see HUGE HURDLES to alignment at home, but those hurdles have
>very little to do with measuring or changing the values.
>
>Here are the first half of my hurdles to doing a home alignment.
>1. I need a toe-measuring tool that clears or avoids the undercarriage
>2. I need toe plates that allow for slip of the tire under load
>3. I need a camber setup on the wheel that clears or avoids the sidewall
>
>Here are the second half.
>4. I need the specs in a form that I can measure or calculate
>5. I need to figure out the imaginary centerline
>6. I need KNOWLEDGE because #4 will always be in something I can't measure
>directly (Murphy's law of alignment specs) so I will have to calculate the
>answer.

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:17:08 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> A GOOD tech cares as much as you do - mabee more - because a poor job
>> reflects badly on him and can cost him BIG TIME if he gets a bed
>> reputation.
>
>I can't disagree that a good PERSON cares as much or more than you do.
>But you have to agree that there are people who care more about getting
>vehicles through the door than doing the job right.
>
>If they can skip a step or save a minute, they will, but that doesn't mean
>that they did a better job. It just means they did a faster job.
>
>At home, you're never trying to do the job fast.

That's why my guys were NEVER on Flat Rate - and why independent
shops where the owner is "on the floor" are generally the best.
>
>> I cared more about most of my customers' vehicles than they did for
>> the 25+ years I was actively in the trade.
>
>This may be true since you saw lots of abuse I'll bet.
From customers, dealer principal., AND my mechanics!!!
10 years as service manager can be eye-opening!!!
>
>I'll bet the people NOT on this newsgroup don't even think about their
>engines all that much.
>
>If they took a car to the shop for a cooling system overhaul, I'll bet
>they're not going to look to see if all the bolts that came out went back
>in, for example.
>
>> And "redline" isn't necessarily the best or any better for your
>> application/ use than what they put in.
>
>Fair enough.
>Some things matter. Some don't.
>
>I know that with some things though, the "standard" application isn't as
>good as the "better" application, but for gear lubes, it probably only
>needs to be GL-4 80W90 and that's it (or whatever the car maker specified).
>
>So, a $5/quart GL-4 80W90 is as good as a $20/quart GL-4 80W90 gear oil.
>
>I don't know clutches but there must be "standard" and "better" clutches,
>aren't there? How do you know what the shop puts in by default?

The "better" clutch may be better for drag racing or towing a
trailer,but may be HELL on your knees in heavy traffic - - - - There
is "better" and there is "better" - really depends on what you are
looking for.
>
>> Or they might. You just need the right shop, and the right
>> technician.
>
>That's understood where a guy who tells me that the bolt isn't necessary
>isn't necessarily the right technician, is he?


Doesn't sound like it.

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:17:09 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

>rickman wrote:
>
>> Same here. Any car of mine that needed an engine wasn't worth putting an
>> engine in. Older cars were not made to last and that was true for every
>> part of that car. Even things like seats and headliners were shot by the
>> time the engine was shot. My current truck has 240,000 miles on it and the
>> engine is one of a number of parts that shows nearly no sign of going
>> anytime soon. The parts that have been repaired often were not repaired
>> right so some have needed repairing more than once, but otherwise the truck
>> is very sound.
>
>You make a good point which I don't know the answer to.
>
>In my kid days, plastic toys did not exist (transistor radios didn't exist
>either), so our Tonka toys were rubber wheels and steel bodies.
>
>Nowadays, if you leave a kid's toy car outside, the sun alone will destroy
>it within a year or two.
>
>So they certainly don't build *some stuff* the way they used to.
>
>However ... cars *seem* to be different. Are they?
>
>My Chrysler's and Dodges days (in the olden days, we had brand loyalties
>that sprang from the brand loyalties of our fathers) showed me that a
>tuneup was needed every year, bias-ply tires lasted something like 20K
>miles, and, as you said, the interior was shot by the time the engine went.
>
>And that was in the days before plastic bumpers and plastic headlights
>(they were real glass bulbs in those days).
>
>But yet, it seems to me, cars last forever now.
>In those days, 100K miles was a lot.
>Now, it seems, 200K miles is approaching a lot.
>
>Do they really make cars better but nothing else is better?
>How can that be?
They sure make cars a lot better - experience and technology have
made a lot of difference. ( Remember, in 1959, the automobile, as an
object, was not as old as a 1959 car is today!!!!

The reason just about anything else you buy today is NOT better is
everyone wants it CHEAPER and expects to upgrade long before anything
with any QUALITY would require replacement. Everything is changing SO
FAST.

Most people want to buy the latest and greatest even before today's
JUNK is worn out.

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:17:11 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood >
wrote:

>rbowman wrote:
>
>>> I know what you mean. All mine have been chains, where some have plastic
>>> chain guides or tensioners which need replacing - but I've never needed to
>>> replace a belt - but belts are pretty common on cars nowadays, aren't they?
>>
>> Serpentine belts are common, as are interference engines. I replaced the
>> belt on my Geo when it got up around 100,000 miles. I didn't know the
>> maintenance history on the car and assumed it had never been replaced.
>> iirc, the belt was around $40 and the job took a couple of hours. The
>> biggest problem was the limited space.
>
>To me, it's a double crime to put a belt inside an interference engine,
>even more than the original crime of putting 60K-mile part inside an engine
>in the first place.
>

Oh? used to be the rings and bearings, oil pump, lifters, and half
the other moving parts in an engine required replacement within 60,000
miles. And the fuel and ignition system parts in less than half that.

Even timing CHAINS and GEARS often required replacement in roughly
that time frame. I replaced LOTS of GM timing sprockets long before
60,000 miles - and that was a lot more work than replacing a timing
belt.

The timing chains on Mitsubishi (Chrysler) 2.6 engines seldom made
100,000 km (60,000 miles) if you followed the "normal" oil change
schedule - and they were a LOT of work to change.
>If you're gonna put a 60,000-mile part inside an engine, then you should at
>least make it easy to access.
They are a LOT easier to access than they used to be on many
engines. Transverse engines make EVERYTHING harder to change - even
on an old Mini.

There are a lot of engines that I can change a timing belt on in less
than 2 hours - even on my driveway.