Car Enthusiast Club [Now Motorcycle friendly!] - First thread to 150k! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[vetali]

10 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Good to know, so odds are pretty good something in the 60K mile area has either been fixed already or just isn't affected?

Yeah, and if its within 65k or whatever the federal emissions warranty is they will be covered.

[bcredeur97]

5 hours ago, Bitter said:

Stuck with auto, gf has to be able to drive it too. Not that I don't think she couldn't learn stick...I don't think I can deal with her bitching and moaning about it. And really I'm not keen on stick for a commuter and city driver. CVT gets better sticker mileage by a few points but yeah it sucks.

 

I thought that Turbo engine was a Turdo with several different problems?

What AC issues?

Not only are CVT's less fun... but don't they require additional maintenance and generally don't last as long as traditional autos? I still feel skeptical about them

 

for most people it may not be enough to matter, but I know you like to keep your cars for a long time. I guess if the saved fuel makes up for it? But even then it feels like you're losing out (less satisfying) to just break even financially which isn't a great outcome

[Bitter]

12 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

Not only are CVT's less fun... but don't they require additional maintenance and generally don't last as long as traditional autos? I still feel skeptical about them

 

for most people it may not be enough to matter, but I know you like to keep your cars for a long time. I guess if the saved fuel makes up for it? But even then it feels like you're losing out (less satisfying) to just break even financially which isn't a great outcome

Fluid changes a little more often, 30K is what we sell and what most call for. But really regular autos should see 30K intervals too if they're in stop and go.

[Stahlmann]

3 hours ago, RevoltTrain said:

Rear fogs are few and far between in the states. Only cars that I've had with em were my Saabs

Oh didn't know that. It's essential in the EU. Afaik even required by law.

[Bitter]

I can get them for my Celica, but it kind of ruins the look of the car. There's cutouts in all the rear bumper covers, but I don't think the wiring is there.

[iDeFecZx]

8 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Oh didn't know that. It's essential in the EU. Afaik even required by law.

Is here in the UK, rears are a legal requirement, fronts however are not

[bcredeur97]

45 minutes ago, iDeFecZx said:

Is here in the UK, rears are a legal requirement, fronts however are not

I do think they are a great idea, as long as they are used properly. 

They really do make a big diff in fog

[Bitter]

43 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

I do think they are a great idea, as long as they are used properly. 

They really do make a big diff in fog

Yeah but you have to have more than 5 brain cells rubbing together to know to turn lights on. I see so many people driving with lights off...at night, in the rain, in snow, in fog, at night, AT NIGHT!!!

[Oskar94a]

I testfitted the fenders and body, there's lots of bodywork and alignments to be done. I'm inexperienced with metalworking so I have a lot to learn. 

[AlwaysFSX]

2 hours ago, Oskar94a said:

I testfitted the fenders and body, there's lots of bodywork and alignments to be done. I'm inexperienced with metalworking so I have a lot to learn.

[DANK_AS_gay]

I found this video to be informative, especially with how depressing the car market is for a 17 year old looking to have a bit of cheap fun. And with so many sources (MotorTrend especially) claiming that EVs are the solution to every problem on the planet, that they are better in every way to any ICE, and that we should all switch immediately, credit score and price be damned.

Literally, the average energy consumption per house in the US is 10,715 kWh per year. And given the average mileage per year in the world (in the video he uses the EU and the US averages averaged, so EU+US/2)  is 17,127 km per year, assuming a 209 Wh/km average (explained in the vid in the statistics section) that means that you would consume 3,579.5 kWh per year, meaning the average power consumption (assuming everyone switched to electric, something electric fans insist should happen, and idiotic car companies seem to be to afraid not to do) would go up by 33%. Increased demand means there has to be increased supply. Looking at a pie chart from the US Federal Power administration, Electricity and Heat production already make up 25% of the total Greenhouse Gas emissions. Transportation makes up 14%, of which, only 45.1% is commuter vehicles, including cars, motorcycles, buses, and taxis. Assuming that 45% of the 14% is electrified, we would get a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions totaling 6.3% of the total. But wait, remember that Electricity production took up 25% of the pie chart already? Well, electricity demand just went up by 33% since everyone got an electric car, and assuming the electricity production numbers have changed significantly since 2019 (we only reduced our reliance on non-renewable energy sources by 1.9% since 1971, so 3 years ain't makin' a difference), that means the greenhouse gas emissions by Electricity production increases by 8.25%. 8.25% > 6.3% So emissions would increase by 1.9%, if everyone switched to Electric cars. At best, if we factor in the Heat production part, we have a net change of 0%. Congrats. Electric cars man, really changing the world. And that isn't factoring in the amount of pollution created during the manufacturing of EV batteries, which means that EVs take 12 years to START saving on emissions, at which point your battery has a dead cell, and you have to get it replaced. Evidence below

I can see why everyone is so excited about electric cars. They really are the solution to the Earth's pollution! (sarcasm, if you couldn't tell)

[IPD]

^

This is why I've said that the focus should be on replacing small ICE in outdoor power equipment (mowers, trimmers, etc)--gradually moving up to things like commuter-grade scooters & motorcycles.

[theninja35]

5 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

--

I can see why everyone is so excited about electric cars. They really are the solution to the Earth's pollution! (sarcasm, if you couldn't tell)

Are you arguing that EVs will never be more efficient and less polluting than ICE vehicles, so no one should ever switch, or are you arguing that this is only the case in the short-run?

[AlwaysFSX]

1 hour ago, theninja35 said:

Are you arguing that EVs will never be more efficient and less polluting than ICE vehicles, so no one should ever switch, or are you arguing that this is only the case in the short-run?

Imagine if people spent their energy not by complaining, but in the lab figuring out solutions to our problems?  EVs are just a materials issue, nothing more, and I'm glad progress is being made to make them more accessible.

[Bitter]

Free tool Tuesday yesterday!

[TVwazhere]

16 hours ago, IPD said:

^

This is why I've said that the focus should be on replacing small ICE in outdoor power equipment (mowers, trimmers, etc)--gradually moving up to things like commuter-grade scooters & motorcycles.

I can say that I personally enjoy my Electric Weed Whacker over my old 2 cycle or 4 cycle ones (save for the actually good STIHL I owned for a time) Much lighter and while definitely underpowered for my tastes, It gets the job done for the average household. 

[DANK_AS_gay]

10 hours ago, theninja35 said:

Are you arguing that EVs will never be more efficient and less polluting than ICE vehicles, so no one should ever switch, or are you arguing that this is only the case in the short-run?

I'm arguing that battery powered EVs will never be more efficient. Hydrogen? Maybe, because it has the same benefits as any other gas fueled vehicle, like ease of fueling, but the batteries we currently use are worse for the enviroment than a 12 year old ICE, hands down. What happens when they die? They get sent to a landfill, after getting like 10% of it recycled. At least you can strip parts from a dead ICE. It goes Reduce Reuse Recycle, in that order. EVs just change the waste from Reuse to Recycle, which is less efficient.

 

9 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Imagine if people spent their energy not by complaining, but in the lab figuring out solutions to our problems?  EVs are just a materials issue, nothing more, and I'm glad progress is being made to make them more accessible.

EVs (battery powered) have too many issues to be practical anywhere. The act of "refueling" literally reduces your range, assuming one of the public chargers works. The benefits of EVs would be far more prominent if we used Hydrogen, as you can store that for later without losing it. For a 100 years if you want. So, in LA for example, during peak energy production during the day (from solar panels and wind turbines) you could use the excess energy to produce Hydrogen.

@theninja35 and @AlwaysFSXBatteries have too many issues, like child labor for the Cobalt, massive lithium mines that ruin the earth, etc. Electric cars simply move the pollution to a place that we cannot see or breathe, they do not actually solve anything. Plus, electricity is hard to store, again, the battery issue, and the inefficiency involved in turning electricity into potential energy and back. Electric cars are not there yet. give it 50 years, and batteries or fuel cells or hydrogen production could be at a point where it is actually worth it, but the push to get all cars electric by 2035 is idiotic at best.

[theninja35]

11 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

I'm arguing that battery powered EVs will never be more efficient. Hydrogen? -- EVs just change the waste from Reuse to Recycle, which is less efficient.

 

EVs (battery powered) have too many issues to be practical anywhere. --

 

Batteries have too many issues, like child labor for the Cobalt, massive lithium mines that ruin the earth, etc. Electric cars simply move the pollution to a place that we cannot see or breathe, they do not actually solve anything. Plus, electricity is hard to store, again, the battery issue, and the inefficiency involved in turning electricity into potential energy and back. Electric cars are not there yet. give it 50 years, and batteries or fuel cells or hydrogen production could be at a point where it is actually worth it, but the push to get all cars electric by 2035 is idiotic at best.

It's a little short-sighted to say an EV will never be more efficient or more sustainable than an ICE vehicle. The issues you list, like unsustainable materials sourcing, are already being worked on and alternatives are already being developed.

 

The truth is that in the long-run, EVs are far more beneficial to both the majority of consumers as well as the environment. To a non-enthusiast consumer, the only real benefits of an ICE vehicle are faster refueling and longer range, but both of these are sort of countered by the fact that owners can charge at home overnight and for cheaper. An EV offers improved handling, a quieter ride, less maintenance, and assuming everyone in the immediate area has an EV, quieter living and improved air quality. There are also design benefits, like the ability to introduce modularity, which makes it much easier to literally reuse vehicle components several times over. That also makes manufacturing easier and less polluting.

 

Infrastructure to support EVs is already in development anyway and building it will be much faster and easier than what was necessary to support the ICE. Unlike the requirements for an ICE, where you need a method of extracting oil, refineries, trucks to deliver fuel, storage tanks, and pumps, all you really need to support an EV is a preexisting electrical grid with a green energy source and a cable. For the electrical grids that don't support EVs, expanding what's already there isn't particularly tough. The improvements necessary for EVs are being made regardless of whether or not EVs are adopted because we need the additional infrastructure to support ourselves anyway.

 

Hydrogen is plagued by its own problems, many of them the same as ICE. The fuel system takes up a lot of space in the car, and there's a lot of infrastructure development that would need to be done to support hydrogen vehicles. They're also far less energy efficient than EVs. To move a hydrogen car the same distance as an EV requires up to 4 times as much energy because of all of the conversion that needs to be done. You could use my argument and say that in the long-run, hydrogen can be made more efficient, but then why not start with something that's already more efficient and develop it further?

 

I'd also like to point out that in the coming decades, it's likely the role personal vehicles have in our lives will change. People already need their personal vehicles less often than they did before, and it's likely they'll need them even less as cities around the world switch to using alternative mobility solutions like autonomous vehicles and bikes. I agree with you in that this won't all happen by 2035, but to say we shouldn't ever adopt this because it won't ever be good is a little pessimistic and unaware.

[DANK_AS_gay]

1 hour ago, theninja35 said:

but both of these are sort of countered by the fact that owners can charge at home overnight and for cheaper.

Except in most places they can't. In the city, you have to pay for parking, and there aren't exactly charging stations every 5 feet. Building that infrastructure would be expensive and time consuming. In Europe, as the video points out by showing his neighborhood, a typical european neighborhood, there isn't the space to do this. And that assumes it works. Just a little bit ago, I was watching a video on the Ford Lightning vs the Hybrid Tundra vs the top spec GMC gas vehicle, and it costs roughly 6$ less after going 120 miles roughly to fill it up to where it was before they left (the other vehicles were topped off before and after the run) and about 1 hour, because it was 100 outside, and the truck was struggling to keep the battery pack cool during quick charging. It failed on 2 stations, so they had to move to a third station. I don't know about you, but an hour of my time is worth roughly double 6$ (given that I'm still at my first job). And, those charging stations provide no space for trailers, something required if you wish to haul anything (which is what you tend to do with a truck). 

We all can acknowledge that 2035 is wishful thinking, but for some reason every car company seems to think that is the year everyone goes electric.

Then you gotta worry about planned obsolescence. If your car only needs brakes and windshield wiper fluid, you better believe companies are gonna start making everything break early, look at what's happening right now with everything else. It's also much more dangerous for you to try to fix. If Rich Rebuilds messes up a single battery repair, his shop goes up in flames. The Right to Repair movement is gonna struggle to make this more accessible, simply because it is genuinely dangerous to work around those kind of currents/voltages. Again, it goes Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, in that order. With an ICE, I can Reuse the vehicle I have by buying a new (or used part off of a wrecked car) part on whatever website I prefer, and replacing it myself. If my fuel filter keeps getting clogged with debris, I can replace my gas tank and the filter. If the fuse on the battery pack on your EV pops (which happens on early Model 3s, if I remember correctly), you are done. That's it. Take it to Tesla for them to charge a ridiculous amount to replace it, or buy a new vehicle for the same amount. 

What happens to the used market? If I am not very well off, and have a budget for a car that is roughly $5k, in 30 years time, you won't be able to buy a vehicle that doesn't need a new battery. How you gonna get to work? I hope work has a parking garage, where the car doesn't have to keep itself cool. Because your already limited 50 mi of range (due to the software detecting a battery error) will drop 10 mi just sitting outside in the sun during the summer, and that's not counting the trip there and back.

 

[Bitter]

I think battery packs in general are proving to be more reliable and longer lived than expected. I'd take a used BEV over a crappy new gas car like one of those shitty turbo GM cars. Plus you need to figure in all the pollution from oil changes too and all the energy from transporting and recycling used oil.

[vetali]

 

New brakes installed after 12k miles and the rotors being shot. Not really worth warranty. Lots of issues with stock Honda brakes on the passport.

 

 

22 HPD mudflaps fit 21 and older bodystyle no modifications needed. Ordered 3/4" wheel spacers to bring out the tires flush with the wheel arch. Should look good with my mudswampers. Keeping the stock wheels and pirellis on while gas prices are dumb.

[IPD]

4 hours ago, Bitter said:

I think battery packs in general are proving to be more reliable and longer lived than expected. I'd take a used BEV over a crappy new gas car like one of those shitty turbo GM cars. Plus you need to figure in all the pollution from oil changes too and all the energy from transporting and recycling used oil.

Temperature tends to be the thing that kills off batteries faster.  Specifically heat.  I was watching a vid on YT recently where they were comparing OEM stated range (new) against actual range after ~10 years or so.  Tesla's were ~9% degredation, where Leaf's were ~20%; they chalked this up to the Leaf lacking any active cooling measures for the battery packs--which means they cook on a hot day.

 

It has to do with permeation barrier and the movement of lithium ions and unintended leakage from cathode to anode over time and use.

[JoaoPRSousa]

I'm having some trouble figuring something out and since most of the people here probably know more about valvetrains than me

• would an hydraulic lifter made for a 7mm valve stem work with a 6mm valve stem? From what I have seen, it should work, since it's not like the valve goes inside the lifter, it just gets pushed by it.
• Another question, in a cylinder head with 6mm valves from stock, using the appropriate hardware (stem seals) and without changing the head itself, would 7mm valves fit?

The thing here is, I need a cylinder head for my E34 and specific ones for it are hard to come by (cast #1720840), but the ones for the next iteration of the engine and the next generation too are more common (cast #1738400) and both can be fitted to my block, and as far as I know, the cam trays are interchangeable, which makes those and the cams themselves a non-issue.

Cast 1720840 came with 7mm valves, cast 1738400 came with 6mm valves.

Most 1738400's I see for sale only come with the valves and springs still fitted (stem seals and retainers still there I would say ahah; spring setup is also different between the casts but I don't that is an issue), which means I would be missing the lifters, cam trays and cams but I have those from my original engine, so I would be interested in knowing if a frankenstein of some sort would work using the 1738400 cast, since finding the one specific for my engine is turning out to be almost impossible.

[bcredeur97]

10 hours ago, Bitter said:

I think battery packs in general are proving to be more reliable and longer lived than expected. I'd take a used BEV over a crappy new gas car like one of those shitty turbo GM cars. Plus you need to figure in all the pollution from oil changes too and all the energy from transporting and recycling used oil.

GM designer: what if we put ebay china turbos in our cars?

GM executive: LETS DO IT

[DANK_AS_gay]

50 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

GM designer: what if we put ebay china turbos in our cars?

GM executive: LETS DO IT

It seems like GM makes a lot of stupid decisions, I saw a post a bit ago from a GM fan, getting frustrated and listing all of the potential successes that ended up being failures because GM got the car perfect, then, after putting all of that money into it, they discontinued it. The Fiero for example.