| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM >>What doesn't last longer on a car nowadays? > Sometimes things like power lock actuators and some electrical > connections I was watching a video by the MythBusters on how to get out of a car that is sinking in a pond (pool in their case) where someone mentions to roll down the windows ... heh heh ... When's the last time you saw a roll-down window? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM >>Where I live, a straight 30 or 40 would work just fine. > But would NOT be acceptable for an engins still under warranty. Here > we go from -25 to +95 F on any average given year Egads. Here we don't go below 20F and where I lived back east for decades, we maybe got to 0F for a few days of the year. The additives to create a wider spread though, I'm told, tends to carbonize in the engine, so, for example, I'm told, (we'd have to look this up), * 10W30 has a spread of 20 * 0W30 has a spread of 30 * 5W40 has a spread of 35 I'm told, but I'd have to look up to confirm, that the wider the spread, the more the cabonization in the engine. Is that true? I don't know. But I don't think at the temperatures I start my vehicle in, that any viscosity range matters. At your starting temperatures, they do. > lids, and the box sides of Dodge (and some GM) trucks are aften seem > pretty badly rusted up here. - often within 5 or 6 years - sometimes > even less. I don't think I've seen rust on my cars in decades, but when I lived back east with my Z cars, they rusted out like crazy. So a lot of this stuff depends on the environment. > Not sure if you call $14.99 each cheap - sometimes available on sale > for just under $10 (Autolite double platinum) or Motorcraft SP515 > plugs at $20.75 Canadian (for Ford Triton 5.4) I haven't bought plugs in a while. I'm thinking half the price you're quoting. But it has been a while. > The cold starts USED to be the big issue with carbureted engines - > due to cyl wash, fuel dilution, and poor barrier lubrication - not so > much today. I stand edified that carbs to EFI is a *major* factor in improving engine life. Less liquid gas in the oil is a good thing for engine life. > Everthing else being the same - which is seldome the case, an engine > run at over 90% output for half it's life will not last as long as an > engine run at less than 30% output for over 75% of it's life. Gearing matters. > run them both at rated capacity on the highway under the same > conditions, the bigger motor will last longer / wear less than the > smaller engine - whether the gearing is different or not. I don't believe it. A car engine is almost never run at full bore BHP. And gearing makes a huge difference anyway. Sounds good that bigger engines last longer but I don't believe it. We'd need some facts. > Things like load. Sure - if like MOST pickups on the road today they > are never loaded or worked - no difference. Exactly my point. > If a car is just tooled around town with 1 or 2 people in it - no > difference. Neither one is ever being worked hard enough to hurt > itself. Exactly my point. Now if you use the truck at full bore BHP to pull an airplane to takeoff speeds on the airport runway, then the bigger engine should last longer. :) >>*that* would be a factor in engine life. > Take that TOTALLY out of the equation - I said "all other things > being equal". I agree with you that we'd have to compare the life of a big engine veruss a small engine in a vehicle where they both do the same things which we can assume are normal things. If you pull redwood trees uphill, then I can see bigger engines lasting longer. But if you just tool around town, like I do, I can't imagine that a bigger engine has any longevity over a smaller engine all else being equal. Gears make a bigger difference. > The amount of repairs I've needed to do an ANY of my vehicles in the > last 20 yeats is SO small "getting at" the engine is not much of a > concern to me. But have you needed to do any of these repairs? 1. painting 2. alignment 3. replace/rebuild engine (or major work) 4. clutch replacement (or major work) 5. tire mounting and balancing 6. timing belt To me, these half-dozen repairs almost nobody does at home, but I *wish* I had done at home when I had the chance. My recommendation to a kid of 30 or 40 years old would be to *do* them when he has the chance, just as I'd tell him to climb that mountain he always wanted to climb. When he gets older, he won't be able to do it anymore, and the economics of the benefits will be less as he ages. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM Ed Pawlowski wrote: > was dealer service because the local guy could not get the right oil > filter for it. The NAPA nest door did not carry it as it is a low > volume item. I agree on Midas Muffler because they do other stuff and there is no way they're staying in business on just mufflers nowadays. I disagree on the dealer being required for anything. To me, the dealer is whom you go to when you're under the original factory warranty and then that's the last time you ever go do the dealer. I have nothing against the dealer except one thing, which is why they're called the 'stealer'. But that's a biggie. The only other reason you go to the dealer is to buy parts that they might stock where you need them now (e.g., you broke a bolt or forget a gasket and you're in the middle of the job) but expect to pay more than double for those parts than anywhere else. I go to an indy for alignment and clutch and tires, etc., where I couldn't imagine payking the price for the same job at the dealer. Of course, I *wish* I could do these jobs myself at home! 1. painting 2. alignment 3. replace/rebuild engine (or major repairs) 4. clutch replacement 5. tire mounting and balancing 6. timing belt or chain But I think I lost my chance. If some 30-year-old kid asked me if they should do those jobs, I'd say "Hell yes", just as if they asked me should they hike down into the Grand Canyon or if they should hike across the Sahara Desert (with water). If you don't do it when you can, you'll never do it ever. And you'll never learn anything if you never do it. That would be my advice, anyway. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM Scott Dorsey wrote: > a ferritic stainless that will eventually corrode with enough heating cycles. > "Stainless Steel" is actually a whole lot of totally different things in > three different and hardly-even-related families. I took a quick peek at the Internet and it does seem that a summary is needed if we were to REPLACE our SS exhaust today.... "Stainless steel grades used in a car exhaust manifold" <https://www.finishing.com/366/99.shtml> Apparently a magnet should be helpful to determine if you have the better 400 or the less-better 300 series SS exhaust.... "What grade of stainless steel does Bob's Muffler use in its exhaust systems, and why? " <http://www.bobsmuffler.com/Stainless.htm> There are two primary categories of stainless steel tubing used in automotive exhaust systems: 300 series and 400 series. The issue of heat cycling is of great importance. Not only is 300 series stainless a poorer choice for exhaust systems, it is also more expensive and would unnecessarily increase the price of an exhaust system. 400 series stainless is not as pretty as 300 series and will have a brownish hue to it, due to the fact that it has a higher carbon content than 300 series. This means the 300 series stainless will polish up better for appearance. The carbon content in 400 series also makes it magnetic, unlike 300 series which is a simple test to determine which series you+IBk-re dealing with. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM tom wrote: > My 2000 Acura TL has an all stainless exhaust system. I'll never buy another > car or truck without a stainless exhaust system. That is one headache no one > needs. I think almost all of us agree that we used to have to work on the exhaust, but with the advent of SS exhausts, we don't need to anymore. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM > A cut-off wheel on a grinder or a "muffler chisel" - preterably on an > air hammer, also makes muffler repair a lot easier - but the "blue tip > wrench" is pretty universal 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! > car s I ownwd without factory stainless exhaust were th '90 aerostar > and the '88 New Yorker. My daughres' Honda Civic and Hyundai Elantra > both have stainless systems - the Honda's a 2008. 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. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM > Even wiping down with armor-all will extend the life significantly as > it contains U-V inhibitors and restores the plasticisers somewhat. 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? > the summer I look like a racoon when I take my glasses off - no tan > behind the glasses. The UV protection is for the eyes - not the > plastic (generally) 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. :) |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM Ed Pawlowski wrote: > do rings and bearings at about 50,000 miles. Lubricants are a factor > too, but engines today can easily last 200,000 miles with the same > internal parts. Do you think those rings are the same? 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? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM Xeno wrote: > intake manifold, cylinder head, cylinders and pistons are cold, it's > very difficult for vapourisation to take place so liquid fuel enters the > cylinders. 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. > occurring above the oil control ring. A vehicle in continuous use and > always warmed up, such as a taxi or a long haul truck, has much less > cylinder wear. 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. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM >>What's the old voltage? Something like 10K to 15K volts, right? >>What is the new voltage zap? > 60K plus 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? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM Xeno wrote: > It's higher voltage to get a spark happening more easily in lean mixture > land but it's the *high energy* that allows the longer duration spark. 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"? > It's one of the reasons manufacturers went to individual coils - only > need to supply spark to one cylinder so gets a very long dwell time with > plenty of coil saturation. 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? > Up to 20k. All the old oscilloscopes had a range, from memory, up to 25-30k. >> What is the new voltage zap? > 60k or better. 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. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM Xeno wrote: > specs and gain the effect of a hotter cam. > A set of pre-measured, marked and sorted shims is a handy thing to have > around. 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. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM Steve W. wrote: > Chains don't mean a lot when they drop them down to bicycle sizes with > small pins. Things stretch like cheap rope. 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? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM Xeno wrote: >>> I have Toyotas precisely because they have a chain. >> Some do, some don't. (perhaps today they all do - not sure) > The ones I buy sure do! ;-) Two vehicles that are worthless to me: 1. FWD 2. Belt |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM >>I have Toyotas precisely because they have a chain. > Some do, some don't. (perhaps today they all do - not sure) 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: <https://itstillruns.com/toyota-27liter-specifications-7442083.htm> |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM rbowman wrote: > a center console but I don't haul a family around. FWD designs tend to > be lighter. > When you're chasing the EPA fleet mileage, FWD looks good. 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. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM Ed Pawlowski wrote: > The $50 figure is about 30 years old. If it was accurate at the time is > would be double that today and there was still a lot of engineering and > new tooling to pay for. That said, I have no ideal today. 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. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM > the combustion chamber under high heat and pressure, dissassociating > and causing detonation. Can run much higher compression ratio on > regular gas. Thanks for summarizing the most important advantage. I've found that anyone who can't summarize the most important factor generally does not understand the issue. So thank you for summarizing what is new information for me. Much appreciated! |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM Frank wrote: > 10W 40 would coke up faster than 10W 30, for what it's worth. I just mentioned that, but I didn't look for references. Do we all generally agree that the *spread* is what causes the coking? 0W30 has a spread of 30 5W30 has a spread of 25 10W40 has a spread of 30 30W40 has a spread of 10 <--- this has the lowest coking If we agree on that concept of coking:spread, then the question is how much does coking actually matter and under what conditions does coking matter? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM Frank wrote: > turns into a self reinforcing cycle. More wear worse fit, worse fit > accelerated wear. Eventually the poorly fitting chain will jump one or > more teeth on the crank gear or start breaking the teeth on the cam gear. What are our choices? 1. Chain 2. Belt 3. Pushrod Anything else? > retarded. I changed timing sets on conventional OHV engines and that > usually advanced the ignition timing from 5 to 10 degrees, suggesting > that chain wear had retarded the timing by that amount. 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. > But I still prefer belts. Even on a tight package like a Dodge Neon with > the 4 speed auto, the replacement isn't too bad, once you know the > routine. 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. >> Just like FWD cars and tricked-out cars are, to me, nearly worthless. > I love front wheel drive, especially in the snow. 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. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM >>So, fundamentally, people seem to be saying that carburetors contaminated >>everything more than does EFI, which reduced the life of the engine. > Correct Thanks. Makes sense. I love learning where the lesson makes sense. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM > Absolutely no need to waste money on a "Fluke" branded meter. LOTS of > lower cost stuff out there that is more than accurate enough for > automotive electronics use. This is true. I *love* my Fluke 75. But any $10 meter will work just fine. I agree with you. > angle to torque adapters for "torque to tield" bolts. Special > wrenches/sockets for certain sensors - but not a lot of essoteric and > complex stuff. I agree with you that, for the most part, there aren't a lot of special tools needed for new cars. I just looked in my tuneup kit, and I saw some special distributor wrenches and a special flat file and the spark plug gappers, etc., so I think one thing that did not change over the years is the need for special tools. In both yesteryear and today, there are 'some' but not many special tools needed - but for the most part - the tools needed are about the same. I think the main difference is that a lot of us have battery-powered tools that we never had in days of yore. We also all have air tools now. Did everyone at home have air tools in the olden days? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:54AM Xeno wrote: > not provide a gain in surface exposure. The real gain is providing a > path for the gasses coming off the pad surfaces to escape from between > the pad and rotor. Reduces the hovercraft effect. 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. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:55AM Xeno wrote: > The slots provide a means by which the gases can quickly escape. > In a road going car, slotted rotors are probably overkill. Not so on > high performance vehicles. 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. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM >>someone else to twist a bolt that I could have twisted myself. > You paid $10 to twist the bolt and $90 to know how far to turn what > bolt in what direction!! Good point. But I would rather have paid $100 for the tool to measure to know that I twisted the bolt as far as it could go. In the case of my rear camber, it was maxed out at 0 degrees, so, in hindsight, I guess I could have done it sans any measurement at all. :) |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic"
Post a Comment