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

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.

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

I know.

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.

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

The only reason for FWD is profits.

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

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

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

Use logic some day in your life.

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

Tell me what you find.

There is only one reason manufacturers went to FWD cars.

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

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

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

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

They slide differently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I have to explain the crime *again*, and *again* and *again* and

*again*, then you're just proving to me you're incapable of understanding the simplest of concepts.

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

It's more than slip angles.

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

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

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

Remember *why* FWD exists.

1. Bean counter comes up with great idea to increase profits 00/car.
2. Marketing ponders how to "spin" it so the populace will buy it.
3. Marketing pushes bro science without noting the huge negatives.

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

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

You know this for a fact? Or are you guessing? I have seen it done.

What I learnt from 50 years in the trade is how much force a bolt needs

- relative to its size - the make its fixing secure. I learnt to use a tension wrench, I learnt to look at thread forms, I learnt to *think* first, then act.

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

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

Look at the torques most *wheels* are tightened to, then compare that to what maximum torque a lug of that size, tensile strength and thread form is capable of and you will see the disconnect in your logic.

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

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

See above.

45 - 55 ft lb.

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

The issue applies to drums and discs. The effect felt by the driver will differ somewhat but distortion will definitely occur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the logic:

1. If you *can* apply enough torque to a lug nut to permanently bend a rotor, the you can permanently warp a rotor by torquing lug nuts incorrectly.
2. Otherwise, you can't.

In addition, there's *this* bit of logic:

1. How much do they typically overtighten lug nuts in the shop? Maybe to

100 foot pounds, right?

Is 100 foot pounds enough to permanently bend a rotor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could look it up, but we can use The term *rock ape* comes to mind when I think of broken off wheel studs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see what you just did?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You intuitively feel that you've seen rotor warp, and yet it's very likely you *never* once measured it, and it's just as likely you didn't even

*read* the references provided which prove otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My VWs were good in the snow too. Not much clearance though.

Try telling the other guy that handling is a non-issue most of the time.

I suppose to the other guy that's a marketing gimmick.

Well yeah. It had that pancake 6 holding it down. The beetles were supposed to be good for the same reason.

I doubt the other guy lives in Montana. The road report from early December to late February is usually snow packed and icy. That describes my driveway too. I don't miss the drama of getting my RWD F150 out of the driveway at all.

AWD is marketed as a feature. I honestly don't remember a salesman saying 'Buy the FWD; it's better in the snow.' I will admit I'm focused on other things when shopping for a car. I like 2 door hatchbacks and they tend to be FWD. I did have one that was RWD. I traded a '80 Camaro for a '82 Firebird when the Camaro/Firebirds went to a hatchback. It was nothing special in the snow but it was better than my '73 Mustang, which was an unmitigated disaster. When Ford went to that Mustang II POS I went GM. I haven't looked at the new offerings of either but at least they look like cars again.

I have to agree, I haven't done a drive shaft u-joint since the 60s when I had no tools except a hammer and screwdriver and someone gave me a Christmas gift of Craftsman open-end wrench sets.

In those days we only needed the inch sizes - none of this metric shit - but I digress.

Just like I thought the lug bolt reassembly would be hard (it was a piece of cake to put the new lug bolts in), I was surprised how *easy* the U-joint was to knock off the driveshaft.

As I recall, I removed and then wedged the driveshaft into a relatively old tree stump so it fit like a vise into the wood (I didn't have a bench vise, nor even a bench to bolt it to in those days).

Whack! Whack! Pop! ... wow. That was easy!

Wouldn't you know it. The u-joint just popped out of the shaft.

I forget all the details as this was more than 50 years ago, but I was surprised how *easy* it was. I think it went in pretty easily as I don't recall remembering anything about reassembly and you only remember the times when you're surprised.

That was my first, and my last drive shaft ujoint but it was so easy, I'm

*glad* I did it. I remember it looked like a stocky sturdy hefty heavy cross with beautifully machined round caps on each of the four ends.

Anyway, I think I've learned a lot in this thread, which was two of the three things we discussed.

1. Why most of us don't do the five or six jobs
2. Why cars last forever nowadays
3. Let's just forget the warp, fwd, drilled rotor stuff. :)

Here's my pensive summary why most of us don't do the six main jobs:

1. major engine work (we don't have the time to do it on a daily drive)
2. automatic transmission (we don't have the skill set to do it right)
3. manual transmission (we need a couple of tools that we don't have)
4. alignment (we need to think too much and it hurts our brains to do that)
5. tires (it's just too freaking easy to pay someone else to do them)
6. paint (we don't have the necessary skills to do the job well)

How does that sound as a summary as to *why* we don't do those 6 jobs.

Remember the "How does the snowplow driver drive to his snowplow?" commercials?

My 83 Sentra (FWD of course) with real-chain chains was very good on the

20 miles of 2-3 inches of packed snow/ice on the mountain road up to the ski are. Nobody told me you weren't supposed to drive 40, which is what I was doing. After maybe 4 trips one of the chains broke.

I don't know whether it was the RWD or the soft racing tires, but driving down the mountain in my friend's S2000 was the best driving experience I've ever had even including the botched shifts!

In my defense, I hadn't driven stick for 15 years and the shifter only provided a TINY amount of physical space between the gears and I had no idea where I was most of the time.

A buddy of mine who lives in Philadelphia, Pa, This morning he took his Ford Taurus to a shop to have the old EGR valve replaced. It cost him $450.00. If it had been my car I would have bought an EGR deleate kit, or rigged up something. No more EGR valve.

I got an Austin America back in 76. I was greatly impressed with it's efficiency of space and get up and go. I told my wife that one day, all cars would be FWD. Hey, I was right. :)

Good point. There's also meatware.

Being also a Corvair guy, I am somewhere between incompetent and dangerous in a FWD. All my instincts are wrong for that. Younger drivers who drive those all day are good at it and ought to stay away from Corvairs, Porsches etc.

RS Wood posted for all of us...

You know I really don't care what what you think of me. I am satisfied that I have done good deeds for my fellow citizens.