| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Nov 05 09:18AM -0800 On 11/05/2017 01:44 AM, Xeno wrote: > You understand the efficacy of slotted and/or drilled rotors the first > time you experience brake fade. Hrm. I thought that was done to lighten them -- bicyclists are sometimes also called gram-shavers. It provides better cooling too? -- Cheers, Bev If I gave a shit, you'd be the first one I'd give it to. |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Nov 05 09:40AM -0800 On 11/05/2017 06:42 AM, RS Wood wrote: >> Caddy. Slight vibration when braking, but they felt OK. Until 2 of the >> calipers seized 8 years later, of course :-( POS, I'll never own >> another GM product. thumpthumpthumpthump... rather than vibration. > That wasn't rotor warp. > I know that because it's almost never rotor warp on a street vehicle. Then what? It never caused problems and either it went away or I just learned to ignore it. > Look up the spec for grooves. It's enormous. > I'm not saying grooves and gouges can't fail a rotor. > I'm saying they have to be the size of the Grand Canyon to exceed specs. 1/4" x 1/4" and several of them? No idea why they started to hog in, but that's what convinced me to get them fixed. > Some pads are rated EE for cold/hot friction. > Guess what steel on steel friction is? > Yup. E. The idea of ceramic brake pads is upsetting. What's GOOD material now? -- Cheers, Bev If I gave a shit, you'd be the first one I'd give it to. |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Nov 05 09:57AM -0800 On 11/05/2017 07:33 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: > Solvent paint is gone in favor of water based. Now your car is > accurately covered by a robot rather than a guy with a hangover. Up to > about 1923 cars were painted with a brush. 78 Caddy (yet another POS, but my mom liked them) paint peeled after 8 years in the sun. Go through any large parking lot and look at all the peeling paint of similarly-aged cars. I was told that they used experimental water-based lacquer. Sounded fishy... Hm. It's actually hard to find cars that old any more in California. The State pays us to junk them if they can't pass the smog test. Apparently they fixed the problem -- the paint on the 88 Caddy (unlike the throttle [which caused me to get rid of it in 2016 after it tried to kill me way too many times], the brakes, the AC, the plastic, the headliner, the upholstery, the shocks etc. ) just faded a little bit on the horizontal surfaces. "Antelope Firemist" otherwise known as metallic beige. I got $1K from the state for crushing it -- it had something like 90K miles and the engine was still running fine and not using oil. New tires, complete new brake system, cheap but good radio. The wrecking yard was not supposed to re-use any of the parts, just crush the whole thing. I really want to think that they cheated. -- Cheers, Bev If I gave a shit, you'd be the first one I'd give it to. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 05 06:13PM The Real Bev wrote: > thumpthumpthumpthump... rather than vibration. Doesn't matter what it sounded like. It's not rotor warp. Not on a street car it's not. So we have to distinguish between the term, and the measurement. The funny thing about the term "rotor warp" is that it has two usages, where one is just "oh, my brakes are vibrating", which is a useful term for that even though rotor warp doesn't mean the rotors actually warped. So you see "rotor warp" used as "my brakes are acting up" all over the Internet, where the short term solution always works, which is to machine or replace the rotors. Everyone thinks they're a genius when these two things happen: 1. Rotors act up so the guy blindly assumes "rotor warp". 2. Machining or replacing the rotors solves the problem. Instant genius, right? The problem isn't that the short-term solution to all rotor imbalances is the same; the problem is that the long-term solution is quite different depending on why the vibration occurred in the first place. The vibration is NOT that the rotors "warped" (as in a potato chip). What happens is that the genius above comes back, time and time again, blaming the rotors, when he said "this is my third time on this car where my rotors have warped", where he's sick of the car, but where most of the time, the *cause* is his own actions. So the crime of using the term "rotor warp' is not just that nobody ever *measures* rotor warp (they can't - it doesn't exist in practice). The problem is that they come up with all sorts of long-term solutions that don't and can't work, or they work (e.g., Tundra mod for the 4Runner brakes) but for reasons completely missed by those who just blindly assume that their rotors actually warped. >> I know that because it's almost never rotor warp on a street vehicle. > Then what? It never caused problems and either it went away or I just > learned to ignore it. One quick proof of rotor warp is so easy to do, that nobody does it, which is measure it. The next even quicker proof that everyone does but those who don't think about rotor warp don't think about what I'm going to say either ... is just take a so-called 'warped' set of rotors on a test drive, at night, on the highway, and jam on the brakes for a few 60 to 10mph stops, sufficient to "rebed" the deposits on the rotor. If the vibration decreases, or markedly changes character, or even goes away, then how could it possibly have been rotor warp in the first place? Bear in mind, a street car *never* gets into the temperatures required to actually warp a rotor. I hesitate to give you a reference because I'm trying to appeal to your cold hard logic of common sense, but we can easily find references to back up everything I say (because what I say is scientific fact). "The "Warped" Brake Disc and Other Myths of the Braking System" <http://www.stoptech.com/technical-support/technical-white-papers/-warped-brake-disc-and-other-myths> "Raybestos Brake Tech School, Part One: Rotors Don't Warp" <http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id 87> "Why Do Brake Rotors Warp?" <https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/why-do-brake-rotors-warp> I'm not saying that there aren't zillions of times "rotor warp" is mentioned on the net as if it exists for street cars, so you have to find the ones where the author actually knows what he's talking about. Essentially, if an article mentions that the author is well aware of the misnomer, then you can begin to trust it over an article where the author is completely clueless that the misnomer exists. > The idea of ceramic brake pads is upsetting. > What's GOOD material now? You're looking at brakes from the wrong angle. Do not look at brake pads from the angle that MARKETING wants you to. That's like looking at a rolex as a better watch because you're looking at the diamonds instead of how it keeps accurate time. Q: What's the main job of a watch? A: Accurate time, right? Q: Is a $50K rolex watch a better watch than a $30 Timex watch? A: The watch that keeps better time is the better watch. Q: What's the main job of brake pads. A: Friction. Q: How do you compare brake pads? A: By cold/hot friction ratings. Q: How do you know cold/hot friction ratings? A: It's illegal to sell pads in the USA that don't have it stamped on them. So, here's my simple KISS advice on brake pads. 1. Look up the friction rating for OEM pads (e.g., FF). 2. Buy *any* pad (that fits) that meets or exceeds *that* rating. Pretty simple huh. Now, you can go into *further* detail, for example my Jurid/Textar front/rear OEM FF pads have a propensity to deposit unsightly dust, so lost of people prefer the Axxis or PBR or other FF pad that dusts a slightly different less noxious color (all pads dust - where do you think the pad and rotor material goes?). You can even go into further detail as to which pads wear the longest, but then it gets more and more subjectively away from the primary purpose of a brake pad, which is cold/hot friction. All pads sold in the USA have the cold/hot friction rating stamped on the pad or the box or the backing plates. It's the law. There is a lookup table of about 40 pages, as I recall, on the net, which contains *all* pads currently sold so you can easily compare them. There aren't a whole lotta friction ratings though becuase they have a wide range in each. E is about as good as steel on steel for friction coefficient. F and G are common. I don't think any other rating is common but I buy FFs so I don't know. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 05 06:17PM The Real Bev wrote: >> time you experience brake fade. > Hrm. I thought that was done to lighten them -- bicyclists are > sometimes also called gram-shavers. It provides better cooling too? Steel is steel is steel is steel is steel is steel. Pads are the main friction component since E pads suck and since the coefficient of friction for steel is E. So if you have GG pads, then the pads are the major friction determinant. The steel is there mainly to dissipate heat. Conductive mass dissipates heat (as does the vane and airflow design, all of which we have to assume are equal when comparing drilled/slotted to solid rotors). Everyone has read all the marketing bullshit on why drilled/slotted rotors are better than solid, but nobody seems to have any evidence that backs that purely marketing claim up. I'll believe verified bona-fide facts showing rotor X stops better than rotor Y where the only difference is the drilling/slotting. I've never seen anyone come up with those facts. I'll wait.... |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Nov 05 10:37AM -0800 On Sunday, 5 November 2017 18:17:43 UTC, RS Wood wrote: > rotor Y where the only difference is the drilling/slotting. > I've never seen anyone come up with those facts. > I'll wait.... It depends what you're comparing. Weight of steel is the big deal for a hard fast stop, slots have only minor cooling effect. Drill holes in a rotor and it's going to do worse. OTOH if you compare 2 rotors of the same weight, the drilled one will do a bit better. If you're racing, go with drilled, but don't sacrifice mass to get there. NT |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Nov 05 10:38AM -0800 On Sunday, 5 November 2017 18:13:53 UTC, RS Wood wrote: > E is about as good as steel on steel for friction coefficient. > F and G are common. > I don't think any other rating is common but I buy FFs so I don't know. What rating is whitewood on steel? NT |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Nov 05 10:47AM -0800 On 11/05/2017 10:13 AM, RS Wood wrote: > "rebed" the deposits on the rotor. > If the vibration decreases, or markedly changes character, or even goes > away, then how could it possibly have been rotor warp in the first place? I wish I could remember when I stopped noticing it. I might have done a hard stop to test whether the seat belts were still working properly... > I'm not saying that there aren't zillions of times "rotor warp" is > mentioned on the net as if it exists for street cars, so you have to find > the ones where the author actually knows what he's talking about. I believe you. > A: Accurate time, right? > Q: Is a $50K rolex watch a better watch than a $30 Timex watch? > A: The watch that keeps better time is the better watch. Ha. My $25 Casio atomic solar watch has been providing accurate time since 2008 with no attention whatsoever. The beautiful 195x Omega Seamaster is sitting in a box somewhere because it needed to be cleaned every couple of years. Apparently the lubricant breaks down -- it doesn't seem that dirt could get into a waterproof watch. I guess it was accurate, I didn't have anything to check it against but the nice lady on the phone who told me the time. > E is about as good as steel on steel for friction coefficient. > F and G are common. > I don't think any other rating is common but I buy FFs so I don't know. I drive roughly 4K miles/year and front pads on other cars generally were OK for 40K miles (rear shoes double that). ~20K now. I'll remember this just as long as I can :-) (Wonderful line from 'Earth Girls Are Easy', a really FUN movie with a great cast!) -- Cheers, Bev I remember when everybody posted to Usenet with their real, deliverable e-mail address. Of all the sins committed by the spammers, destroying the viability of the open Internet was the worst. (Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, news.admin.net-abuse.email) |
| Frank <"frank "@frank.net>: Nov 05 02:05PM -0500 > FAST. > Most people want to buy the latest and greatest even before today's > JUNK is worn out. I've heard that the younger crowd trades in cars because the electronics are outdated, not the mechanical parts. Lot of us keep a car until repair cost exceeds book value. |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Nov 05 02:15PM -0500 On 11/5/2017 11:06 AM, rickman wrote: > My kayaks are HDPE with UV stabilizers added. I have an HDPE canoe that > has been on my dock in the sun for well over a decade. > BTW, what was the question? One plastic does not suit all. The trash can may be made by blow molding while the table made me rotional molded, other parts are injected molded. Each method requires different material characteristics with different additives. |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Nov 05 02:19PM -0500 On 11/5/2017 9:33 AM, RS Wood wrote: > But we *all* had to deal with exhaust in the days of yore. > So kudos to the EPA for forcing stainless steel into the mix! > PS: I wonder how "Midas Muffler" stays afloat? Not just mufflers any more. They were smart enough to evolve into other auto services like brakes, shocks, and the like. As cars get more sophisticated the more you have to rely on the dealer also. My Genesis 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. |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Nov 05 02:26PM -0500 On 11/5/2017 10:13 AM, RS Wood wrote: > The only question is how much did the manufacturer save on FWD. > Someone mentioned it was only $50 but I would have guessed at $1000. > Anyone know how much cheaper it is for them to build FWD cars? 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. |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Nov 05 02:39PM -0500 On 11/5/2017 10:05 AM, RS Wood wrote: > But a ring is a ring is a ring is a ring. AFAIK. > Pray tell ... what on earth do you think is *better* about a ring of steel > today from that same ring of steel of yesteryear? Better material, better tolerances, possibly better design. When is the last time you got a ring job on your car? It was common in the 1950s to 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? |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 05 03:43PM -0500 On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 05:47:02 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid> wrote: >I've heard everything there is to hear from people telling me about crappy >Chinese rotors. While I generally go Brembo or Meyle, if someone else gave >me a good price, I'd go with them. Some of the best rotors out there are Chinese - but also some of the worst. Consistency is the problem >gonna go postal on him. He's the same guy that insists that rotor warp >caused his brake-related vibration at speed. Run, do not walk, run away >from those people. In some instances (virtually never normal street use) grooved and slotted rotors DO provide better braking. We are talking competition use, where the rotors are glowing red hot half the time, and the pads are off-gassing like crazy - where even 100% dry DOT4 brake fluid boils in the calipers. Under those conditions, rotors can warp - and even fracture (in Rallye use I've seen red hot rotors hit an icy puddle and totally fracture) >I have nothing against quality but you can't tell a good solid rotor from a >bad solid rotor if they're the same thickness, same cooling veins, etc. >You just can't. Actually, on SOME cases you can. Look at the consistancy of the fins in the rotors, and the even-ness of the thickness of the braking surfaces on both sides of the fins. If there is a difference in thickness around the circumference of the rotor, or inconsistancy in the thickness and/or finish of the fins, you WILL have problems with the rotor. If everything looks like it was forged, not cast (precision casting) chances are VERY good you will have no issues. The rotors will heat and cool consistantly - you won't get hars spots, and you won't get genuine warping. >How are you gonna know the metallurgy? You don't - that's the hard part - but when you are in the business you get to know which suppliers stand up, and which don't. If you know the suppliers well, they will tell you which ones they have trouble with, and which ones they don't. Some are made of normal cast iron, some of "nodular cast" (aka Ductile cast) and some of "high carbon steel" >Really? Sometimes you can tell because the color of the metal actually varies across the face of the rotor. Rare, but I've seen brand new rotors with darker "shadows" in the ground surface of the rotor. Hard spots first time you get the rotors warmed up. So hard you can't touch them with a carbide bit in a brake lathe. The BIGGEST problem with rotors is improper seating and wearin of the pad - with spotty pad material deposit on the rotors due to holding the brake pedal down after a hard stop. This causes a minor thump - but if left sitting in the damp, particularly if the material picks up some salt, it rusta behind that material buildup, and chunks of rotor literally fall out - causing "pitted" rotors. Some pad materials are worse than others - I found the "iron metallic" pads Toyota came out with were a LOT worse than the "brass metallic" pads - and "carbon metallic" and "ceramic" are generally even better in that regard, althogh some of them don't stop worth a darn untill they are pretty hot - and some wear rotors like a grinding stone. You don't - that's the hard part - but when you are in the business you get to know which suppliers stand up, and which don't. If you know the suppliers well, they will tell you which ones they have trouble with, and which ones they don't. And some rotors DO WARP. Not many - but I've had at least a bushel basket full of genuinely warped rotors in my 25 year carreer. Most "warped" rotors are not warped - but some are. Some DRASTICALLY - to the point the caliper moves visibly when the wheel is turned - and if the sliders stick the pedal jumps and the steering wheel twitches. More often than not though, they are either pitted or have deposit buildup, ot they have "hard spots" due to metalurgical inclusions >that pushes the piston(s) back into the calipers. Thanks for reminding me >of that tool. I only have one, which is fine - but someday I'll buy a >second one so that I can do both wheels on an axle at the same time. :) Wrong tool. The one I'm talking about has tabs that fit into the notches on the piston face to "thread" it in as you squeese. Can sometimes get away with the $17 "cube" but the kit you KNOW is going to work starts at about $35 for one of questionable quality, and goes up very quickly from there (and IT won't turn back Mazda rear calipers - they use a different system >what? >Never once in my life have I found a single person who has *measured* the >warp. I have. many times. >You know why? >They don't even know *how* to measure rotor warp. >They don't have the tools to measure rotor warp A somple dial indicator tells the tale - and sometimes one side is straight, and the other side is not - parallelism warpage - where some fins collapse and one side of the rotor "caves in" - 1 inch thick on one "side" of the rotor, and .875 or something like that diametrically across the rotor. - and sometimes virtually deead flat on both surfaces - other times with about hald paralel and the other half "sloped" When you get the rotor on the lathe you can see very quickly if it is warped, pitted, hard-spotted, collapesed, or whatever. I've even seen quite a few where the friction surface is "wavy" o high over the fins, and sunk between them - sometimes on one whole surface, sometimes on both surfaces, and sometimes only on part of one or both. >(Hint: It requires a flat benchtop and feeler gauges and it's not hard - >but they don't know that because they didn't measure a single thing.) That won't necessarilly tell you anything. The only way to KNOW is to use a dial indicator properly. >thing. They lied. Worse, they don't even realize they lied. It's like the >original sin. They have it and they don't even know it because they were >born with it. And that is where YOU are WRONG. Many technicians measure brake rotors virtually every day of their working lives. >Street rotors just don't get hot enough to warp. >They just don't. Not usually under normal conditions, but panic stops on the highway CAN get them hot enough to warp -and to collapse between fins - and to glow visibly in the semi-shade of the fender-wells - and to totally BAKE the linings. You CAN make a disc brake "fade" on the road (non competition use) A sticky caloper slider or seized or semi-seized caliper can get the rotor hot enough WITHOUT panic braking to damage both the pad and the rotor.( and to severely comptomize brake effectiveness to the point of causing a pronounced pull to the side of the NON-OVERHEATED brake - - >It's pad deposition I tell ya. Now it could be other things too. >But I'll betcha 90% of the time it's uneven pad deposition. >And 0.0000000000000001% of the time, it's actually rotor warp. Take a few zeros off there.a GENUINELY warped rotor is not a "total unicorn" I've seen numerous cases - and in fact there was a time where we were routinely changing rotors on certain Toyota vehicles (in a given production/ serial number range) due to actual rotor warpage. Dealerships were then REQUIRED to buy an "on-the-car lathe" to true up rotors. If they could not be trued up within a given spec (still thicker than discard) they were to be replaced - a miserable job on those early Tercels where the rotors/hubs and bearings were pressed together inside the knuckles. We replaced enough of them that I got pretty darn good at it!!! >That is, while the short term solution to both is the same, the long term >solution to rotor warp is completely different than the long term solution >to pad deposition. Replacement with "good" rotors - in the Toyota case it WAS a metalurgy issue. The best rotors are made from castings that are "aged" before machining, allowing the casting stresses to resolve. The toyota problem was partly using "grean" castings. The deposits problem can be a double edged sword - wrong pad materials, as well as poor bedding procedures can cause the problem to be "worse than acceptable" >though most people do the wrong solution since street rotors just don't >warp (in practice) because they can't get hot enough to warp. >>>That's the kind of stuff you learn by doing the job yourself. What I learned I learned by doing it for 25byears, on almost a daily basis. >Nope. Street rotors don't warp in practice. >They don't get hot enough to warp. >Look it up. A wize man learns from the mistakes of others - a fool never learns because he "never makes mistakes" >temperature steel gets that flimsy and I want them to tell me how they >MEASURED the warp (because never once have I found anyone who said they >warped who knew those two answers). I've told you how I measure to prove warpage, and how it happens, If a rotor is visbly glowinf (in the dark) it is awfull close to 1000F. Bright cherry is 1375F or very close. Depending on the steel, annealing temperatures run from about 500 to 1400F. If there are stresses cast into the rotor, that's all it takes to "let them out" - warping the rotor. Check "heat treating of nodular iron castings" for more than you will ever want to know about what can go wrong with ferritic castings. (Nodular iron in particular) >Sure you can *LOOK* up the answer. >But they never did the measurement so they can't ever tell me offhand what >I already know they don't know. You know SQUAT. When you've serviced brakes on an almost daily basis for 25 years - when you've machined hundreds, even thousands of brake rotors and drums, and MEASURED hundreds of rotors, then I'll admit you might actually KNOW something about it. Yes - you are right to the extent that MOST "warped rotors" are not. But you are absolutely WRONG when you say they never warp in street/highway use and anyone who says they have had a warped rotor is lying and hasn't measured the rotor to prove it. And your method of neasuring warpage is NOT the correct or industry approved way of measuring rotors for warpage (and would NEVER find warpage in the "hat" area of the rotor - which is caused by gross mistorquing of certain wheels on certain vehicles) (admittedly rare - but not a "total unicorn" either) |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 05 03:45PM -0500 On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 05:53:44 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid> wrote: >The only kinky things I need are the slimmer wrenches, the longer ones, the >curved ones, the angled ones, etc., all of which are for the toughest jobs >and where I generally buy them as oneoffs as needed. And I have often made them myself because theywere not "readilly available" or "affordable" for the purpose. >Adjustable wrenches should be banned as a menace to society. They are totally fine for some applications - but NOT bolts on a car!! |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 05 03:50PM -0500 On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 05:57:49 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid> wrote: >> power injector) >I have a logic tester for TTL circuits (TI 7100 series stuff, as I recall), >but nothing for a car's "logic". Much of car logic IS TTL level (+/- 5 volts) and the rest is floating input to either +12 volts or ground >A good Fluke DMM is de rigueur though, I agree, for any homeowner. 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. >that we need to work on for a car. >It's the same old tools, with minor exceptions of emissions and ECU/DMU/ABS >control, isn't it? Different brake tools for some disc brakes - torque to angle or angle to torque adapters for "torque to tield" bolts. Special wrenches/sockets for certain sensors - but not a lot of essoteric and complex stuff. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 05 04:37PM -0500 On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 06:14:55 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid> wrote: >The whole viscosity thing is a red herring where I live. >You probably live in really cold areas, where it matters. >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 >I never had a truck though. >Just cars and vans and SUVs, and, oh, yeah, station wagons in the days of >yore. The bottoms of most chevys (and some ford taurus sunframes) Taurus doglegs, Mazda (any model) rear wheelwells and doglegs and hatch/trunk 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. >> By the time the gap has changed the combustion seals are getting iffy >> too, so younjust replace them. >And they're still cheap as they always were. 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) >Now you're saying the I4 works harder and hence won't last as long, but I >just don't take that on face value because I might not have mentioned this >yet, but they're completely different engines. You think I don't know that??? >60mph on the freeway or pulling into or out of your driveway. >How long an engine lasts has more to do with how many cold starts it has >than what you call "working harder". 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. >Besides, I might not have mentioned this, but they're completely different >engines, so you can't compare one thing and say that one thing will make >one last longer or shorter. You just can't. 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. If I have a Ford Ranger with a 2.5 4 cyl and one with a 4.0 V6 - and I 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. Same thing with a Sierra 1500 - 4.3 V6, 4.8 V8 or 5.7 V8. If you work the truck - towing a trailer or whatever, the 5.7 is going to outlast the 4.8 or the 4.3 if none of GM's normal gremlins manage to totally kill the engine before it "wears out" The basic design of those 3 engines is almost identical - just 2 cyls missing on the 4.3 and smaller displacement on the 4.8 The 6.0 or 6.2, whatever, is a different kettle of fish, with a hair-spring detonator. >Logic prevails. >There are so many OTHER factors that matter far more to engine life than >the size of the engine displacement. Things like load. Sure - if like MOST pickups on the road today they are never loaded or worked - no difference. 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. >Now if you told me one engine had 10K cold starts and 20K short trips, >while the other only had 1K cold starts and had mostly long trips, then >*that* would be a factor in engine life. Take that TOTALLY out of the equation - I said "all other things being equal". 2 trucks. same usage. same loads -(close to limit) same roads, same drivers, same speeds and traffic. The larger engine (if no fatal design differences) will generally, in principal and in practice, outlast the smaller engine. Particularly where two engines of not TOO big a displacement difference - one being a 4 and another a 6, or an 8 - the lower number of cyls will habe larger displacement per cyl - usually a longer stroke - and if geared to allow the smaller engine to putout the same horsepower (needs to run fster) the piston speed on the lower cyl engine will often be higher than the higher number of cyl engine due to difference in stroke length - which is a large determinator of engine life. The v6 or v8 of the same displacement - or even larger - will also have a shorter crank and a more rigid crankcase/block (in most cases) affecting bearing and crank life. I know there is a lot of design variability - but over the years it has become quite evident that the larger engine GENERALLY outlasts the smaller engine when the capacity limit of the smaller engine is approached, and the more cyls, even for the same displacement, the better the life . Yes, I'll likely end up owning another 4 cyl vehicle - with today's trends it's inevitable - and todays 4 cyls are much better than the 4 cyl of 20 years ago - but given the choice of a 2.5 liter V6 and a 2.5 liter 4 cyl, accessibility and serviceability aside, I'll take the 6. 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. I've owned 2 V6 Aerostars (about as miserable as they come) - a V6 Duratec Mystique (they don't get much uglier to work on) and now a 3 liter Duratec Taurus - again a WHOLE lot more complex and harder to "get to" than a vulcan - and it's only been an extra hour? of frustration over 12 years with the duratecs over what it would have been with a 4 cyl Mystique or a Vulcan Taurus - assuming the 4 cyl and the Vulcan gave no more trouble than the Duratecs - and other than taking half an hour longer to change the plugs on the 3.0 Aerostars than on a typical 4 cyl pickup truck, the horrendous packaging of the aerostar was basically a non-issue for 240,000km on the 90, and 160000+ on the '89. And I do virtually ALL of my own service and repairs. If I ever have to change the catalytic converter on the back bank of the taurus, that will be a different stoty - but it's 16 years old now. If and when that happens I'll buy a different car - - - >> big engine to do the same work. - and generally doesn't last as long. >You can sell that one to other people. Just not to me. >Displacement is just not gonna be a major determinant in engine life. Not on a lightly loaded vehicle. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 05 04:45PM -0500 On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 06:29:47 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid> wrote: >I used to patch the junction between the pipes with that white stuff. >Yuck. >Never worked for more than a week (to get through inspection). Wouldn't get through inspection here - Not legitimately anyway. >I did patch a holed gas tank once. >Amazingly, it worked for the remaining life of the car. I've patched gas tanks by soldering, brazing, and using "liquid metal" I've brazed punctured oil pans - both on and off the car (really extreme measures when on the car - involved use of hot water and a big CO2 fire extinguisher, but 8-12 hours to pull the engine was NOT in the cards!!! And you didn't sat what the "remaining life" of the car was. A cake of soap has gotten many a car home - or through a cursoty inspectin to trade it off - - - |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 05 04:50PM -0500 On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 06:29:52 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid> wrote: >If that works, I'm ok with that. >Simplicity is good. When it exists. >Still ... what about UV coating? Even wiping down with armor-all will extend the life significantly as it contains U-V inhibitors and restores the plasticisers somewhat. >some plastics don't need it while others do (although I always argue that >naked eyeballs don't come with UV coatings so why do people with glasses >need them when people without glasses don't need them?). Bercause EVERONE needs UV protection - one reason people wear sun-glasses. My Crizal lenses block almost 100% of UV - by the end of 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) |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 05 04:59PM -0500 >> I don't disagree. I hated working on mufflers. That was before my gas >> welding days. >> With a gas welder, removing mufflers would have been a *lot* easier. 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 >>> No, it's not. It's still the same steel that lasts around 4 years. >> My bimmer is approaching 20 years on the same exhaust system. >Maybe they used stainless, but you paid for it, no? My 16 year old taurus has stainless exhaust, as does my 22 year old Ranger. So did my Mystique, originally - but when a flange broke for the original owner some bandit sold him a complete walker mild steel system. After I got it, I replaced it again with stainless. The last 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. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 05 05:00PM -0500 >> What crap are you driving??? Most have been stainless steel for over >> 20myears. >A 20 year old Toyota T100 with 240,000 miles. Is that your typical crap? At 20 years old, possibly the last Toyota made without stainless exhaust. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 05 05:01PM -0500 On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:37:11 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: >was possible or helpful. Putting the wrench on the bolt was the hard >part -- my fingers were right down between the fan and the bolts. >Never again! Find a place to get the wrench through to the bolt and spin the fan - don't need to move the handle more than a few degrees. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 05 05:02PM -0500 On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 06:39:45 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid> wrote: >else I've ever seen that is stored outside). >You just have to know the answer. >And the people who sell the stuff have to know the answer. If it has a recylcling logo on it the number tells you what it is - - - - |
| "Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien1@virginmedia.com>: Nov 05 10:03PM "John-Del" <ohger1s@gmail.com> wrote in message news:59fb20df-30f5-4e2d-9199-e8d8d0a0b5a3@googlegroups.com... > coats of red and gray primer all block sanded off and the seal coat. The > color and clear coats are easy. The problem today is the enormous cost of > paints, clears and other coatings. Everything from 3 onwards on motorcycles - my attempts at painting weren't pretty, and bodging wheels in a straight line after some twat drove his car over it was definitely a; "don't try this at home kids". |
| "Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien1@virginmedia.com>: Nov 05 07:03PM <oldschool@tubes.com> wrote in message news:o6qsvctf88lq58bq4to4qrc56s59jjl0i1@4ax.com... > there is truly abandoned. The companies no longer exist. But I do > question the legality of having Win98 on there and maybe even Norton > stuff. Peter Norton's company was taken over by Symantec who CBA doing viable NU beyond 16bit. It would've been better if they had abandoned it. |
| 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 2 topics"
Post a Comment