Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
LoooSeR

General cars and vehicles thread.

Recommended Posts

Kortedzh cars for his Darkness Master Putin:

(Some footage)

 

 

Quote

   The State Research Center NAMI has started pre-production of a pilot cars of a representative class for the first persons of the state within the framework of the project "Cortege". in the free sale those cars are expected in late 2018-early 2019. This is reported on the website of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation.

 

Pics:

F_Ij8aFebSGWqKo7cMiQYw=s800

gi-8984-42749-big.jpg

 

gi-8984-42753-big.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started with the truck I bought when I was 16 years old. A 1995 Chevy Silverado C1500. 

wxRWQ9i.jpg

Bought it used with 150k miles on the odometer. Drove it throughout high school. Left it at the farm when I went to college, and my mother used it as a farm truck and daily driver for the next decade. 

 

This truck is a 2 wheel drive (RWD), with the 5.7L small block TBI and the 4L60E automatic transmission. 

 

I drove it back to Colorado earlier this year (Sept), with a plan. 

 

I knew I wanted to make this a daily driver again. There was a ton to be done. Frame was rusted, engine and transmission had a hard 250k miles on them, steering was bad, suspension was shot, etc etc. The truck has had a good, rough life. My folks don't exactly know the meaning of "preventative maintenance". 

 

But since I live in the West now, I wanted 4x4 capabilities. And I prefer a manual transmission. 

 

Now, the C1500 and K1500 frames are the 2wd and 4wd, respectively, frames for GM. To turn a C1500 frame into a 4x4 vehicle would require major machining and metal work. No more IFS, I'd need a ton of new parts. And at the end, I'd be dropping thousands upon thousands of dollars into a still-rusty frame  that still needed a lot more work. 

 

So I did the only sensible thing in this idiotic plan. I bought a donor vehicle. 

 

P7gZ3AE.jpg

 

This is a 1996 GMC Sierra, 4x4. There are some differences, but the frames and cabs are the same. I picked it up from a guy who took very good care of the truck. 

 

This truck is a half-gen newer. It features a 5.7L small block, but with vortec heads and a MPFI system (instead of the TBI). It's also a 5 speed manual. 

 

Sadly, the wiring harness was a bit different. The shop I chose ran into a few issues, but took their time and made sure all the electrical stuff worked out. 

 

The plan was to swap my old 1995 cab and bed onto the 1996 frame. 

 

End results below. 

 

7mHH4DI.jpg


3ODcTOX.jpg

 

tilWhXJ.jpg

 

Before the swap, I did the following to the donor vehicle. 

 

New: Alternator, Battery, Spark plugs, belt, radiator, filters, fluids, starter, ignition control module, coil, throttle body gasket,  plug wires, PCV valve, and distributor cap and rotor.

 

I still need to drop the differential fluid, fix a door hinge pin, and eventually put a new fuel pump and fuel injection spider into the truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Just ordered a MAF sensor and an EGR valve for the truck. Going to jack up the rear end and check the U-joints finally. Thanks for the tip, @Meplat

You figured out most of it.. I just shotgunned shit I'd seen before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Son of a Bitch.

 

All the weird ignition problems I've had. The stuttering at constant speed. I've replaced so damned much on this engine. Was about to tear the damned manifold off and replace the fuel injection spider. If that wouldn't work, I'd pull the fuel pump and fix that. 

 

I checked the U joints. Everything was solid. I was thinking transfer case, or maybe in the transmission. Is my transmission failing? Fuck, that would be terribly expensive to fix. 

 

Earlier I mentioned that I bought a new EGR valve and a MAF sensor. And that, in a desperate move, I unplugged my old EGR valve wiring harness. The failure mode is a closed valve, so no exhaust gas got into my manifold. 

 

Drove up to Denver, all around with @Ulric and @Collimatrix looking at guns I wanted to buy. And lo' and behold, the damned thing didn't stutter a single iota. 

 

Totally fixed. Fuck me. 

 

Looks like the EGR valve was letting too much exhaust into the intake manifold, fucking up the ratio of oxygen and gasoline. That would cause the intermittent misfires and roughness while going down the road. Because the EGR valve only opens once the engine has warmed to a certain temperature. Which also trends with my issue, because the problem got worse as the engine heated up. 

 

The thing runs like a damned top with the EGR wiring harness unplugged. @Meplat, if that new EGR valve makes the issue come back, I'm just going to leave it unplugged and only plug it in when I need to get emissions tested. Just for show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

 

 

Looks like the EGR valve was letting too much exhaust into the intake manifold, fucking up the ratio of oxygen and gasoline. That would cause the intermittent misfires and roughness while going down the road. Because the EGR valve only opens once the engine has warmed to a certain temperature. Which also trends with my issue, because the problem got worse as the engine heated up. 

 

The thing runs like a damned top with the EGR wiring harness unplugged. @Meplat, if that new EGR valve makes the issue come back, I'm just going to leave it unplugged and only plug it in when I need to get emissions tested. Just for show.

EGR is the work of Satan.   Where I could, I always deactivated said nonsense. 

Good to hear you found the issue though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put a new EGR valve on the truck. Turns out I've got a bolt that wont thread into the engine to hold the EGR on. I got it in, put the other bolt on, unplugged it, made sure it sealed decently, and left it. I'll plug it up when I need emissions testing.

 

But on an even sadder note, I stuck a new MAF sensor in my truck. 280k miles, figured it was time to replace. 

 

New MAF sensor probably sucked 80 horse power out of the truck, and left 3/4ths the throttle useless. 

 

Old MAF sensor went back in, and now I'm contacting A1 Auto Parts to get a refund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

wow so much automotive fail.  The two constants seems to be badly blown head gaskets and never changed oil. 

 

 

Good ones I've personally seen were -

 

-The guy who filled his engine with oil, checking the wrong dipstick.  Amazed that Honda still ran. It was full to the filler cap on the valve cover.

 

 

-The guy who thought power steering fluid would work as brake fluid.

It doesn't.  Made every cup and seal swell like crazy.

 

- the guy who solved a manifold leak, by coating the entire manifold and TBI with kool-seal (elastomer RV roof sealant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Meplat said:

 

 

 

- the guy who solved a manifold leak, by coating the entire manifold and TBI with kool-seal (elastomer RV roof sealant).

That last one sounds like the "fixes" I've seen personally. 

 

My buddy wants to use some sort of sealer injected into the coolant reservoir on his jeep. I just told him to find the leak first. It could be as simple as a hose. Or just replace a radiator. It's not hard at all, especially on a 2000 Wrangler. 

 

Best I've heard of was a woman who's car was overheating, so she filled the engine with water through the oil filler. Her car was no longer overheating. Mainly because it was no longer running.

 

The best in the list, in my opinion, was the "air freshener" in front of the air filter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit I drove a Toyota hilux through my teens and early twenties, with front brake rotors that looked that bad.  I had to put new pads on every 500 miles, but that's all I even had the money for.  Same truck also leaked gas out of the top (rust) ((in an LA California car!!)) gas tank if you put more than 5 or 6 gallons into it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 8:14 AM, Xlucine said:

What's with all the tyres with water in? How'd it even get there?

In humid environments, air compressors naturally remove the water from the air. Unless the tank and the lines are drained frequently, you can get a lot of water in the system. 

 

Also, some ag equipment is intended to have fluid filled tires.  I've got a little gizmo that lets me fill my lawn tractor tires with water from a garden hose. Gives it a bit more ground pressure.

If you look at many larger tractor valve stems, you'll see the part that carries the actual Schrader valve can be demounted, allowing the tube/tire to be more easily filled with fluid. (usually a propylene glycol based compound now)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Proyas
      Is there any way Sherman tanks could be upgraded at reasonable cost to still have a role on the battlefield? Assume that your military will never fight with a world-class army (U.S., Russia, China, etc.) and instead will only fight with second-rate armies using 1990s technology at best, or with terrorists, or go on peacekeeping missions. 
       
      I'm thinking that the Shermans could have their turrets removed and modern autoloading turrets from other armored vehicles--like the 105mm Stryker gun, or the 40mm autocannon from the CV10, or the 30mm from the BMP-2 (would any of these fit in the Sherman's turret ring?)--could be dropped in, along with their sensors and computers. ATGM launchers could be installed as well. Explosive reactive armor bricks could be attached to the outside, as is common among modern Russian tanks. 
       
      Assume that your Sherman fleet is 1,000 tanks, in various states of (dis)repair, so you have enough spare parts to last for many years. 
       
      What do you guys think? Thanks. 
       
    • By Khand-e
      So, basic introduction, to start off, we'll go with the latest backbone of the PLA Ground forces' Armored divisions, the ZTZ-96 G/A
       
      Basic specs.
       
      Crew: 3
       
      Weight: 42-45 tonnes depending on equipment and addon armor/era.
       
      Power plant: 1,000 hp liquid cooled Diesel engine
       
      Speed: 65 km/h on roads 45 km/h off road
       
      Range: 400km without external tanks
       
      Armament: 125mm L/48 main gun with autoloader similar to the Soviet 2A46 (8 rounds per minute rof), ATGM capable, based on Russian Refleks-M missile, also has HEI-FRAG, HEAT, and APFSDS ammunition choices, W-85 12.7mm cupola machine gun (not pictured in this photo), 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.
       

       
      Wow, such sharp looking, very armor.
       
      Capability wise, this tank was recently pitted against some modern T-72B variants in a Russian tank Biathalon, and while it was deemed better in Armor, Armament, and Electronics, it lost out in mobility due to the underpowered engine, this killed all 730 and 780 hp engines in other ZTZ-96 G/As for the 1,000 hp engine.
       
      One interesting note: the boxes on the side actually contain equipment that interferes with the targetting systems of SACLOS missiles, aswell as laser designators, rangefinders and guidance systems, these can be seen when the tank is viewed from above.
       
      -----
       
      The heavier, far stronger pride of the ground forces.
       
      ZTZ-99 (A2 variant pictured.)
       
      Crew: 3
       
      Weight: 54-60 tonnes depending on variant
       
      Powerplant: 1,500 hp turbo charged liquid cooled diesel engine
       
      Speed: 80 km/h on roads, 60 km/h off road
       
      Range: 600km without external tanks.
       
      Armament: ZPT98 125mm L/52 autloaded gun with 8 rounds/minute rate of fire (some sources quote later variants at 11 rounds per minute), higher pressure tolerances, redesigned autoloader and other improvements, this allows it to fire improved ammunition such as far more deadly APFSDS then other 125mm autoloaded gun platforms in the PLA's inventory, it can still fire all other types of rounds aswell, W-85 12.7mm cupola machine gun, 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.
       
      Armor: While the exact thickness and composition isn't known, It's known from cutaway photos and some are pubically released information to have a hard spall liner as many other tanks these days, the actual armor composition itself are plates of high strength/toughness maraging steel sandwiching materials such as high hardness Aluminum oxides, aswell as layers of Graphene and unknown materials from there (likely something very dense), the boxes on the side of the turret and on the pike nose on the front are likely addon ceramic armor as opposed to ERA as originally believed and may be hollow to act as spaced armed, aside from the physical armor package, the tank also features ERA, NERA, and active defense systems that jam or alter the trajectory of various types of guided projectiles.
       

       
      So, this is the actual "elite" tank of the PLA to supplement the cheaper 96's, Originally it started out with a modest $2,500.000 production cost, however, as time grew on and they kept advancing it to the lastest standards of a top tier MBT, that sort of spiraled out of control a bit, coupled with the fact that the PLA ground forces don't get the same funding as the PLAAF and the PLAN, and the result was that, while the 99A2 has turned out to be a beast in it's own right, it simply isn't feasible price wise to give every tank crew a Type 99A2, however this is probably one of the most underrated 3rd generation MBTs as it's rarely talked about and theres a fuck ton of misinformation about it (mainly that it's a clone of the T-72/T-80 which is completely wrong) and well, it's goddamn pretty, and that counts for alot.
       
      Be sure to check my other topics covering other branches of the PLA
       
      http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/80-the-plan-present-and-future-or-the-rapid-modernization-of-the-chinese-navy-and-marines/- Regarding the Navy, Marines, and Weapons used by them and also land based anti ship defense systems.
       
      http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/71-the-future-of-pla-bullit-spitting-devices-powerful-chinese-weapons-and-units-thread/ - Regarding Infantry, small arms, and infantry support weapons.
       
      http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/87-the-plaaf-and-airborne-a-look-at-the-past-present-and-the-future/- Regarding the PLAAF Aircraft and weapon systems, helicopters, and the Airborne.
       
      A special thank you.
      I'd like to personally honor a few posters who have aided me and provided very solid data and posting in this thread, without them this thread and the other PLA related threads would be far less interesting. These should be the first people in here to ask about something.
      In no particular order.
      JimZhangZhang, Lightning, Akula_941, and U-47.
      And of course LoooSeR for keeping content in this thread when I wasn't able to.
    • By Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect
      Wherein I tackle the idea of hydrogen fuel cell technology in private vehicles.
       
      Buckle up.
       
      For the past few years, Hydrogen Fuelcell technology has been making the news in regards to personal transportation. Regardless of how long fuel cell technology has been used in the space industry, the media treated it like a futuristic Godsend for personal vehicles. I recall there being plans drawn up for refueling stations in California, even. But the Bear State is fond of making whatever promise they can to skim as much money from its people.
       
      See the High Speed rail fiasco.
       
      http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-28/california-hits-the-brakes-on-high-speed-rail-fiasco
       
      When I first heard of hydrogen fuel cells being used in vehicles, I was too young and immature to have much of an opinion. Back then, I was still cruising around downtown and hanging out with Sturgeon to care about motor vehicle trends. Those nights were spent talking trash about HK products, doing blow through rolled up Benjamins, and dozens of questionably legal Polynesian women.
       
      I'll be approaching this issue regards to efficiency, safety, production, and storage of many elements. We'll first discuss what hydrogen is.
       

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
       
       
      The Wiki gives a ton of great information. Most of you will know the basics. It's a gas at STP, contains a single valence electron in it's 1s shell (“shell” or cloud of probability derived by shrodinger's blah blah blah Physical Chemistry nonsense, don't make me do that derivation again). It was first artificially made by a guy named Cavendish, and is found naturally as a diatomic molecule.
       
      This diatomic molecule also really likes to explode if it gets near an energy source. H2 combustion is well documented, and releases 286 kJ/Mol.
       
      In fact, it can undergo combustion at as low as 4% concentration with air. That's low.
       
      Hydrogen's low molecular weight makes it the lightest gas around. This was capitalized during the second to last turn of the century, where mighty Zeppelins pushed through the sky like herds of giant sky manatees.
       

      http://smhttp.41037.nexcesscdn.net/80153AD/magento/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/750x/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/m/i/misc156_2.jpg
      Large enough to fit Colli-man's collection of miss-matched socks
       
      Germany loved these guys, and for a while they were all the rage in luxurious travel. Indeed, it was certainly the 20th century now! We had Airships, the Haber Process that was fueling an industrial revolution, and all of physics was completely solved! Thanks, Maxwell!
       
      (And then came the ultraviolet catastrophe, but that's another topic.)
       
      However, I mentioned above that hydrogen is extremely flammable at even very low concentrations within air. This fact really sunk the airship industry with a certain spectacular disaster.
       

      http://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/hindinburg-crashing-burning-640x420.jpg
      German Engineering, or Masonic Zion plot?
       
      It's easy to skip over this picture entirely. We've all seen it so many times (Unless you're one of my tutoring students, who look at me like I've got two heads when I mention it. “The hinda-what?”).
       
      But, this was the end of an era. Static charges ignited the hydrogen sacks that kept the big rigid frame afloat. And though we could have used Helium, a much more stable gas, the damage was done. No one would step foot near a rigid airship again.
       
      (Also our world's supply of Helium is finite and diminishing very very quickly. It would be wasted in airships. But again, another topic another time)
       
      Let's get back to the Hydrogen Fuelcell. What exactly is it, and how does it work?
       
      The basic model is shown below.
       

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Proton_Exchange_Fuel_Cell_Diagram.svg/2000px-Proton_Exchange_Fuel_Cell_Diagram.svg.png
       
      This diagram is for a Proton Exchange Fuel Cell. The proton here is simply a hydrogen that's been stripped of its single electron. A fuel cell works by having very special membranes carefully constructed to permit the passage of a positively charged ion, but not the negatively charged electron. This travels through another path, leading to a voltage across the cell. This voltage can be used to power any electrical device.
       
      This is an oversimplification of how the device works, but it's a start.
       
      The benefits of such a device include the shear efficiency that it can have. When properly insulated and owing to proper low-resistance connections, these devices are pushing out efficiencies twice that of internal combustion engines. Which, despite what many places attempt to sell you, are actually quite thermodynamically efficient. These proton based fuel cells have great cold-start characteristics and energy density. Their outputs can actually be very high.
       
      Indeed, these fuel cells are efficient at all power outputs as well. Their efficiency does not vary with flow of fuel source either.
       
      Their temperatures can be as low as 80 degrees C. However, usually they are kept above 100 degrees C because steam is far more manageable than liquid water byproduct.
       
      So with all of this information, you're probably wondering why haven't we started putting these into all sorts of places. This post is about personal vehicles, however, and I'll get right back to that.
       
      No. I disagree completely with them being used in personal vehicles.
       
      While I love fuel cells as a power device, their use in personal vehicles is greatly limited. One of the biggest engineering hurdles is the flammability and storage of pure hydrogen. Since hydrogen has such a low molecular weight, to obtain a large enough amount to power a personal vehicle would require a very high pressure container. If you remember back to your Chemistry classes in high school, you may remember the Ideal Gas Equation. Hydrogen is pretty close to an Ideal Gas. As close as you'll get, really. The Ideal Gas Law, in actual use, is only about 84% accurate when used to guess thermodynamic systems. For hydrogen it's much higher.
       
      PV=nRT, where n is the number of moles. Keeping everything but Pressure and number of moles the same, to increase the number of moles directly increases the pressure. And H2, having a molecular weight of 2 Grams per Mole, would require a ton of moles to get a decent amount of the gas.
       
      A very high pressure container of pure hydrogen gas in a vehicle that routinely travels at 70 mph. Which is statistically guaranteed to be in an accident in its lifespan.
       
      The Germans are watching this and going “Nein Nein Nein!”
       
      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+many+car+crashes+per+day+in+the+US
       
      According to this nifty search, over 3,000 people die per day in the US due to vehicular collisions. Ouch. 
       
      However, this issue is the first to be solved. The introduction of Metal Hydrides have solved the storage issues. Metal Hydrides act as chemical sponges for Hydrogen gas (H2), binding the molecules inside their chemical structure. These metal hydrides are usually used as powders, where the hydrogen is then pushed through to store. To release the hydrogen, the metal hydride must be heated. The rate of diffusion is directly related to the temperature at which the metal hydride is heated, and thus the fuel rate into the fuel cell can be varied by varying the temperature of the metal hydride.
       
      Metal hydrides can absorb 2 to 10% H2 usually, but better compounds are being produced to increase the number.
       
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_hydride_fuel_cell
       
      This is good, because it gives us a safe way to store hydrogen gas for fuel cells.
       
      This is bad, because the fuel delivery rate is much lower, and metal hydride fuel cells are, at their very best, 1/4th as powerful as their PEM brothers. At worst, they are 1/50th.
       
      But this is the best we can do in a vehicle. No one wants pressurized hydrogen canisters on the highways. Hell, most of the time you need special clearance and big signs to transport the stuff. And imagine the safety concerns for the EMTs and Paramedics during a car crash. Even if the tank isn't ruptured, no EMT or Paramedic would risk their lives until the wreckage was cleared.
       
      When I was going through my EMT training, they made it very clear that it doesn't matter if people are bleeding out in front of you. If you go in while it's still dangerous, you're only being a liability to your fellow EMTs, Firefighters, and police.
       
      But let's ignore the low power outputs of these MH Fuel Cells. What other issues do we have?
       
      Well, the fuel cell itself must be created using some very interesting techniques and materials. The biggest expense would be the platinum. Other catalysts are needed as well. As well as a very special proton-permeable membrane.
       
      To function, the membrane must conduct hydrogen ions (protons) but not electrons as this would in effect "short circuit" the fuel cell. The membrane must also not allow either gas to pass to the other side of the cell, a problem known as gas crossover. Finally, the membrane must be resistant to the reducing environment at the cathode as well as the harsh oxidative environment at the anode.
       
      This system includes electrodes, electrolyte, catalyst, and a porous gas diffusion layer. The rate of reaction will be dependent also on how quickly the water vapor product can diffuse through the porous material and out of the system. A system can have a lowered efficiency if the fuel cell is too dry or too wet. A balance must be met.
       
      And while yes, all of these situations can be worked around, it all comes at a heavy price. Currently we are using 30 grams of platinum in vehicle sized PEM fuel cells. This number will be going down once different catalysts are created, but the cost of these vehicles still pushes up to $50,000. The cost will go down, like any technology.
       
      I've yet to speak about where we obtain this hydrogen gas from. The easiest way to obtain hydrogen gas is via the electrolysis of water. H20 + An Electric Current → H2 + O2, essentially (it's not balanced, I know this.)
       
      But that electric current must be created as well. This usually comes from the electric grid, which is still, depending on the state, a majority coal-burning.
       
      Natural Gas reformation is another way to obtain Hydrogen gas, and is the most common way we currently use. It's the cheapest as well. Synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a small amount of carbon dioxide, is created by reacting natural gas with high-temperature steam. The carbon monoxide is reacted with water to produce additional hydrogen.
       
      The other common ways are via fermentation of biofuel stocks (which is a long process without a great yield) or liquid reforming, which is really unfeasible in large quantities.
       
      The only way to obtain large amounts of hydrogen is via natural gas reformation, and that's still technically a fossil fuel source. So why were we going with hydrogen fuel cells again? To rid ourselves of dirty, dirty fossil fuel? Well shit.
       
      So to sum this up, the only way to safely use hydrogen as a fuel source in a moving vehicle would be by using metal hydrides, which require energy to access the stored hydrogen. This stored hydrogen flow rate is lower than standard PEMs, and results in a lower voltage, which in turn leads to a lower power output for the vehicle. More research and development must be done to find proper catalysts that can be made at a low cost, and production methods must be worked out to create the membranes more cheaply. All of this is held up by our hydrogen production systems.
       
      PEM fuel cell technology is awesome and I love it to death in many many situations. But vehicles isn't one of them.
       
      I may read about more advances in the near future that would change my opinion completely, but I would be surprised.
       
      Below I've added a problem out of my heat and mass transfer book (Incropera, 7th edition).
       




    • By StrelaCarbon
      Even though I'm relatively new to this forum, it did not take long at all for me to notice that here, I am in the company of many fellow petrolheads.
       
      Documenting the mildly interesting machines I encounter in my everyday life is something I like very much, and since I didn't see anyone here posting much about car spotting, I thought I'd make my own thread. So, if you have any pictures of interesting automotive finds, feel free to share them all right here. 
       
      To get the ball rolling, here's an imperfect (that racing seat looked really out of place, and there were some visible paint scratches) but still exquisite first-generation Mercury Cougar which I encountered this summer: 
       

×