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

Enjoy!

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?

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.

The Real Bev posted for all of us...

Have you tried a place like Classic car parts? You may be able to get the weatherstripping or clips from them.

snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...

+75 and gaining... I am just reading along here and getting a few chuckles as well...

All Chrysler stuff, as far as I am aware.

Warp *creates* runout.

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

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.)

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. :)

It sure does! :)

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...

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.

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).

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.

I never said nobody else got to work. Logically, you're not making sense.

Of course you haven't. It's the first time I wrote it here.

"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.

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.

You must be a car racer. I don't have worse handling with FWD. Better handling in fact.

You'd be easier to get along with if you didn't assume people are spouting "bro science" and lying to themselves.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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 do? You have *better* handling with FWD than RWD?

Pray tell. How?

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 00/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!

It was.

A dump truck is for hauling loads, not anything to do with handling per se.

I drive a FWD car because of the packaging arrangements, not the cost.

So why make a big deal out of it?

Dump trucks, laden, have incredible slip angles.

When you talk about handling, you should be referring to slip angles.

No such an animal as bro science. That is your creation to explain things you don't understand.

When you talk about handling with nary a mention of slip angles, it's you who is relying on bro science.

You need to have a good long talk with a few rally drivers. Get yourself an education about things you seem not to understand.

Slip angles and torque.

Escapism on your part.

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.

You're certainly trying to create one.

Snow and rain handling. FWD is better. Not snowing or raining? Doesn't matter to me, I'm not racing.

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.

Rain and snow handling, FWD is better. You're bringing up arguments which were settled decades ago.

Snow and rain handling FWD is better. Unless you put 3-400 pounds of sandbags in the trunk.

I haven't seen FWD "marketed" in decades.

No. I have "better' handling 10% of the time and 90% handling is a non-issue.

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.

I don't need to use chains or weights since I quit driving RWD cars.

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.

Again, you're saying I said something I never said. Not logical.

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.

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.

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.

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.