"Uffe Bærentsen" wrote in message
news:51212258$0$292
I recently bought some 10.9 12mm x 1.25 mm extra fine bolts for my
Honda. Surprisingly they were cheaper from the dealer than the
local
hardware store.

I think the answer to that will be: Quantity since Honda is buying a
lot more than your local hardware store.
Uffe

The custom-length Honda bolts were individually bagged and shipped
from somewhere, not loose in a bin. That local store has the best
prices around for most hardware.

However a simple plastic panel retaining clip from Honda cost me $4.
It retains a removeable cubbyhole cover and is unlike standard door
panel clips. I shouldn't have pried the original one out in
subfreezing weather.
jsw

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:21:44 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:50:06 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 16/02/13 23:13, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:01:57 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 16/02/13 22:37, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:36:19 +0100, Uffe Bærentsen
wrote:

Den 16-02-2013 18:35, skrev:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:15:43 +0100, Uffe Bærentsen
wrote:

Den 16-02-2013 07:11, skrev:

Sounds like you have seen most of what a car can throw at you.
And those are just the highlights of the last 46 years. - and not
including any of the customer vehicle issues in my life in the trade
(about 25 years) in Canada -----
Saw one funny thing on some Chevy's a while back (1995/1996).
We were told they were built in Canada and that was the reason for the
all out metric tooling and threads on those.
Gave us a hard time since all our tooling was imperial.
Do you know if that could be true?

It was this model

http://www.easyautosales.com/used-ca...-84353930.html

only line trucks with toolboxes on the side of the bed.
Made in Oshawa Ontario. Vehicles of that vintage were *******ized
metric. Some parts were imperial - because they came from the USA.
Some were metric - but not metric standard. For example, in place of
5/16" bolts they used 8mm - but 8mm SHOULD have 12 mm heads - they
used 13 because it was "close enough" to 1/2" that 1/2" wrenches would
"sorta" fit. Same with 1/4". Replaced with 6mm - which should have
10mm heads - but they used 11mm because a 7/16" wrench would "sorta"
fit. So some redneck shadetree mechanic would try to force a 1/4 unf
or 5/16 unf bolt into the hole, or nut onto the stud, and bad things
started happening real fast. Not bad on a new vehicle where the
"metric" bolts had a green colour to them - but after about 5
years?????
Was stuck with several of those *******s in a location were it was
difficult to get supplies. A 1/2" was simply not allowed if it should be
a 13mm. Rather park the vehicle for the time it took to get the right
spanner.
Standard sizes on spanners for metrical nuts a (thread/spanner)
6mm/10mm 8mm/13mm 10mm/17mm 12mm/19mm
So my guess would be that they used 12mm heads.
You have it mixed up. Standard on an 8 is 12, everywhere in the world
except north america.
I must have been buying US metric bolts then for the last 20+ years in
the UK as all the M8 hex fasteners I buy have 13mm AF heads. See

http://www.fairburyfastener.com/xdims_metric_nuts.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw#I...c_screw_thread
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tabl...Hex_Screws.htm
http://www.bath.ac.uk/idmrc/themes/p.../bol/bol7.html
You are buying hardware store fasteners - not automotive/industrial
fasteners.
I'm buying industrial fasteners to ISO spec. Auto fasteners can be
anything the maker wants due to quantity. For instance M7 is not a
preferred size but is more prevalent these days in the auto industry as
the jump in strength between M6 and M8, both preferred sizes, is
significant and the intermediate M7 can perform the job where M6 is
insufficient and M8 overkill. Such is the way the engineering is these
days in the auto industry. IIRC a mate that works in auto engine design
has many boxes of M8 fasteners with 12mm AF heads and washer faced but
these are auto specials made for the application and not to a normal
fastener standard.
All I'm saying is in the AUTOMOTIVE world, the standard for 8mm
bolts is a 12 mm head virtually everywhere but the North American
manufacturers. - which is why a lot of "automotive" targetted socket
and wrench sets have 12mm but not 13mm wrenches and sockets,

In the US....I use the 13 far far more than the 12. In my tools. 12mm
is one of the least used sizes.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:33:58 -0500, "Wild_Bill"
wrote:

X-Received: by 10.224.175.65 with SMTP id w1mr13457236qaz.7.1360780441872;
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:34:01 -0800 (PST)
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!p1 3no15950234qai.0!news-out.google.com!k2ni27710qap.0!nntp.google.com!npee r02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynews.com!en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Reply-To: "Wild_Bill"
From: "Wild_Bill"
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
References:
In-Reply-To:
Subject: Ford F250 Starter problem
Lines: 38
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16386
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16386
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
Organization: Forte Inc. http://www.forteinc.com/apn/
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:33:58 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 2454
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bytes: 2775
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.crafts.metalworking:1410775

Yep, 'ol Gummer comes to RCM for help, and I suspect that he never seeks any
help from the kook/fanatic groups he frequently cross-posts to.

He maintains a **** you, deal-with-it attitude towards RCM in defense of all
his bull**** fanatic postings, which when RCM is included in the list of
groups ends up drawing more kook ****ups to include RCM in their list of
groups for their own twisted rantings.

Gummer likes to call "off-topic" when anyone replies with criticisim these
behaviors, as if anyone would agree with that.

But RCM is likely the only place he can go for help.. sadly, some RCM'ers do
offer help, otherwise Gummer would probably go away.
No, on second thought, he'd still try to peddle rusty/broken junk machines
here.

It's just too bad that RCM'ers don't reply with: **** you, deal-with-it,
when he needs help.

--
WB

Odd then that a member here scanned and emailed the appropriate pages
from the Ford Factory Service Manual.

And Many many thanks to him!!!

Btw..the solenoid failed 2 days after my ministrations so they will be
picking up a new one Tuesday. $50 at Napa


Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:25:34 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

Mike Spencer wrote:
May I highjack this, since Gunner seems to have hit on a fix?

I have an '87 F-250 that won't start when it's hot. Let it sit days,
weeks, even months, indoors or out, and it fires right up. Even when
it's near 0F. Run it for a few minutes and it'll start again.

But run it until it get thoroughly warmed up, shut it off, and it
behaves as if it had a nearly dead battery: a-WUMP a-WUMP a-wump aaaa
clickety-click. Let it sit for 10 to 20 minutes (depending on the
outdoor temp) and it fires right up again. PITA at gas stations.

Engine is a replacement, the smaller-than-original V-8 (I forget the
name/displacement) so the truck is a bit underpowered but starts and
runs fine except for this not-when-hot thing. I'm a former mechanic,
I've taken it to a guy who's good, we feel like we've tried and/or
replaced everything.

Know any magic tweaks or arcane bits of Ford lore that might help me?


If it has the same style starter as a GM the problem is likely the same.
The starter solenoid is getting heat soaked and causing problems. The
trick on the GM units is to install a jumper strap across the large
terminals on the starter and install a Ford style starter solenoid on
the fender.


AH!! Excellent!!

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:17:23 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:21:44 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:50:06 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 16/02/13 23:13, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:01:57 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 16/02/13 22:37, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:36:19 +0100, Uffe Bærentsen
wrote:

Den 16-02-2013 18:35, skrev:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:15:43 +0100, Uffe Bærentsen
wrote:

Den 16-02-2013 07:11, skrev:

Sounds like you have seen most of what a car can throw at you.
And those are just the highlights of the last 46 years. - and not
including any of the customer vehicle issues in my life in the trade
(about 25 years) in Canada -----
Saw one funny thing on some Chevy's a while back (1995/1996).
We were told they were built in Canada and that was the reason for the
all out metric tooling and threads on those.
Gave us a hard time since all our tooling was imperial.
Do you know if that could be true?

It was this model

http://www.easyautosales.com/used-ca...-84353930.html

only line trucks with toolboxes on the side of the bed.
Made in Oshawa Ontario. Vehicles of that vintage were *******ized
metric. Some parts were imperial - because they came from the USA.
Some were metric - but not metric standard. For example, in place of
5/16" bolts they used 8mm - but 8mm SHOULD have 12 mm heads - they
used 13 because it was "close enough" to 1/2" that 1/2" wrenches would
"sorta" fit. Same with 1/4". Replaced with 6mm - which should have
10mm heads - but they used 11mm because a 7/16" wrench would "sorta"
fit. So some redneck shadetree mechanic would try to force a 1/4 unf
or 5/16 unf bolt into the hole, or nut onto the stud, and bad things
started happening real fast. Not bad on a new vehicle where the
"metric" bolts had a green colour to them - but after about 5
years?????
Was stuck with several of those *******s in a location were it was
difficult to get supplies. A 1/2" was simply not allowed if it should be
a 13mm. Rather park the vehicle for the time it took to get the right
spanner.
Standard sizes on spanners for metrical nuts a (thread/spanner)
6mm/10mm 8mm/13mm 10mm/17mm 12mm/19mm
So my guess would be that they used 12mm heads.
You have it mixed up. Standard on an 8 is 12, everywhere in the world
except north america.
I must have been buying US metric bolts then for the last 20+ years in
the UK as all the M8 hex fasteners I buy have 13mm AF heads. See

http://www.fairburyfastener.com/xdims_metric_nuts.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw#I...c_screw_thread
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tabl...Hex_Screws.htm
http://www.bath.ac.uk/idmrc/themes/p.../bol/bol7.html
You are buying hardware store fasteners - not automotive/industrial
fasteners.
I'm buying industrial fasteners to ISO spec. Auto fasteners can be
anything the maker wants due to quantity. For instance M7 is not a
preferred size but is more prevalent these days in the auto industry as
the jump in strength between M6 and M8, both preferred sizes, is
significant and the intermediate M7 can perform the job where M6 is
insufficient and M8 overkill. Such is the way the engineering is these
days in the auto industry. IIRC a mate that works in auto engine design
has many boxes of M8 fasteners with 12mm AF heads and washer faced but
these are auto specials made for the application and not to a normal
fastener standard.
All I'm saying is in the AUTOMOTIVE world, the standard for 8mm
bolts is a 12 mm head virtually everywhere but the North American
manufacturers. - which is why a lot of "automotive" targetted socket
and wrench sets have 12mm but not 13mm wrenches and sockets,

In the US....I use the 13 far far more than the 12. In my tools. 12mm
is one of the least used sizes.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie
Yup - but you are not working on Japanese vehicles

Ansi/ISO, DIN, and JIS all specify a 10mm head on a 6mm bolt,
ANSI/ISO and DIN use 13mm heads on 8mm, but JIS uses 10mm.
In 19mm bolts, it really gets copmplex - ANSI/ISO uses 16, DIN uses
17, and JIS ises 14.
for 12mm it is 18 for ANSI/ISO, 19 for DIN, and 17 for JIS.
14mm bolts? 21, 22, and 19 respectively.

I find the JIS system is best, because the head sizes don't get
stupid big and obstructive - and they are closer in size ratio to the
standard SAE sizes.

On a jap car, working without a 12mm wrench would be like working with
boxing gloves on, blindfolded.

SOME european brands are using JIS -I guess because they are closely
aligned with a Japanese company - like Nissan is with Renault - and
Rover was with Honda

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:25:04 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:50:13 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/17/2013 10:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:28:49 -0600, wrote:

On 2/16/2013 2:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

I may have a better answer for which parts vendors (that's where the
SAE fasteners are coming from) haven't converted yet, and why....

The parts vendors are supply what the end-user specs; not the other way
'round. If it's SAE, it's 'cuz GM says so, not because some vendor
chooses to make it that way.

Well, that's the question: Why are they doing that? It's probably a
cost issue, and it may have something to do with the costs at the
vendor level -- tooling, inventory, testing equipment, or whatever.

There's where I've no real clue as to why they would choose to do so
altho I'm sure there was/is a reason.

At this point (or as recently as 2003) for a production item as high in
numbers as the 3.8L transverse V6 that GM has used in millions of
vehicles for heaven only knows how long it's been since it was
introduced there's certainly no reason to think there's any limitation
on what vendors can do to supply whatever GM spec's to them.

It seems very strange, indeed that would have left one set as SAE and
all else not--that would seem to lead to a higher cost both for
inventory and in likelihood of mismatches than otherwise.

But, I've no clue other than I discovered it and was curious enough that
while was fetching the wrench (as I recall it was 7/16" that needed; it
wasn't large) I brought a 1/4" bolt back from the bin just to check and
indeed it was the whole bolt, not just an english head size on a metric
bolt.

Agreed, it's peculiar and I've no explanation. I've an ex-SIL that
works for DENSO but their production is all brakes and steering parts so
doubt he'd have any real knowledge on this one...the plant there does
mostly Ford but have a couple of the TN-built Japanese lines as well and
an occasional GM run will sneak in but it's the exception.

And, these are holes/fasteners in the same assembly (the belt tensioner
subassembly/heater coolant intermediary flow passage between block and
hose connection) so it's not like one part is SAE while the rest are
metric--it's mixed on the same sub-assembly.

The above is what really floored me...

I hope I get a chance to look into it. It must be something simple.

They probably had 4 million SAE bolts that needed a home and this was
a good place to put it.


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:19:22 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:17:23 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:21:44 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:50:06 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 16/02/13 23:13, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:01:57 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 16/02/13 22:37, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:36:19 +0100, Uffe Bærentsen
wrote:

Den 16-02-2013 18:35, skrev:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:15:43 +0100, Uffe Bærentsen
wrote:

Den 16-02-2013 07:11, skrev:

Sounds like you have seen most of what a car can throw at you.
And those are just the highlights of the last 46 years. - and not
including any of the customer vehicle issues in my life in the trade
(about 25 years) in Canada -----
Saw one funny thing on some Chevy's a while back (1995/1996).
We were told they were built in Canada and that was the reason for the
all out metric tooling and threads on those.
Gave us a hard time since all our tooling was imperial.
Do you know if that could be true?

It was this model

http://www.easyautosales.com/used-ca...-84353930.html

only line trucks with toolboxes on the side of the bed.
Made in Oshawa Ontario. Vehicles of that vintage were *******ized
metric. Some parts were imperial - because they came from the USA.
Some were metric - but not metric standard. For example, in place of
5/16" bolts they used 8mm - but 8mm SHOULD have 12 mm heads - they
used 13 because it was "close enough" to 1/2" that 1/2" wrenches would
"sorta" fit. Same with 1/4". Replaced with 6mm - which should have
10mm heads - but they used 11mm because a 7/16" wrench would "sorta"
fit. So some redneck shadetree mechanic would try to force a 1/4 unf
or 5/16 unf bolt into the hole, or nut onto the stud, and bad things
started happening real fast. Not bad on a new vehicle where the
"metric" bolts had a green colour to them - but after about 5
years?????
Was stuck with several of those *******s in a location were it was
difficult to get supplies. A 1/2" was simply not allowed if it should be
a 13mm. Rather park the vehicle for the time it took to get the right
spanner.
Standard sizes on spanners for metrical nuts a (thread/spanner)
6mm/10mm 8mm/13mm 10mm/17mm 12mm/19mm
So my guess would be that they used 12mm heads.
You have it mixed up. Standard on an 8 is 12, everywhere in the world
except north america.
I must have been buying US metric bolts then for the last 20+ years in
the UK as all the M8 hex fasteners I buy have 13mm AF heads. See

http://www.fairburyfastener.com/xdims_metric_nuts.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw#I...c_screw_thread
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tabl...Hex_Screws.htm
http://www.bath.ac.uk/idmrc/themes/p.../bol/bol7.html
You are buying hardware store fasteners - not automotive/industrial
fasteners.
I'm buying industrial fasteners to ISO spec. Auto fasteners can be
anything the maker wants due to quantity. For instance M7 is not a
preferred size but is more prevalent these days in the auto industry as
the jump in strength between M6 and M8, both preferred sizes, is
significant and the intermediate M7 can perform the job where M6 is
insufficient and M8 overkill. Such is the way the engineering is these
days in the auto industry. IIRC a mate that works in auto engine design
has many boxes of M8 fasteners with 12mm AF heads and washer faced but
these are auto specials made for the application and not to a normal
fastener standard.
All I'm saying is in the AUTOMOTIVE world, the standard for 8mm
bolts is a 12 mm head virtually everywhere but the North American
manufacturers. - which is why a lot of "automotive" targetted socket
and wrench sets have 12mm but not 13mm wrenches and sockets,

In the US....I use the 13 far far more than the 12. In my tools. 12mm
is one of the least used sizes.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie


Yup - but you are not working on Japanese vehicles

Japanese made, often enough. And machine tools as well.


Ansi/ISO, DIN, and JIS all specify a 10mm head on a 6mm bolt,
ANSI/ISO and DIN use 13mm heads on 8mm, but JIS uses 10mm.
In 19mm bolts, it really gets copmplex - ANSI/ISO uses 16, DIN uses
17, and JIS ises 14.
for 12mm it is 18 for ANSI/ISO, 19 for DIN, and 17 for JIS.
14mm bolts? 21, 22, and 19 respectively.

I find the JIS system is best, because the head sizes don't get
stupid big and obstructive - and they are closer in size ratio to the
standard SAE sizes.

On a jap car, working without a 12mm wrench would be like working with
boxing gloves on, blindfolded.

SOME european brands are using JIS -I guess because they are closely
aligned with a Japanese company - like Nissan is with Renault - and
Rover was with Honda

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:41:50 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:25:04 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:50:13 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/17/2013 10:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:28:49 -0600, wrote:

On 2/16/2013 2:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

I may have a better answer for which parts vendors (that's where the
SAE fasteners are coming from) haven't converted yet, and why....

The parts vendors are supply what the end-user specs; not the other way
'round. If it's SAE, it's 'cuz GM says so, not because some vendor
chooses to make it that way.

Well, that's the question: Why are they doing that? It's probably a
cost issue, and it may have something to do with the costs at the
vendor level -- tooling, inventory, testing equipment, or whatever.

There's where I've no real clue as to why they would choose to do so
altho I'm sure there was/is a reason.

At this point (or as recently as 2003) for a production item as high in
numbers as the 3.8L transverse V6 that GM has used in millions of
vehicles for heaven only knows how long it's been since it was
introduced there's certainly no reason to think there's any limitation
on what vendors can do to supply whatever GM spec's to them.

It seems very strange, indeed that would have left one set as SAE and
all else not--that would seem to lead to a higher cost both for
inventory and in likelihood of mismatches than otherwise.

But, I've no clue other than I discovered it and was curious enough that
while was fetching the wrench (as I recall it was 7/16" that needed; it
wasn't large) I brought a 1/4" bolt back from the bin just to check and
indeed it was the whole bolt, not just an english head size on a metric
bolt.

Agreed, it's peculiar and I've no explanation. I've an ex-SIL that
works for DENSO but their production is all brakes and steering parts so
doubt he'd have any real knowledge on this one...the plant there does
mostly Ford but have a couple of the TN-built Japanese lines as well and
an occasional GM run will sneak in but it's the exception.

And, these are holes/fasteners in the same assembly (the belt tensioner
subassembly/heater coolant intermediary flow passage between block and
hose connection) so it's not like one part is SAE while the rest are
metric--it's mixed on the same sub-assembly.

The above is what really floored me...

I hope I get a chance to look into it. It must be something simple.

They probably had 4 million SAE bolts that needed a home and this was
a good place to put it.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Working off inventory or something.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:58:17 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:41:50 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:25:04 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:50:13 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/17/2013 10:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:28:49 -0600, wrote:

On 2/16/2013 2:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

I may have a better answer for which parts vendors (that's where the
SAE fasteners are coming from) haven't converted yet, and why....

The parts vendors are supply what the end-user specs; not the other way
'round. If it's SAE, it's 'cuz GM says so, not because some vendor
chooses to make it that way.

Well, that's the question: Why are they doing that? It's probably a
cost issue, and it may have something to do with the costs at the
vendor level -- tooling, inventory, testing equipment, or whatever.

There's where I've no real clue as to why they would choose to do so
altho I'm sure there was/is a reason.

At this point (or as recently as 2003) for a production item as high in
numbers as the 3.8L transverse V6 that GM has used in millions of
vehicles for heaven only knows how long it's been since it was
introduced there's certainly no reason to think there's any limitation
on what vendors can do to supply whatever GM spec's to them.

It seems very strange, indeed that would have left one set as SAE and
all else not--that would seem to lead to a higher cost both for
inventory and in likelihood of mismatches than otherwise.

But, I've no clue other than I discovered it and was curious enough that
while was fetching the wrench (as I recall it was 7/16" that needed; it
wasn't large) I brought a 1/4" bolt back from the bin just to check and
indeed it was the whole bolt, not just an english head size on a metric
bolt.

Agreed, it's peculiar and I've no explanation. I've an ex-SIL that
works for DENSO but their production is all brakes and steering parts so
doubt he'd have any real knowledge on this one...the plant there does
mostly Ford but have a couple of the TN-built Japanese lines as well and
an occasional GM run will sneak in but it's the exception.

And, these are holes/fasteners in the same assembly (the belt tensioner
subassembly/heater coolant intermediary flow passage between block and
hose connection) so it's not like one part is SAE while the rest are
metric--it's mixed on the same sub-assembly.

The above is what really floored me...

I hope I get a chance to look into it. It must be something simple.

They probably had 4 million SAE bolts that needed a home and this was
a good place to put it.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Working off inventory or something.

Given they buy Billions of fasteners..and have/had contracts with the
makers....what else makes sense?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:59:26 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:58:17 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:41:50 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:25:04 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:50:13 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/17/2013 10:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:28:49 -0600, wrote:

On 2/16/2013 2:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

I may have a better answer for which parts vendors (that's where the
SAE fasteners are coming from) haven't converted yet, and why....

The parts vendors are supply what the end-user specs; not the other way
'round. If it's SAE, it's 'cuz GM says so, not because some vendor
chooses to make it that way.

Well, that's the question: Why are they doing that? It's probably a
cost issue, and it may have something to do with the costs at the
vendor level -- tooling, inventory, testing equipment, or whatever.

There's where I've no real clue as to why they would choose to do so
altho I'm sure there was/is a reason.

At this point (or as recently as 2003) for a production item as high in
numbers as the 3.8L transverse V6 that GM has used in millions of
vehicles for heaven only knows how long it's been since it was
introduced there's certainly no reason to think there's any limitation
on what vendors can do to supply whatever GM spec's to them.

It seems very strange, indeed that would have left one set as SAE and
all else not--that would seem to lead to a higher cost both for
inventory and in likelihood of mismatches than otherwise.

But, I've no clue other than I discovered it and was curious enough that
while was fetching the wrench (as I recall it was 7/16" that needed; it
wasn't large) I brought a 1/4" bolt back from the bin just to check and
indeed it was the whole bolt, not just an english head size on a metric
bolt.

Agreed, it's peculiar and I've no explanation. I've an ex-SIL that
works for DENSO but their production is all brakes and steering parts so
doubt he'd have any real knowledge on this one...the plant there does
mostly Ford but have a couple of the TN-built Japanese lines as well and
an occasional GM run will sneak in but it's the exception.

And, these are holes/fasteners in the same assembly (the belt tensioner
subassembly/heater coolant intermediary flow passage between block and
hose connection) so it's not like one part is SAE while the rest are
metric--it's mixed on the same sub-assembly.

The above is what really floored me...

I hope I get a chance to look into it. It must be something simple.

They probably had 4 million SAE bolts that needed a home and this was
a good place to put it.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Working off inventory or something.

Given they buy Billions of fasteners..and have/had contracts with the
makers....what else makes sense?

I can guess, but I'm not going to speculate on this one. A lot of
things that go on in the car manufacturing supply chain are pretty
strange.

But maybe I'll find out later in the year.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/17/2013 11:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:41:50 -0800,
wrote:
....

They probably had 4 million SAE bolts that needed a home and this was
a good place to put it.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Working off inventory or something.

Some 25 million 3800-series were produced--hardly think as small an item
as a few random fasteners would have lead to designing around them
rather than designing the assembly first.

Not to mention the concept of JIT supply chain...

I'm sure there was a reason, but it's undoubtedly more convolved in its
origins than the above as to why.

What I didn't realize until just now is that the 3800 has been
discontinued from production since '08 (which shows how long it's been
since looked at anything newer w/ any thoroughness). I knew the Enclave
has a different engine, but figured that wasn't surprising since it's
not a sedan/coupe had assumed the LaCrosse, etc., were still using it or
a later revision--but obviously not.

--

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:02:20 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/17/2013 11:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:41:50 -0800,
wrote:
...

They probably had 4 million SAE bolts that needed a home and this was
a good place to put it.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Working off inventory or something.

Some 25 million 3800-series were produced--hardly think as small an item
as a few random fasteners would have lead to designing around them
rather than designing the assembly first.

Not to mention the concept of JIT supply chain...

I'm sure there was a reason, but it's undoubtedly more convolved in its
origins than the above as to why.

What I didn't realize until just now is that the 3800 has been
discontinued from production since '08 (which shows how long it's been
since looked at anything newer w/ any thoroughness). I knew the Enclave
has a different engine, but figured that wasn't surprising since it's
not a sedan/coupe had assumed the LaCrosse, etc., were still using it or
a later revision--but obviously not.

Are you speaking about the old Buick 90-deg. V6? That sucker had a
long run. It came out in '61 or '62, as a light-truck engine.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/18/2013 9:30 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
....

Are you speaking about the old Buick 90-deg. V6? That sucker had a
long run. It came out in '61 or '62, as a light-truck engine.

That was the precursor to the 3800, yes...but the 3800 LN3 revision
didn't come until the late 80s sometime--'87,'88,'89 around there, not
sure of precise year w/o looking it up.

--


--

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:02:20 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/17/2013 11:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:41:50 -0800,
wrote:
...

They probably had 4 million SAE bolts that needed a home and this was
a good place to put it.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Working off inventory or something.

Some 25 million 3800-series were produced--hardly think as small an item
as a few random fasteners would have lead to designing around them
rather than designing the assembly first.

Not to mention the concept of JIT supply chain...

I'm sure there was a reason, but it's undoubtedly more convolved in its
origins than the above as to why.

What I didn't realize until just now is that the 3800 has been
discontinued from production since '08 (which shows how long it's been
since looked at anything newer w/ any thoroughness). I knew the Enclave
has a different engine, but figured that wasn't surprising since it's
not a sedan/coupe had assumed the LaCrosse, etc., were still using it or
a later revision--but obviously not.
No, they finally put the old horse out to pasture. Not sure any of
the current engines will survive the market as long - the 3.4 sure
didn't. For good reason.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:11:02 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:59:26 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:58:17 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:41:50 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:25:04 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:50:13 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/17/2013 10:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:28:49 -0600, wrote:

On 2/16/2013 2:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

I may have a better answer for which parts vendors (that's where the
SAE fasteners are coming from) haven't converted yet, and why....

The parts vendors are supply what the end-user specs; not the other way
'round. If it's SAE, it's 'cuz GM says so, not because some vendor
chooses to make it that way.

Well, that's the question: Why are they doing that? It's probably a
cost issue, and it may have something to do with the costs at the
vendor level -- tooling, inventory, testing equipment, or whatever.

There's where I've no real clue as to why they would choose to do so
altho I'm sure there was/is a reason.

At this point (or as recently as 2003) for a production item as high in
numbers as the 3.8L transverse V6 that GM has used in millions of
vehicles for heaven only knows how long it's been since it was
introduced there's certainly no reason to think there's any limitation
on what vendors can do to supply whatever GM spec's to them.

It seems very strange, indeed that would have left one set as SAE and
all else not--that would seem to lead to a higher cost both for
inventory and in likelihood of mismatches than otherwise.

But, I've no clue other than I discovered it and was curious enough that
while was fetching the wrench (as I recall it was 7/16" that needed; it
wasn't large) I brought a 1/4" bolt back from the bin just to check and
indeed it was the whole bolt, not just an english head size on a metric
bolt.

Agreed, it's peculiar and I've no explanation. I've an ex-SIL that
works for DENSO but their production is all brakes and steering parts so
doubt he'd have any real knowledge on this one...the plant there does
mostly Ford but have a couple of the TN-built Japanese lines as well and
an occasional GM run will sneak in but it's the exception.

And, these are holes/fasteners in the same assembly (the belt tensioner
subassembly/heater coolant intermediary flow passage between block and
hose connection) so it's not like one part is SAE while the rest are
metric--it's mixed on the same sub-assembly.

The above is what really floored me...

I hope I get a chance to look into it. It must be something simple.

They probably had 4 million SAE bolts that needed a home and this was
a good place to put it.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Working off inventory or something.

Given they buy Billions of fasteners..and have/had contracts with the
makers....what else makes sense?

I can guess, but I'm not going to speculate on this one. A lot of
things that go on in the car manufacturing supply chain are pretty
strange.

But maybe I'll find out later in the year.

Let us all know. The info will be amusing and interesting.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/18/2013 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:02:20 -0600, wrote:
....

What I didn't realize until just now is that the 3800 has been
discontinued from production since '08 ...

No, they finally put the old horse out to pasture. Not sure any of
the current engines will survive the market as long - the 3.4 sure
didn't. For good reason.

Hard to imagine w/ the ever-increasing mandates that there's much
possibility regardless of whether it's solid design or not--but surely
the 3800 was a reliable workhorse much like the old 283 was in its day...

--

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:00:42 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/18/2013 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:02:20 -0600, wrote:
...

What I didn't realize until just now is that the 3800 has been
discontinued from production since '08 ...

No, they finally put the old horse out to pasture. Not sure any of
the current engines will survive the market as long - the 3.4 sure
didn't. For good reason.

Hard to imagine w/ the ever-increasing mandates that there's much
possibility regardless of whether it's solid design or not--but surely
the 3800 was a reliable workhorse much like the old 283 was in its day...
The 3.4 was a "time bomb"

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:51:34 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:00:42 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/18/2013 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:02:20 -0600, wrote:
...

What I didn't realize until just now is that the 3800 has been
discontinued from production since '08 ...

No, they finally put the old horse out to pasture. Not sure any of
the current engines will survive the market as long - the 3.4 sure
didn't. For good reason.

Hard to imagine w/ the ever-increasing mandates that there's much
possibility regardless of whether it's solid design or not--but surely
the 3800 was a reliable workhorse much like the old 283 was in its day...
The 3.4 was a "time bomb"

I'm curious about what you're referring to here. Are you talking about
the old Fireball V6 (90 deg. V6 that started out as 3.2 l, was punched
out to 3.4 l, and then sold to Jeep)?

What made it a time bomb?

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:03:23 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:51:34 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:00:42 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/18/2013 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:02:20 -0600, wrote:
...

What I didn't realize until just now is that the 3800 has been
discontinued from production since '08 ...

No, they finally put the old horse out to pasture. Not sure any of
the current engines will survive the market as long - the 3.4 sure
didn't. For good reason.

Hard to imagine w/ the ever-increasing mandates that there's much
possibility regardless of whether it's solid design or not--but surely
the 3800 was a reliable workhorse much like the old 283 was in its day...
The 3.4 was a "time bomb"

I'm curious about what you're referring to here. Are you talking about
the old Fireball V6 (90 deg. V6 that started out as 3.2 l, was punched
out to 3.4 l, and then sold to Jeep)?

What made it a time bomb?
Nope. Talking about the 3.4 that replaced the 3.8 for a few years in
things like Pontiac Montanas and Monte Carlos. OHC engine - piece of
crap that the question was not IF it was going to fail, but when.

Talking the 91 - 97 LQ1 (X code) in particular, but the 96-2005 LA1 (E
code) was not great either. The LQ1 is quite possibly the worst north
American produced engine in the last 50 years.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:42:17 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:03:23 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:51:34 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:00:42 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/18/2013 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:02:20 -0600, wrote:
...

What I didn't realize until just now is that the 3800 has been
discontinued from production since '08 ...

No, they finally put the old horse out to pasture. Not sure any of
the current engines will survive the market as long - the 3.4 sure
didn't. For good reason.

Hard to imagine w/ the ever-increasing mandates that there's much
possibility regardless of whether it's solid design or not--but surely
the 3800 was a reliable workhorse much like the old 283 was in its day...
The 3.4 was a "time bomb"

I'm curious about what you're referring to here. Are you talking about
the old Fireball V6 (90 deg. V6 that started out as 3.2 l, was punched
out to 3.4 l, and then sold to Jeep)?

What made it a time bomb?
Nope. Talking about the 3.4 that replaced the 3.8 for a few years in
things like Pontiac Montanas and Monte Carlos. OHC engine - piece of
crap that the question was not IF it was going to fail, but when.

Talking the 91 - 97 LQ1 (X code) in particular, but the 96-2005 LA1 (E
code) was not great either. The LQ1 is quite possibly the worst north
American produced engine in the last 50 years.

Aha. I never followed those, being distracted with car problems of my
own at the time.

--
Ed Huntress