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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yep, far better coefficient of friction - in dry conditions.

Or with a dial indicator - on both sides - for comparison.

Use to check for warp every time.

Some do. I did. I also taught apprentices to measure for it.

It can under specific circumstances. See it most often on autos in very hilly country.

Measure disc thickness at various points around the disc. If the thickness doesn't vary, then any runout measured on the dial indicator is warp. Verified by back and front runout comparisons.

By the way, thickness variation checks are part of a standard disc inspection process.

Compare measurements.

Depends on the warp severity.

Done all, taught 1 thru 4 at a technical college.

I've been buying new cars since retirement - two last year.

Ah, you mean an *oxy-spanner* or a *gas axe*

Emission requirements.

They have UV protection built in at manufacture.

If you don't keep them for longer than 10 years or, alternately, always park in a garage, you won't.

Indeed. Just like the bad girl, you don't know where she's been! ;-)

No, the inbuilt tyre UV protection is typically good for 5 to 7 years.

I'd have said that!

FWIW, a sign of UV damage to eyes is cataracts.

And people who won't have cataracts when they are old.

Ordinary glass has a degree of UV protection anyway. Same as the untinted windows on your car - up to 80% I believe.

What they are made of, any coatings, their shape. Plenty of research data available on the internet.

Oil control rings have to be better than before since cars use far less oil than before - unless it's a GM product where it will use more than before.

Almost forgot to mention - shorter stroke engines.

I did, since probably 1969 when I was doing my apprenticeship and used to see worn out GM engines at 70k miles with bores like buckets. At the same time, the same engines in taxis could do 2-300k miles with little measurable wear in the bore. That's because those taxis ran day and night with never a cold start. At half a million miles those engines were still running untouched but just about everything else around them had been replaced.

FWIW, auto transmissions last longer when always kept at operating temps and, most importantly, never overheated. They use ablative technologies and friction modifiers are critical.

It would be the biggest issue by far.

It's always good!

I alluded to that when I used the term *high energy*. By *energy* I meant current, not voltage. The use of coil packs these days in multi-cylinder cars means that coil current is shared by, at most, 2 cylinders. In the good old days of V8s, that coil current was shared by

8 cylinders. That's why dwell time was such a critical thing - it was the charging time for the coil. Insufficient dwell meant ignition breakdown at high RPM since the coil had insufficient time to recharge between plug firings. Nowadays a lot of car use an individual pencil coil for each cylinder and each is electronically timed/triggered by the ECU and each cylinder can vary in ignition timing from its adjacent cylinders.

There have been huge developments in automotive technology in the past couple of decades, most of it invisible to all but those of us who delve deeper.

You want to see what developments have been made in engines, look no further than the developments in HCCI engines.

The higher voltage pushes more current across the gap. But that only occurs if the *energy* is stored in the coil in the form of a magnetic flux.

Especially if you have high sulphur content fuel, such as we have here, which leads to the formation of *sulphuric acid* in the sump. Not nice!

I don't disagree that an automatic is a completely different thing to rebuild than a manual would be for a typical rebuild.

Not gonna argue ad infinitum.

Just show a single reference on the Internet that shows, for street vehicles driven normally, that braking is appreciably better with drilled/slotted rotors versus solid rotors all else being equal.

Just one reliable reference on the entire Internet that proves your point. And I'll read it.

First, you read this: Rotors: Blank vs Cross Drilled vs Slotted and Warping

BTW, I'm not talking about 124mph fade tests as shown here by GM engineers:

I'm talking legal normal street driving speeds because we're not talking racing here.

Marketing bullshit and applying racing specifics to street cars is classic bullshit moves, where we've all had this happen to us a billion times.

Just show a reliable reference on the entire Internet ... just one ... that proves that without changing anything else ... in a normally driven street car ... which is what we're talking about here ... that any of that above isn't anything other than marketing bullshit.

Just one reference from the entirety of the Internet. You show it ... I'll read it.

Until then, it's marketing bullshit.

We don't disagree. In fact, I already said that in a different post in this thread. Let me cut and paste what I said.

------ start cut and paste what I said ------- Life is one thing but the *primary* factor in brake pads is friction.

I buy $35 PBR pads with FF or GG friction ratings which last 30K miles or so and the dust isn't objectionable.

So my factors are: a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless) b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners) c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners)

Friction Coefficient Identification System for Brake Linings

------ end cut and paste what I said -------

Still, the MOST IMPORTANT reason for buying pads is friction coefficient. If you had excellent life and lousy stopping power - would you buy them?

Good point that a lot of brake installations squeal, but we've researched this and it seems more depending on "situation" than on application.

By that I mean that you can put the same pads on two similar cars, and some people complain of noise while others don't.

There is a reason, for example, they have those padded shims. But again, my point is that you can give me all the bullshit you want to tell me that you can't choose pads wisely and I will only counter you with logic.

If we add noise, it doesn't change the logic one bit. It only repeats a step.

The factors would just be: a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless) b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners) c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners) d. Noise (the only way to know is to ask owners)

More of the same above.

What you're completely whooshing on is that you have no way of knowing that crap unless you ask someone - and - even then - you have no way of knowing if you'll get that crap on your application.

Worse ... it's NOT at all what brakes do.

If you have an EE pad that meets all your bullshit requirements, then it's still a worthless pad, even though it a. Has an EE rating (which makes it almost worthless as a brake pad) b. Yet, it has no dust c. And it lasts forever (and so does the rotor!) d. And it's as quiet as a whisper

If I was going to market that bullshit pad above, I'd say: "Quietest, most dustless, longest lasting pads in the business!"

That's marketing bullshit for you. If it doesn't stop the vehicle - all that other crap is useless.

For my bimmer, FF and GG are pretty common. But maybe it's different for other makes. I haven't seen anything better than G in the real world. But I'm sure we can look up what exists.

FG is fine as long as that's as good or better than OEM.

I know what you mean, which isn't technically correct, but I know what you meant anyway.

I was talking about the guy who jacked the car up to adjust the toe, but he already explained he uses a process which is basically:

a) measure b) raise jack c) adjust d) lower jack e) go to a and repeat until the measurement is correct.

As for why you're not technically correct, "normal" load means different things depending on the vehicle manufacturer.

For the example I know best, on my bimmer, you load with as many pounds as it takes to get the desired measurement of the vehicle suspension to be such that the center of the hubcap to the center of the fender flare above the wheel is so many centimeters.

That can take *any* number of pounds spread evenly between each seat and the trunk, where 500 pounds total added weight is not at all abnormal.

If you're calling that 500 pounds the "normal" load, then you're technically correct for that vehicle. But it's different for every vehicle, where, for example, the sport suspension takes a different weight than the M suspension which is different weight than the non-sport suspension.

I think we're talking different things. I know what you're talking about. I don't know that you know what I'm talking about.

Do you need me to give you a reference for what I'm talking about?

I am assuming we're talking only street vehicles here.

On street engines, an adjustable wrench often won't fit, and just as often will damage the bolt.

Do you disagree?

We all spend time differently. For example, I haven't owned a TV in many decades. Hence I know I spent zero hours watching TV in the past 30 years.

How much time did you spend watching TV in the past 30 years?