- What are some car-repair jobs you always wished you could do but have never done? - 22 Updates
- Nice antique store find - 3 Updates
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Nov 07 10:41AM -0800 On 11/06/2017 08:49 AM, RS Wood wrote: >> I regard dust as a protective coating. > That was a good one. > Mind if I borrow it when my wife asks me to clean up the house? Enjoy! -- Cheers, Bev It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad. |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Nov 07 10:52AM -0800 On 11/07/2017 07:00 AM, RS Wood wrote: > * alignment (takes a TON of THINKING that would explode most heads) Especially if you have an old car/truck. 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. 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? -- Cheers, Bev Polish loan sharks: they loan you money and then skip town. |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Nov 07 10:55AM -0800 On 11/07/2017 07:00 AM, RS Wood wrote: > 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). I thought that Dodge (and maybe the rest of the Chrysler line) was the only one that did that. -- Cheers, Bev Polish loan sharks: they loan you money and then skip town. |
| AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>: Nov 07 01:33PM -0600 On 11/7/2017 12:55 PM, The Real Bev wrote: >> seventies as I recall). > I thought that Dodge (and maybe the rest of the Chrysler > line) was the only one that did that. My Rambler did, as many cars before lugnuts were shaped conical on the rim side to prevent precession. -- Andrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
| Tekkie® <Tekkie@comcast.net>: Nov 07 03:21PM -0500 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. -- Tekkie |
| Tekkie® <Tekkie@comcast.net>: Nov 07 03:34PM -0500 clare@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us... > No reputable shop will do it because comebacks are expensive - and > real mechanics KNOW the comebacks will happen if they do something > stupid like installing new pads on badly worn rotors. +75 and gaining... I am just reading along here and getting a few chuckles as well... -- Tekkie |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 08 09:13AM +1100 On 8/11/2017 5:55 AM, The Real Bev wrote: >> seventies as I recall). > I thought that Dodge (and maybe the rest of the Chrysler line) was the > only one that did that. All Chrysler stuff, as far as I am aware. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 08 09:16AM +1100 On 7/11/2017 4:09 PM, RS Wood wrote: >> and the shop price for the repair probably contributed to the previous >> owners desire to get rid of the car. > Doesn't anyone here know the difference between runout and warp? Warp *creates* runout. -- Xeno |
| amdx <nojunk@knology.net>: Nov 07 05:18PM -0600 On 11/5/2017 4:03 PM, Ian Field wrote: > 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". Last Thanksgiving we decided to repaint the hood on my son's Toyota. Last car I painted was in 1973 auto body class. So I went to the paint store with my son to get some lacquer paint. I got schooled, they don't use lacquer paint, you need a color coat and a top coat, "Oh". So we got all the supplies, I bought a Harbor Freight paint gun. Got all the prep work done and found out my daughters boyfriend grew up working for his dad in a body shop. He pretty much took over from that point and it all turned out good. Looks like he's a keeper, their getting married in March. Mikek |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 07 11:25PM Xeno wrote: > Warp *creates* runout. It sure does! :) |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 07 11:25PM 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 > 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.) > 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. Channellocks is named by a particular brand, I think (although I use Craftsman brand pliers). 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. :) |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 07 11:25PM Tekkie+AK4- wrote: > +-75 and gaining... I am just reading along here and getting a few chuckles > as well... Have you noticed that in the last 30 years, the *same* bro science prevails on some people who can't learn logic ever? People back up marketing bullshit (which they believe) with fantastical bro science (which nobody else believes). They've been doing that for as long as I can remember... |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 07 11:25PM Ed Pawlowski wrote: > I'm responsible for my car and myself and that comes far ahead of > showing up on time. This year will be different though, I'm retired and > plan to just go back to bed if it snows. Your point is well taken that when *deep snow* is on the ground, nobody expects you to be on time at work. It's an unrealistic expectation. It's *bro science* that someone implied that the only people on time at work on days with *deep snow* on the ground are those with FWD cars. They expect us to believe their FWD bro science! Only a fool tries to back up marketing bullshit with their bro science. Many a fool has tried. And still tires. Even 30 years later, they still try. And yet, they lie to themselves more than they convince anyone else. It's just not a fact that only FWD owners are on time at work when there is *deep snow* on the roads. Those who defend FWD on such merits are attempting to use bro science to defend their own crazy thoughts - since nobody logical will fall for bro science or anecdotal science that we've heard here. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 07 11:25PM rbowman wrote: > I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about FWD. I wasn't going to > reply but your utter illogical bias is starting to piss me off. End of > discussion. You missed *everything* I said. I don't have a bug up my ass on FWD, since I already said that if you want to haul dirt 1% of the time and therefore you drive a dumptruck 100% of the time (so that you can haul dirt when you need to haul dirt), then that is a perfectly logical argument for driving a dump truck. But if you start throwing in bro science to try to tell me that you bought the dump truck for *handling*, then you're just falling for the 30-year old marketing bullshit that FWD is for handling. FWD is not for handling. So my bug up my ass if for people who lie to themselves using bro science to back up marketing bullshit that they *believe*. Oh I know they *believe* the marketing bullshit. What irks me is that they expect us to believe their "bro science". So your *bro science* is where the bug up my ass lies. Not in FWD (which has it's merits because it's cheap, and cheap is good). |
| Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net>: Nov 07 04:45PM -0800 >Vic Smith wrote: >> The only handling that concerns me is snow and rain handling. <snipped some nonsense about Hummers and dump trucks> >Again, if *that* is what matters to you, and if you think everyone in >Chicago "missed a day" because they had RWD, then you're being true to >yourself. Never said anything like that. I was driving RWD. Most cars on the road were RWD. I had 300 pounds of sandbags in my trunk over the rear axle. Most people didn't have any extra weight in the trunk. Most people who tried to get to work were stuck in the snow or turned around and went back home when they realized they would probably get stuck in the snow. The whole point of relating that was 3-400 pounds of sand in the trunk makes a RWD car a "snow handler." Likewise, a couple guys standing on the rear bumper. When we had bumpers. >However, if anyone else got to work on those days who had RWD vehicles, >then you're not being logically true again. I never said nobody else got to work. Logically, you're not making sense. >I'm not as dumb as you need me to be in order to believe in your "bro" science. >You think I haven't heard what you just said, a billion times in the past >30 years? Of course you haven't. It's the first time I wrote it here. >The moment people start throwing "bro science" at me, I know they're just >flailing for lack of any reasonable logic. Happens every time when people >believe in Marketing Bullshit. <nonsense anecdote snipped> >Anyone who is forced to constantly resort to "bro science" to back up their >claims is simply lying to themselves about the real issue, which is the >most common thing that happens when they fall for Marketing Bullshit. "Bro science" is your own marketing bullshit. The reason I mentioned 1978-1979 is it's an extreme example of your repeatedly claimed 1% being wrong. The real percentage is - including rain - might average close to 10% of the time I'm driving in conditions where FWD is advantageous. The most dangerous times of my driving. Without 300 pounds of sand in my trunk. Whereas RWD provides NO handling advantage at ANY time for me. I'm not a car racer. >> I was driving a RWD '67 Buick Skylark. With 300 lbs of sand bags in the trunk. >> That's a cheap method. >And I have a bimmer RWD that uses chains in Tahoe. No problem. Again, you're not thinking logically. Your trips to Tahoe don't equate to me living my driving life where it snows 4 months of the year. >Again, you're back to logic and not bro science. >If for 1% of the time you don't need extra weight or chains, then that's a >fine reason for having worse handling 99% of the time. You must be a car racer. I don't have worse handling with FWD. Better handling in fact. >Just don't lie about them. >The moment you bring in "bro science", I know you're not telling yourself >the truth and that you are trying to defend Marketing Bullshit. You'd be easier to get along with if you didn't assume people are spouting "bro science" and lying to themselves. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 08 01:13AM 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. You drive a dump truck for a reason, and that's because it hauls dirt. You drive a FWD car for a reason and that's because it's cheap. There is nothing wrong with those reasons. Just stop lying to yourself, and to us. Cheap is not a crime. 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. The only way you can support that argument is with bro science. >>flailing for lack of any reasonable logic. Happens every time when people >>believe in Marketing Bullshit. > <nonsense anecdote snipped> I've been discussing FWD for decades, where there are no new arguments from those who bought FWD because it's cheap and then they try to convince the world that they bought it for its handling. The only way to back up those marketing claims is with bro science. > The reason I mentioned 1978-1979 is it's an extreme example of your repeatedly claimed 1% > being wrong. The real percentage is - including rain - might average close to 10% of the > time I'm driving in conditions where FWD is advantageous. We can resolve that argument easily with two methods, both of which work in and of themselves. The first is that to take your 90% at face value, which is that you have lousy handling for 90% of the time to have good handling for 10% of the time when you can't even drive all that fast anyway, so handling can be solved with simply slowing down. However, the second is more technically interesting. How do you propose to support your supposition that FWD handles better in the rain than RWD does? > The most dangerous times of my driving. Without 300 pounds of sand in my trunk. > Whereas RWD provides NO handling advantage at ANY time for me. > I'm not a car racer. You're using bro science here, since all you have to do is "slow down" in rainy conditions, and if you really drive in *deep snow*, then chains and/or weight works fine for the rare occasions that *deep snow* is still on the road (rare being single digit percentages). > Again, you're not thinking logically. Your trips to Tahoe don't equate to me living my > driving life where it snows 4 months of the year. I agree that a planned trip to Tahoe is nothing like living in the snow belt, where I rode a motorcycle for heaven's sake, in the snow belt, which means I learned all too well how to drive in the *track* of the car in front of me, when the snow was a few inches thick. However, this *bro science* of FWD handling better is what is the crime becuase the only way the bro science works is that if whatever claim you make for FWD getting to work doesn't work for RWD. If you're saying *nobody* can get to work in your area if they're in RWD, or that everyone in RWD is getting into accidents in the rain while the FWD cars are NOT getting into accidents ... then we can talk logic. But your bro science is super selective and just doesn't hold logic. > You must be a car racer. I don't have worse handling with FWD. > Better handling in fact. You do? You have *better* handling with FWD than RWD? Pray tell. How? > You'd be easier to get along with if you didn't assume people are spouting "bro science" > and lying to themselves. I've been listinging to FWD discussions for over 30 years and counting. They never change. Here's how it starts. 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 chronic understeer & marginal traction in deep snow. Voila! A myth is born! |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 08 02:29PM +1100 On 8/11/2017 12:13 PM, RS Wood wrote: > Vic Smith wrote: >> <snipped some nonsense about Hummers and dump trucks> > It wasn't nonsense. It was. > Saying you drive a FWD for its "handling" is like saying you drive a dump > truck for its handling. A dump truck is for hauling loads, not anything to do with handling per se. > You drive a dump truck for a reason, and that's because it hauls dirt. > You drive a FWD car for a reason and that's because it's cheap. I drive a FWD car because of the packaging arrangements, not the cost. > There is nothing wrong with those reasons. > Just stop lying to yourself, and to us. > Cheap is not a crime. So why make a big deal out of it? > 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. > The only way you can support that argument is with bro science. No such an animal as bro science. That is your creation to explain things you don't understand. > those who bought FWD because it's cheap and then they try to convince the > world that they bought it for its handling. > The only way to back up those marketing claims is with bro science. When you talk about handling with nary a mention of slip angles, it's you who is relying on bro science. > lousy handling for 90% of the time to have good handling for 10% of the > time when you can't even drive all that fast anyway, so handling can be > solved with simply slowing down. You need to have a good long talk with a few rally drivers. Get yourself an education about things you seem not to understand. > However, the second is more technically interesting. > How do you propose to support your supposition that FWD handles better in > the rain than RWD does? Slip angles and torque. > rainy conditions, and if you really drive in *deep snow*, then chains > and/or weight works fine for the rare occasions that *deep snow* is still > on the road (rare being single digit percentages). Escapism on your part. <snipped> > 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 chronic understeer & marginal traction in deep snow. You haven't driven too many modern FWD cars, have you? You prove that by your use of the term *chronic understeer* when quite a lot of RWD cars have chronic *oversteer*. I have seen FE RWD cars with chronic understeer. It's all to do with slip angles and GofG. Ask yourself why the best handling cars are *mid engined*. FWIW, the original mini did not have chronic understeer and I could bat my 850 around hairpins leaving my friend with his RWD 327 GM POS swinging sideways all over the road behind me. He had the wherewithall on the straightaways, the V8 engine saw to that, but on the hairpins the mini was king. Power into the hairpins whether facing downhill or uphill and let the car pull itself around the corners in a way the RWD POS could never do. > Voila! > A myth is born! You're certainly trying to create one. -- Xeno |
| Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net>: Nov 07 08:00PM -0800 >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. >You drive a dump truck for a reason, and that's because it hauls dirt. >You drive a FWD car for a reason and that's because it's cheap. 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. >Cheap is not a crime. >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. Rain and snow handling, FWD is better. You're bringing up arguments which were settled decades ago. >I've been discussing FWD for decades, where there are no new arguments from >those who bought FWD because it's cheap and then they try to convince the >world that they bought it for its handling. Snow and rain handling FWD is better. Unless you put 3-400 pounds of sandbags in the trunk. >The only way to back up those marketing claims is with bro science. I haven't seen FWD "marketed" in decades. >lousy handling for 90% of the time to have good handling for 10% of the >time when you can't even drive all that fast anyway, so handling can be >solved with simply slowing down. No. I have "better' handling 10% of the time and 90% handling is a non-issue. >However, the second is more technically interesting. >How do you propose to support your supposition that FWD handles better in >the rain than RWD does? Rain often causes slickness. FWD handles slickness better. All of my FWD drive cars have handled better than my RWD. I just never lose traction with FWD. >rainy conditions, and if you really drive in *deep snow*, then chains >and/or weight works fine for the rare occasions that *deep snow* is still >on the road (rare being single digit percentages). I don't need to use chains or weights since I quit driving RWD cars. >However, this *bro science* of FWD handling better is what is the crime >becuase the only way the bro science works is that if whatever claim you >make for FWD getting to work doesn't work for RWD. Why do you misstate what I said about handling. I never said FWD is better handling. I said FWD is better in the rain and snow. >If you're saying *nobody* can get to work in your area if they're in RWD, >or that everyone in RWD is getting into accidents in the rain while the FWD >cars are NOT getting into accidents ... then we can talk logic. Again, you're saying I said something I never said. Not logical. >You do? >You have *better* handling with FWD than RWD? >Pray tell. How? About 10% of the time I'm driving I don't slip and slide in the rain and snow as I did when driving RWD. The other 90% of the time handling is a non-issue. >3. Marketing pushes chronic understeer & marginal traction in deep snow. >Voila! >A myth is born! That FWD has better handling under slick conditions was settled about 30 years ago. You might as well just face facts. BTW, I drove RWD for decades. It's nice not having to put 300 pounds of sandbags in my trunk when it's snowy season. But it was no big deal, and I liked RWD for maintenance reasons. |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Nov 07 09:20PM -0700 On 11/7/2017 6:13 PM, RS Wood wrote: > You drive a dump truck for a reason, and that's because it hauls dirt. > You drive a FWD car for a reason and that's because it's cheap. 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. |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Nov 07 09:30PM -0700 On 11/7/2017 8:29 PM, Xeno wrote: > mini was king. Power into the hairpins whether facing downhill or uphill > and let the car pull itself around the corners in a way the RWD POS > could never do. I remember the original Minis running at Lime Rock. A Corvette could run away on the straight but somehow after the twisty stuff the Mini would be stuck to its bumper again. That's not a fair test because the 'Vettes handled for shit anyway speaking of understeer, They did love straight lines. |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Nov 07 08:43PM -0800 On 11/07/2017 12:21 PM, Tekkie® wrote: >> 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 |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Nov 07 08:52PM -0800 On 11/07/2017 03:25 PM, RS Wood wrote: > 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. > 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. > 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 |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Nov 07 07:04PM -0500 Picked this up at an antique store in Providence, RI over the weekend: <https://imgur.com/a/AH0k7> International Radio Corp Kadette 52 tabletop tombstone radio. The enclosure is in OK shape given the age but the electronics chassis looks immaculate; looks like the original set of tubes and has never been worked on. Power and output transformers both test good on my bench. Paid $40 cash. <http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~srs/Antiques/templ.php?pid=147&collection=Radios> |
| "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net>: Nov 07 07:30PM -0500 "bitrex" <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote in message news:RRrMB.2$4c.1@fx14.iad... > on. Power and output transformers both test good on my bench. Paid $40 > cash. > <http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~srs/Antiques/templ.php?pid=147&collection=Radios> You did good. What does it require for power? |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Nov 07 11:29PM -0500 On 11/07/2017 07:30 PM, tom wrote: >> cash. >> <http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~srs/Antiques/templ.php?pid=147&collection=Radios> > You did good. What does it require for power? It looks like a basically standard but early line-powered All American 5-type design. 6A8 oscillator/converter, 6K7 IF amp, 6J7 detector/first audio, 6F6 audio output, 5Z4 rectifier. It has a power xfmr with a 5 volt winding for the rectifier tube, and also for the 6 volt tubes and B+ unlike the later AA5s that used series string heaters. <https://www.dropbox.com/s/hygkhrwgg7io66i/IMG_20171107_225220458.jpg?dl=0>> In my unit everything is a metal enclosure type tube; the 6A8, 6K7, and 6J7 have their signal grid connection on a cap on the top: <https://www.radiomuseum.org/tubes/tube_6j7.html> Original price in 1935 said to be $30 on the above site; there's no dedicated RF amp so I'm guessing this was the "budget" model. Schematic: <http://www.nostalgiaair.org/pagesbymodel/542/M0009542.pdf> Actually looking at the schematic I don't think the can capacitor in mine is original; it looks newer than the rest of the set and is a double 8uF unit rather than triple 6uF as specified. It was probably replaced at some point, looks like it might be from the late 40s or 1950s? <https://www.dropbox.com/s/omibj7mvffk835t/IMG_20171107_225224021.jpg?dl=0> |
| 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