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

The biggest advantage is the fuel is injected after initial compression, just before the spark - so the fuel is not "dwelling" in the combustion chamber under high heat and pressure, dissassociating and causing detonation. Can run much higher compression ratio on regular gas.

Might happen - but not by design. A properly running injected engine hardly builds any deposits at all under normal operation.

They do brakes and suspension and tires now.

You paid $10 to twist the bolt and $90 to know how far to turn what bolt in what direction!!

Caster and camber are pretty well inter-related - changing one changes the other on most non-strut suspensions. Struts are a whole lot simpler.

There is more to it than that. FWD is more efficient than spinning a drive shaft and rear differential. Bending power 90 degrees costs. FWD also allows as much if not more passenger space in the cabin. If you ever dealt with the transmission hump from hell you know what I mean. Admittedly it's a moot point for me since I go for two bucket seats and 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.

Shim over buckets? Yamaha had a tool that would hold the bucket down for some of their engines so you could get the shims out. Shims under the bucket means you pull the cams.

Both drilling and grooving INCREASE surface area exposed to air.

Mass just delays the inevitable. Mass does NOT cool. Mass absorbs (and holds) heat. Airflow and convection cool.

Enough mass prevents the brake from overheating as quickly as a lower mass rotor - but also takes longer to cool. In racing applications RECOVERY is the aim - so they drill and groove the rotors to both let the outgassing from overheated pads escape, and the rotors to shed heat more quickly. Then they use carbon fibre - which absorbs LESS heat, and weighs less than steel, but can operate hotter and still stop.

There is more than just mass involved with rotor thickness. There is also the fact a thicker rotor has more strength and wont - get this - WARP when it gets hot.

Well, I'll half agree with both of you.

Front drive is LIGHTER - which is the main arguement for front drive. It is more compact packaging - taking up less interior space - no driveshaft hump, no transmission hump, and no space taken up by the rear diff (and rear axles) With transverse engine mounting hypoid gears are eliminated, increasing the efficiency of the drivetrain. It MIGHT be less expensive to build - but that's a byproduct of the rest of it.

As for handling - that depends what you want. Rallying competitively for 3 years with a front wheel drive Renault 12, and having owned and driven a "classic" mini as my first car, and driving a 204 Peugeot estate during my time in Africa - I LIKE front wheel drive handling. It's definitely DIFFERENT than rear drive - but the low powered Renault beat out a LOT of bigger and more powerful rear drive cars - Datsuns, Celicas, BMWs, MGs, "Yank Tanks", Beetles, and Porsches.

Better design, better metalurgy

Actually a LOT of science involved in the base metalurgy, the torsion design, the surface finish - moly filled, chromed, etc, as well as the thickness and tension of the rings.

The ring used in a dragster engine, truck engine, and standard street engine will all be significantly different.

You just do not understand the complexity of ring sealing - how they must twist - and bend to seal as both the rings and cyls change size and shape as they heat and cool.

A simple cast iron flat-land ring with no taper or notches doesn't seal or last worth a crap. It can't twist (has no torsion)

Oil ring design is every bit as complex.

No way a 1855 Chevy ring would ever go 200,000 miles if installed in today's engines - just like it didn't back then - even WITH today's oils.

Well, there was a LOT of design work to ammortize.

GM never made a penny on the Olds Toronado and Caddy El Dorado because of the significantly higher cost of the powertrain (which was also used in the GMC Motorhomes) The Citation was also an expensive proposition for GM - cost more to build than the old nova/ventura/ etc.

Volume has brought the price down.

Chrysler is still building RWD ( 300, charger, challenger, etc) - GM still builds the Camaro and Corvette and Ford the 'Stang.

They are still competetive (well, not the Corvette).

Manufacturers can cheapen up any design if they can design to use existing parts.

They were first actually VARNISHED, then Laquered a few years later.

I ran the 170 Valiant clearances at half the spec'd clearance - which was responsible for it's unique exhaust note and helped produce that 206 HP at the rear wheels through the pushbutton Torqueflight.

Carbon black is a major player - - -

I get rid of mine when they finally piss me off once too often. Usually after 10 years or so - and I buy them 5 to 10 years old. Sometimes significantly older.

When I get sick of fixing them, or something comes up that I decide not to fix, it's adios amigo!!

You mean Knucklbuster boltheadrounders??

Engines is engines. It don't matter to me what's in it as long as it starts and goes. The engine that worked best for me was cast iron pushrod engine. The worst was a flat OHC 4 cylinder.

All this stuff don't matter much since the engines of the futures won't have valves or cams or chains or belts. Just in time, I'm getting too old to work on this shit.