Who here has some factory band aid fixes just to get the cars out the door stories? I have two. TR7/8 convertibles got 8 pound weights in the ends of the bumpers to help alleviate some of the front end shimmy. My 2010 Camaro came with stacks of sticky lead weights glued to the massive Brembo calipers to help with a brake squeal problem. Lets see, 14X1.25" rotors that weigh about 25 pounds, check. Gigantic clown shoe aluminum Brembos, check. Doh! brakes squeal. Final solution was to add huge steel washers to give more density to the calipers. Man I can't wait to chop up this thing and put this glorious engine into a proper sporty car.
Lots of cars got little metal trays above the exhaust manifolds that re-direct the oil drips from leaky valve covers around the hot pipes.
GM had a recall on the B-body wagons for a harmonic vibration of the rear frame. The fix was a free trailer hitch.
The stock exhaust downpipes on the Jeep were apparently a little bit wrong in shape, so instead of bending the passenger side differently to fit, they did the equivalent of denting it with a hammer to get more clearance. They sorta did the same thing with the pipe over the rear axle too. Gee, I wonder why people have dyno-ed a 20 - 25 whp gain from re-doing the y-pipe and exhaust?
In reply to tr8todd:
Every single time I lay wrench to my 4th gen Camaro I have at least one "WTF GM?" moment relating to some hokey-assed afterthought design.
Like the big freaking hump in the floor pan of the passenger foot well for the catalytic converter. I like to imagine (warning: rampant speculation ahead) that some engineer on the project had signed off on some fantastically expensive stamping die for the floors, then when he went to put the first car off the tooling together had an "oh E36 M3" moment when he realized there was nowhere to put the cat. I picture this poor soul being handed a 4lb sledge and being told that he was to live out the rest of his days beating the cat hump into every single 4th gen f body floor pan ever made, as retribution for his oversight. This is likely completely untrue, but that's how I like to picture it in my head 
Duke
MegaDork
3/29/16 10:23 a.m.
In the first days of non-freon AC, they had lots of trouble engineering new seals that wouldn't dry out and leak. In my father's '89 Grand Caravan, you had to turn the front defroster on by pushing the button all the way in, and then pulling it halfway out. What that did was nudge the AC compressor on a little, in order to circulate the reefer and keep the seals fresh.
By 1992 when we bought ours, they had decided to just run the AC compressor the whole time the defroster was on.
In reply to rslifkin:
Your ZJ has a 5.9 right? My 4.0 XJ has a big stupid dent in the down pipe as well, along with every other one I've ever been under or seen pictures of.
How about British Leyland jacking up the MGB to meet the bumper height requirements in 1974?
Robbie
SuperDork
3/29/16 10:37 a.m.
rslifkin wrote:
The stock exhaust downpipes on the Jeep were apparently a little bit wrong in shape, so instead of bending the passenger side differently to fit, they did the equivalent of denting it with a hammer to get more clearance. They sorta did the same thing with the pipe over the rear axle too. Gee, I wonder why people have dyno-ed a 20 - 25 whp gain from re-doing the y-pipe and exhaust?
Good video on the effect of dented headers on performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azPKIjxmmdU
TL;DW - essentially even huge numbers of significant dents have next to no effect on performance - contrary to popular belief.
Not saying jeeps don't have the effect you speak of, but I am saying it might not be because of the dent.
Danny Shields wrote:
How about British Leyland jacking up the MGB to meet the bumper height requirements in 1974?
And then not adding a sway bar till 77!
Turbo's coking on 6.7 cummins. The fix was drilling a hole in the back of the turbo, threading it for a pipe plug, and periodically hosing top engine cleaner behind the VG mechanism.
Heres the tool to do it: https://mopar.snapon.com/item-detail.aspx?itemid=4160011&type=tools
Robbie wrote:
rslifkin wrote:
The stock exhaust downpipes on the Jeep were apparently a little bit wrong in shape, so instead of bending the passenger side differently to fit, they did the equivalent of denting it with a hammer to get more clearance. They sorta did the same thing with the pipe over the rear axle too. Gee, I wonder why people have dyno-ed a 20 - 25 whp gain from re-doing the y-pipe and exhaust?
Good video on the effect of dented headers on performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azPKIjxmmdU
TL;DW - essentially even huge numbers of significant dents have next to no effect on performance - contrary to popular belief.
Not saying jeeps don't have the effect you speak of, but I am saying it might not be because of the dent.
It's a combo of the pipes being a bit undersized to start with and then having the big dent in one downpipe. The dent is deep enough to cut the 2" pipe's size by almost half (it's no small dent). The tailpipe dent probably makes very little difference, however.
The early Jaguar E-Types having a bag of lead shot sewed into the convertible top to eliminate thrumming at highway speeds...
Jaguar put a bag of lead shot in E-type soft tops to dampen the flapping when the windows were down.
Edit: Proofreading cost me the lead on that one!
Toyman01 wrote:
GM had a recall on the B-body wagons for a harmonic vibration of the rear frame. The fix was a free trailer hitch.
Jeep had the same thing for the Grand Cherokee - the trailer hitch was impact protection for the big egg sac fuel tank. And they botched the recall so badly the NHTSA forced them to buy the vehicles back...
Keith Tanner wrote:
Toyman01 wrote:
GM had a recall on the B-body wagons for a harmonic vibration of the rear frame. The fix was a free trailer hitch.
Jeep had the same thing for the Grand Cherokee - the trailer hitch was impact protection for the big egg sac fuel tank. And they botched the recall so badly the NHTSA forced them to buy the vehicles back...
But this was really a case of whiny soccer moms getting all paranoid than a real issue. It took over 2 decades for them to decide this was really an issue. And the poster child case was a stopped Jeep getting hit by a semi at highway speed. If the people in there lived long enough to die in the resulting fire, I'm already impressed. Plus, the same fuel tank placement was found on dozens of other vehicles that are just as susceptible to an issue including fox bodies, Crown Vics, etc.
MrJoshua wrote:
Lots of cars got little metal trays above the exhaust manifolds that re-direct the oil drips from leaky valve covers around the hot pipes.
On a car that doesn't leak from the factory, I call that a clever failsafe!
rslifkin wrote:
Keith Tanner wrote:
Toyman01 wrote:
GM had a recall on the B-body wagons for a harmonic vibration of the rear frame. The fix was a free trailer hitch.
Jeep had the same thing for the Grand Cherokee - the trailer hitch was impact protection for the big egg sac fuel tank. And they botched the recall so badly the NHTSA forced them to buy the vehicles back...
But this was really a case of whiny soccer moms getting all paranoid than a real issue. It took over 2 decades for them to decide this was really an issue. And the poster child case was a stopped Jeep getting hit by a semi at highway speed. If the people in there lived long enough to die in the resulting fire, I'm already impressed. Plus, the same fuel tank placement was found on dozens of other vehicles that are just as susceptible to an issue including fox bodies, Crown Vics, etc.
I just wish there was some consistency, either under-trunk fuel tanks are safe or they're not, we need to choose. I certainly don't like the idea. I got a Trail-Tough fuel tank armor box for my Samurai primarily to keep the tank from getting torn open by rocks from underneath, but it covers the front/rear and sides too...
rslifkin wrote:
Keith Tanner wrote:
Toyman01 wrote:
GM had a recall on the B-body wagons for a harmonic vibration of the rear frame. The fix was a free trailer hitch.
Jeep had the same thing for the Grand Cherokee - the trailer hitch was impact protection for the big egg sac fuel tank. And they botched the recall so badly the NHTSA forced them to buy the vehicles back...
But this was really a case of whiny soccer moms getting all paranoid than a real issue. It took over 2 decades for them to decide this was really an issue. And the poster child case was a stopped Jeep getting hit by a semi at highway speed. If the people in there lived long enough to die in the resulting fire, I'm already impressed. Plus, the same fuel tank placement was found on dozens of other vehicles that are just as susceptible to an issue including fox bodies, Crown Vics, etc.
But do you disagree that installing a trailer hitch is a bandaid fix?
They were also ordered to buy back my truck due to dragging their feet on the recall for a steering problem. We had some heated discussions at the dealership about that one. The dealer wants to be the exclusive representative of the manufacturer when it's time to take your money, but boy do they want to pass the buck when there's a problem...
GameboyRMH wrote:
I just wish there was some consistency, either under-trunk fuel tanks are safe or they're not, we need to choose. I certainly don't like the idea. I got a Trail-Tough fuel tank armor box for my Samurai primarily to keep the tank from getting torn open by rocks from underneath, but it covers the front/rear and sides too...
Agreed. If it's going to be there, it shouldn't be easily punctured / crushed. But what this comes down to is: "at what point are cars safe enough?" I don't understand the modern trend of "make it safer at all costs", as this leads to heavy cars, minimal mpg improvement with time, horrid visibility, etc. Just pick a threshold, call it good enough and work on fixing the drivers instead of making the cars so safe that you can ram it into a truck at 90mph while driving blindfolded and not get hurt.
Duke
MegaDork
3/29/16 11:24 a.m.
rslifkin wrote:
I don't understand the modern trend of "make it safer at all costs", as this leads to heavy cars, minimal mpg improvement with time, horrid visibility, etc. Just pick a threshold, call it good enough and work on fixing the drivers instead of making the cars so safe that you can ram it into a truck at 90mph while driving blindfolded and not get hurt.
That's easy to understand: Making better drivers requires that individual people personally recognize and confront their own shortcomings, and the shortcomings of their new-driver children. On the other hand, legislating diminishing-returns safety measures onto giant faceless corporations just requires voting for the candidate who shouts "...for the children!" loudest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of improved safety through better handling, braking, body structure integrity, and crash performance. But mandating an ever-increasing list of excessive nanny features is just breeding a new generation of better idiots. Bring on the self-driving cars already if that's the way we're going.
Mid 60s Chevy IIs with a V8 had a refit of a couple of pieces of chain to keep from breaking motor mounts.
Bruce
the first 911s, the short wheelbase models, needed lead bonded to the insides of the front bumper to keep the front ends from getting too light.
of course the long wheelbase models got a kludge too, the small cap in front of the rear wheel to allow access to the torsionbars. on the SWB models, you could access them through the wheel well opening
