How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
11-21-2014, 04:26 PM
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Farmington Hills, MI
Posts: 1,218
Total Cats: 175
Looking for some advice here. I was involved in a big pileup of cars today, and ended up rear-ending someone (no-homo). The bumper is scratched a bit and popped out in the corners, but I don't believe it's un-usable. The radiator is cracked, the hood is bent up, and the bar that houses the hood latch and radiator mount is bent a good bit. Since I was so much lower than the other car, the structure behind my bumper didn't hit anything and is fine. I have a pretty large deductible at $1000, and this is Michigan No-Fault insurance. I'm most likely just going to fix it myself, as I have the tools to make new radiator mounts, and I'll just use hood pins and not worry about getting the hood latch mount perfect.
Should I try to get a quote from a shop, make a claim, and try to get some money back to pay for the parts? I really don't know how much a shop would charge for this, but I could see it being pretty high. I'm also not sure if putting a claim in would raise my insurance, because I hit someone, therefore was at fault by default. However I didn't get a ticket, so maybe they would see it as not being my fault.
Should I try to get a quote from a shop, make a claim, and try to get some money back to pay for the parts? I really don't know how much a shop would charge for this, but I could see it being pretty high. I'm also not sure if putting a claim in would raise my insurance, because I hit someone, therefore was at fault by default. However I didn't get a ticket, so maybe they would see it as not being my fault.
Reply
0
0
11-21-2014, 06:57 PM
Get the police report and make sure you were not indicated at fault. If it was a pile-up where you were also rear-ended and not considered at fault, the insurance company may pay.
Insurance companies may raise your rates strictly because you were in an accident, and they will find out from the other drivers claim.
Insurance companies may raise your rates strictly because you were in an accident, and they will find out from the other drivers claim.
Reply
0
0
11-22-2014, 02:30 PM
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Oh. I thought you were looking for an electromechanical system, using relays and whatnot.
Purely mechanical fuel injection been done already.
A lot.
The first experimental systems came out of France around 1905, and during WWII, the majority of German combat aircraft were equipped with direct-injection.
The first automotive applications came from Mercedes in the 1950s, first in their 1954 F1 cars, and later that decade in the 300SL / SLR.
The Americans jumped on board a few years later, and in the late 60s, Bosch introduced the (still purely mechanical) continuous-injection Jetronic system which was widely used by Porsche among others.
Adding mechanical distributorless ignition to such a system would require nothing more than building a device similar to a vacuum advance distributor with four sets of points (one per coil) and no rotor.
Purely mechanical fuel injection been done already.
A lot.
The first experimental systems came out of France around 1905, and during WWII, the majority of German combat aircraft were equipped with direct-injection.
The first automotive applications came from Mercedes in the 1950s, first in their 1954 F1 cars, and later that decade in the 300SL / SLR.
The Americans jumped on board a few years later, and in the late 60s, Bosch introduced the (still purely mechanical) continuous-injection Jetronic system which was widely used by Porsche among others.
Adding mechanical distributorless ignition to such a system would require nothing more than building a device similar to a vacuum advance distributor with four sets of points (one per coil) and no rotor.
Reply
0
0
11-25-2014, 01:27 PM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
After two years of work and $15,000 spent on restoring a classic car, Mario Caperon has nothing to show for it, except for the time he spent bonding with his son.
Arizona officials seized the car because of a mistake by a Motor Vehicle Division inspector years before Caperon ever owned it.
But Caperon is the one who paid for that mistake.
The car, a 1963 Oldsmobile Cutlass convertible, was reported stolen in 1995. Caperon didn't know that when he purchased the car and registered it with the Motor Vehicle Division in 2011.
The state vehicle inspector apparently didn't know it, either.
Despite a theft report filed with the Phoenix Police Department, the inspector issued a clean title to the car's previous owner in 2000, meaning it could be legally bought and sold.
Or so Caperon thought.
"Even though I had a title registration and valid VIN (vehicle identification number) on the car, they still impounded it and took the car away from us," he said.
Caperon took his case to court in 2012 and then filed a $16,822 claim against the state for negligence.
But a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled against him, and Arizona officials denied his claim without addressing whether the vehicle inspector made a mistake.
In a one-page letter, state officials last year told Caperon that since he couldn't prove the inspector acted with gross negligence or malice, the state wasn't liable.
Case closed.
A father-son project
Caperon, the owner of a moving company named Fast Action Movers in Phoenix, described working on the car alongside his son, Gino, 15, and family friend "Grandpa Claude" Golden.
"It did need a lot of work," Caperon said.
"A lot of time and money," Gino echoed.
"You're still paying for it today," Golden said.
More Call 12 for Action stories:
6 paintings recovered amid drama, threats
Health-care nightmares series helps consumers save $600K
Caperon said he first saw an advertisement for the car on Craigslist. When the price dropped to $2,500, Caperon said he decided to buy it. The car was a wreck. The upholstery was torn, the bumpers were missing, the engine was damaged and it appeared as if the car had been in a fire.
Over the next 18 months, Caperon, his son and Golden rebuilt the engine, refurbished the interior and replaced the missing parts. Then they brought the car to a paint shop.
"It was kind of a building relationship, with him and I being able to restore and put this car together," Caperon said.
Gino Caperon called it a learning experience.
"Overall, it was fun hanging out with them," he said. "Glad I got to do that. I've learned a lot from him about relationships and school."
As the car sat outside the paint shop, someone spotted the vehicle as he drove past. Phoenix resident Mario Lavin told police he recognized it as a car stolen from a friend almost 20 years ago.
According to Phoenix police reports, Lavin said he'd helped work on the car in the 1990s before he sold it to his friend, Jerry Rockwell. He pointed out a crack in the windshield that was still there, police reported.
Rockwell could not locate any paperwork for the car, but an officer found the original theft report from 1995 that noted the cracked windshield.
The owner of the shop called Caperon, who rushed there with the car's title, which he thought proved it was his.
Golden believed it was all the proof Caperon needed.
"I thought when the state issued you a title, it was binding," Golden said. "I didn't know they could take it away from you."
Police reports show officers weren't sure about the ownership at all.
"I contacted a detective from auto-theft detail ... as there was no sure way to identify the owner of the vehicle. He advised the vehicle should be impounded," an officer wrote in the 2012 report.
First VIN wasn't spotted
A Call 12 for Action investigation found there was little doubt the state erred when the inspector gave the Cutlass a new vehicle identification number in 2000. The VIN is the automotive equivalent of a fingerprint, a unique numerical code assigned to each vehicle used for license and registration.
Records show the Cutlass' previous owner in 2000 sought an inspection on the car. The inspector didn't find the original VIN and issued a new one.
The Department of Transportation, which oversees the Motor Vehicle Division, provided no records or information about the identity of the inspector, the inspector's employment history or what process the inspector used to verify the Cutlass in 2000.
Caperon questioned the state's ability to do its job.
"You have a paid employee from the state that's trained to find these hidden numbers and they can't find the hidden numbers," Caperon said. "But when it gets down to the impound lot where the police officers impounded it, they were able to find the number within 15 minutes."
Arizona officials have no plans to compensate Caperon.
State officials refused to comment on the case and referred questions from one department to another. Officials with the Motor Vehicle Division referred questions to the Department of Transportation. Officials there promised to look into the case and then directed inquiries to the Department of Administration and the state's risk-management division.
Risk management oversaw Caperon's claim for damage. Department spokesman Jeff Grant also would not comment. Instead, he pointed to a letter denying Caperon's claim.
The letter maintained the state has "qualified immunity," because the Motor Vehicle Division did not "intend" to cause any damage or a loss.
"We believe the State of Arizona is not legally responsible for your loss or damages," the June 11, 2013, letter said.
The Arizona ombudsman this year opened an investigation into Caperon's case. The department is charged with looking into citizen complaints about state offices and employees. Dennis Wells, ombudsman citizen aide, confirmed his office was looking into the case. He would not disclose any details.
Judge returns car to 1995 owner
Caperon pushed for a court hearing last year in hopes of taking ownership of the car and getting it out of the police impound lot where it was being stored. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge said all of the work and money Caperon put into the car didn't mean a thing.
Caperon said he had high hopes of winning the case, especially since he had the support of a state Department of Transportation investigator.
Jeff Pfaffenbach, a detective with the title and registration fraud unit, wrote in a 2012 report that he "decided to open a case to investigate why we put the AZ VIN on the vehicle."
Pfaffenbach declined to comment on the case. But Caperon said in court Pfaffenbach testified the state made mistakes and also suggested the statute of limitations had run out on any prior ownership claims on the car.
"The detective testified that what happened was wrong," Caperon said. "We were high-fiving in the hallway. ... He said I was going to win."
Judge Maria Del Mar Verdin, however, ruled the car belonged to Rockwell, who reported it stolen in 1995. She ordered the Cutlass, which remained in a police impound lot, be returned to him in its current condition and that Caperon was not entitled to compensation for the work to restore the car.
Rockwell, owner of Phoenix travel agency JDR Tours, said he was happy to have his stolen car returned.
"I'm sorry it happened to him (Caperon). If he knows who sold the car to him, he should go to them," Rockwell said. "The state should have found the VIN."
Offer to buy it back
After the court hearing, Caperon offered to buy the car from Rockwell. He said Rockwell quoted him a price of $15,000.
"He said, 'I don't care about the car. If you give me $15,000, I'll sell it to you. That's my offer,' " Caperon said, adding he was shocked by the amount Rockwell wanted him to pay. "I told him I'd have to go home and pray about it. The next day I called him and he told me it was too late. He'd sold the car."
The buyer was Lavin, the man who saw the car at the paint shop and reported it stolen.
Rockwell denied quoting Caperon a price for the Cutlass. Rockwell said he would not have sold the car to Caperon for any amount of money.
"I would not have had that car if Mario Lavin hadn't spotted it. I wanted to thank him. He deserves it," Rockwell said.
Rockwell would not discuss how much he charged Lavin for the car, but said Lavin paid a "token amount" for the vehicle, based on what it's worth.
That's where Caperon thought the story of the Cutlass would end. But he had another surprise coming: a demand letter from Lavin.
After buying the car from Rockwell, Lavin threatened to sue Caperon for the parts missing from the car. He demanded $5,000 for the bumpers, molding and other parts that had been removed from the car when it was being prepped for the paint job, Caperon said.
The parts had been in storage when the car was impounded. Caperon said he did not return the parts because he had bought them and they were not part of the judge's order to return the car to Rockwell from impound.
Caperon said he attempted to negotiate a sale and ultimately agreed to sell the parts to Lavin for $700.
Caperon said it's been hard to put the experience behind him.
"We don't have anything to show for it," he said. "Basically, the car is gone. The only thing we have is pictures."
Caperon, Gino and Golden say they haven't given up on the dream of restoring a car. They said they plan to find another car to work on together.
"Lots of TV shows talk about buying vintage cars and fixing them up," Caperon said. "We're hoping that the story will help people know what risks are out there."
Call 12 for Action reporter Robert Anglen contributed to this article.
Stacia Naquin is a Call 12 for Action reporter. She appears on 12 News Today 5-7 a.m. weekdays.
Arizona officials seized the car because of a mistake by a Motor Vehicle Division inspector years before Caperon ever owned it.
But Caperon is the one who paid for that mistake.
The car, a 1963 Oldsmobile Cutlass convertible, was reported stolen in 1995. Caperon didn't know that when he purchased the car and registered it with the Motor Vehicle Division in 2011.
The state vehicle inspector apparently didn't know it, either.
Despite a theft report filed with the Phoenix Police Department, the inspector issued a clean title to the car's previous owner in 2000, meaning it could be legally bought and sold.
Or so Caperon thought.
"Even though I had a title registration and valid VIN (vehicle identification number) on the car, they still impounded it and took the car away from us," he said.
Caperon took his case to court in 2012 and then filed a $16,822 claim against the state for negligence.
But a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled against him, and Arizona officials denied his claim without addressing whether the vehicle inspector made a mistake.
In a one-page letter, state officials last year told Caperon that since he couldn't prove the inspector acted with gross negligence or malice, the state wasn't liable.
Case closed.
A father-son project
Caperon, the owner of a moving company named Fast Action Movers in Phoenix, described working on the car alongside his son, Gino, 15, and family friend "Grandpa Claude" Golden.
"It did need a lot of work," Caperon said.
"A lot of time and money," Gino echoed.
"You're still paying for it today," Golden said.
More Call 12 for Action stories:
6 paintings recovered amid drama, threats
Health-care nightmares series helps consumers save $600K
Caperon said he first saw an advertisement for the car on Craigslist. When the price dropped to $2,500, Caperon said he decided to buy it. The car was a wreck. The upholstery was torn, the bumpers were missing, the engine was damaged and it appeared as if the car had been in a fire.
Over the next 18 months, Caperon, his son and Golden rebuilt the engine, refurbished the interior and replaced the missing parts. Then they brought the car to a paint shop.
"It was kind of a building relationship, with him and I being able to restore and put this car together," Caperon said.
Gino Caperon called it a learning experience.
"Overall, it was fun hanging out with them," he said. "Glad I got to do that. I've learned a lot from him about relationships and school."
As the car sat outside the paint shop, someone spotted the vehicle as he drove past. Phoenix resident Mario Lavin told police he recognized it as a car stolen from a friend almost 20 years ago.
According to Phoenix police reports, Lavin said he'd helped work on the car in the 1990s before he sold it to his friend, Jerry Rockwell. He pointed out a crack in the windshield that was still there, police reported.
Rockwell could not locate any paperwork for the car, but an officer found the original theft report from 1995 that noted the cracked windshield.
The owner of the shop called Caperon, who rushed there with the car's title, which he thought proved it was his.
Golden believed it was all the proof Caperon needed.
"I thought when the state issued you a title, it was binding," Golden said. "I didn't know they could take it away from you."
Police reports show officers weren't sure about the ownership at all.
"I contacted a detective from auto-theft detail ... as there was no sure way to identify the owner of the vehicle. He advised the vehicle should be impounded," an officer wrote in the 2012 report.
First VIN wasn't spotted
A Call 12 for Action investigation found there was little doubt the state erred when the inspector gave the Cutlass a new vehicle identification number in 2000. The VIN is the automotive equivalent of a fingerprint, a unique numerical code assigned to each vehicle used for license and registration.
Records show the Cutlass' previous owner in 2000 sought an inspection on the car. The inspector didn't find the original VIN and issued a new one.
The Department of Transportation, which oversees the Motor Vehicle Division, provided no records or information about the identity of the inspector, the inspector's employment history or what process the inspector used to verify the Cutlass in 2000.
Caperon questioned the state's ability to do its job.
"You have a paid employee from the state that's trained to find these hidden numbers and they can't find the hidden numbers," Caperon said. "But when it gets down to the impound lot where the police officers impounded it, they were able to find the number within 15 minutes."
Arizona officials have no plans to compensate Caperon.
State officials refused to comment on the case and referred questions from one department to another. Officials with the Motor Vehicle Division referred questions to the Department of Transportation. Officials there promised to look into the case and then directed inquiries to the Department of Administration and the state's risk-management division.
Risk management oversaw Caperon's claim for damage. Department spokesman Jeff Grant also would not comment. Instead, he pointed to a letter denying Caperon's claim.
The letter maintained the state has "qualified immunity," because the Motor Vehicle Division did not "intend" to cause any damage or a loss.
"We believe the State of Arizona is not legally responsible for your loss or damages," the June 11, 2013, letter said.
The Arizona ombudsman this year opened an investigation into Caperon's case. The department is charged with looking into citizen complaints about state offices and employees. Dennis Wells, ombudsman citizen aide, confirmed his office was looking into the case. He would not disclose any details.
Judge returns car to 1995 owner
Caperon pushed for a court hearing last year in hopes of taking ownership of the car and getting it out of the police impound lot where it was being stored. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge said all of the work and money Caperon put into the car didn't mean a thing.
Caperon said he had high hopes of winning the case, especially since he had the support of a state Department of Transportation investigator.
Jeff Pfaffenbach, a detective with the title and registration fraud unit, wrote in a 2012 report that he "decided to open a case to investigate why we put the AZ VIN on the vehicle."
Pfaffenbach declined to comment on the case. But Caperon said in court Pfaffenbach testified the state made mistakes and also suggested the statute of limitations had run out on any prior ownership claims on the car.
"The detective testified that what happened was wrong," Caperon said. "We were high-fiving in the hallway. ... He said I was going to win."
Judge Maria Del Mar Verdin, however, ruled the car belonged to Rockwell, who reported it stolen in 1995. She ordered the Cutlass, which remained in a police impound lot, be returned to him in its current condition and that Caperon was not entitled to compensation for the work to restore the car.
Rockwell, owner of Phoenix travel agency JDR Tours, said he was happy to have his stolen car returned.
"I'm sorry it happened to him (Caperon). If he knows who sold the car to him, he should go to them," Rockwell said. "The state should have found the VIN."
Offer to buy it back
After the court hearing, Caperon offered to buy the car from Rockwell. He said Rockwell quoted him a price of $15,000.
"He said, 'I don't care about the car. If you give me $15,000, I'll sell it to you. That's my offer,' " Caperon said, adding he was shocked by the amount Rockwell wanted him to pay. "I told him I'd have to go home and pray about it. The next day I called him and he told me it was too late. He'd sold the car."
The buyer was Lavin, the man who saw the car at the paint shop and reported it stolen.
Rockwell denied quoting Caperon a price for the Cutlass. Rockwell said he would not have sold the car to Caperon for any amount of money.
"I would not have had that car if Mario Lavin hadn't spotted it. I wanted to thank him. He deserves it," Rockwell said.
Rockwell would not discuss how much he charged Lavin for the car, but said Lavin paid a "token amount" for the vehicle, based on what it's worth.
That's where Caperon thought the story of the Cutlass would end. But he had another surprise coming: a demand letter from Lavin.
After buying the car from Rockwell, Lavin threatened to sue Caperon for the parts missing from the car. He demanded $5,000 for the bumpers, molding and other parts that had been removed from the car when it was being prepped for the paint job, Caperon said.
The parts had been in storage when the car was impounded. Caperon said he did not return the parts because he had bought them and they were not part of the judge's order to return the car to Rockwell from impound.
Caperon said he attempted to negotiate a sale and ultimately agreed to sell the parts to Lavin for $700.
Caperon said it's been hard to put the experience behind him.
"We don't have anything to show for it," he said. "Basically, the car is gone. The only thing we have is pictures."
Caperon, Gino and Golden say they haven't given up on the dream of restoring a car. They said they plan to find another car to work on together.
"Lots of TV shows talk about buying vintage cars and fixing them up," Caperon said. "We're hoping that the story will help people know what risks are out there."
Call 12 for Action reporter Robert Anglen contributed to this article.
Stacia Naquin is a Call 12 for Action reporter. She appears on 12 News Today 5-7 a.m. weekdays.
Reply
0
0
11-25-2014, 06:47 PM
He is presenting* what has long been the conventional wisdom regarding tire width:
All other things being equal, a wider tire will increase lateral grip because of the change in shape of the contact patch, but it will not increase (and may actually decrease) fore-aft grip. The contact patch gets wider but also shorter in the fore-aft dimension.
*Well, kind of. He doesn't really explain it, and then he muddies the water with some bizarre argument about going to bigger tires in order to increase rotating mass...
Reply
0
0
11-25-2014, 06:52 PM
What?
He is presenting what has long been the conventional wisdom regarding tire width:
All other things being equal, a wider tire will increase lateral grip because of the change in shape of the contact patch, but it will not increase (and may actually decrease) fore-aft grip. The contact patch gets wider but also shorter in the fore-aft dimension.
He is presenting what has long been the conventional wisdom regarding tire width:
All other things being equal, a wider tire will increase lateral grip because of the change in shape of the contact patch, but it will not increase (and may actually decrease) fore-aft grip. The contact patch gets wider but also shorter in the fore-aft dimension.
Yes, i'm aware that you aren't actually changing size, but shape, and such.
I have a bigger issue with it in terms of real-world experience and the fact that he's using it as a way to justify running 205 width Walmart Maypop tires on a 400whp FWD car and complaining about how his diff isn't magically giving him traction.
Even using same class tires, there's a very real difference in straight line traction experienced in well... most of my cars that have actually made triple digit power.
If "conventional wisdom" was absolutely correct in this case, we'd all be running around with the narrowest tires we could find at the drag strip.
I've had 205, 215, 225, and 245-width rubber on my car all in 140-200tw rated tires. All were within a half inch diameter. The wider ones had the best traction in straight line. I expect the same to happen when i move to 225s on the Miata.
Reply
0
0
11-29-2014, 11:02 PM
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Detroit (the part with no rules or laws)
Posts: 5,677
Total Cats: 800
Looking back through my old pictures of when i did my TB / WP job, no.
That's way off.
I think m.net has a bunch of threads on this.
Edit*
here's my picture. Nevermind my sharpie lines, those were for me. Counting the teeth between I and E, i'm getting different numbers.
I have been drinking though.
That's way off.
I think m.net has a bunch of threads on this.
Edit*
here's my picture. Nevermind my sharpie lines, those were for me. Counting the teeth between I and E, i'm getting different numbers.
I have been drinking though.
Reply
0
0
11-29-2014, 11:25 PM
Thanks for the confirmation. Yeah i'm counting 19 on your pic, on mine i count 21. garbage *** shops man. After seeing how much they butchered the job (boost sensor unplugged, ripped bolt on the PS, loose pivot bolt on the PS, coil pack missing a bolt the other half loose, ripped breather hose) i dont know if i even believe them to fix it. What options do i have?
Reply
0
0
11-30-2014, 12:23 AM
Thanks for the confirmation. Yeah i'm counting 19 on your pic, on mine i count 21. garbage *** shops man. After seeing how much they butchered the job (boost sensor unplugged, ripped bolt on the PS, loose pivot bolt on the PS, coil pack missing a bolt the other half loose, ripped breather hose) i dont know if i even believe them to fix it. What options do i have?
Did they do any other work, like WP, thermostat, oil seals, etc?
I'd be concerned about the whole lot of it.
Last edited by good2go; 11-30-2014 at 03:45 AM.
Reply
0
0
11-30-2014, 10:07 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
The person who finds himself garage-less and mostly tool-less, and who has literally never paid a mechanic to do any work on anything other than an automatic transmission, asks the following question:
What is a typical amount of money for a reputable shop to charge to replace the following in an '04 Miata:
Presuppose that I have not located an independent garage which I'd trust, and am seriously considering the dealership. Please indicate whether your estimate includes parts.
What is a typical amount of money for a reputable shop to charge to replace the following in an '04 Miata:
- Timing Belt
- Water Pump
- Front crank seal (incl. big bolt and woodruff key)
Presuppose that I have not located an independent garage which I'd trust, and am seriously considering the dealership. Please indicate whether your estimate includes parts.
Reply
0
0
11-30-2014, 01:08 PM
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,177
Total Cats: 1,681
Back in 2006 I was quoted about $1000 to have a miata specialty shop change the timing belt and waterpump and all the other normal seals at that time on my 94. I bet that is around what the dealership would charge you.
Reply
0
0
11-30-2014, 01:32 PM
The person who finds himself garage-less and mostly tool-less, and who has literally never paid a mechanic to do any work on anything other than an automatic transmission, asks the following question:
What is a typical amount of money for a reputable shop to charge to replace the following in an '04 Miata:
Presuppose that I have not located an independent garage which I'd trust, and am seriously considering the dealership. Please indicate whether your estimate includes parts.
What is a typical amount of money for a reputable shop to charge to replace the following in an '04 Miata:
- Timing Belt
- Water Pump
- Front crank seal (incl. big bolt and woodruff key)
Presuppose that I have not located an independent garage which I'd trust, and am seriously considering the dealership. Please indicate whether your estimate includes parts.
Reply
0
0
