|
Uthor posted:I bought one, used it once or twice, put it back in the box, and found it in a pool of oil the next time I picked it up to use it. Since I don't use it often, it was way out of warranty. But I thought Craftsman had a lifetime warranty. 
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Not on everything and definitely not on torque wrenches.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
SNiPER_Magnum posted:Not on everything and definitely not on torque wrenches. I'm noticing they're sticking the craftsman name on hand tools that isn't made in the US which is a surprise. I picked up a few plyers and wire cutters, and when I got home they were made in China. The worse part was that the plyers had no teeth on them so the needle doze and regular plyers were useless for gripping anything. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
SNiPER_Magnum posted:Not on everything and definitely not on torque wrenches. Yeah, it's like 90 days on torque wrenches. BigKOfJustice posted:The worse part was that the plyers had no teeth on them I'm not sure if they're Craftsman brand, but I have small needle nose pliers from Sears with no teeth that I really like. They are great for grabbing small things without putting grooves into. I used them a lot when working on my desktop computer. But, yeah, if you're working with big pieces of metal, all you get is slip.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
The worst thing is having some older American made tools that are seriously worn out and having Craftsman replace them with the horrible Chinese stuff they have now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
Sockington posted:I bought the Mastercraft 1/2" torque wrench a while ago. It takes care of everything from 50+ ft.lbs. I bought one of the Mastercraft Maximum 1/2" torque wrenches for work but it's ratchet failed. Replaced it under warranty, and 3 weeks later the new one's ratchet failed too. After that I broke down and bought a Snap-On and no problems since. Maybe I just got a bad batch of wrenches but I was pretty disappointed that 2 failed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
I used a digital camera scope today (OTC 3880 Digital Scope) for the first time today and god drat what a usefull tool. Anyone have any experiance with the cheap chinese made ones like this? http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.32414 I can't justify dropping 200-400 on a tool I will hardly use but hot drat I sure want one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
Suniikaa posted:I used a digital camera scope today (OTC 3880 Digital Scope) for the first time today and god drat what a usefull tool. Anyone have any experiance with the cheap chinese made ones like this? From this very thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2788369&userid=54767#post363720179 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2788369&userid=54767#post370430309 It's been very useful and already been loaned out a couple times. I can't speak for long-term reliability, but everything seems solid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 23:59
|
|
EVERYWHERE 
|
I love deal extreme but have not had good luck with their equipment including their small cameras. Their stuff is really bottom of the barrel in terms of quality. Harbor freight has one cheaper with the 20% off coupon anyway: http://www.harborfreight.com/wireless-inspection-camera-with-24-inch-color-lcd-monitor-66550.html EFB but with extra info
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
BigKOfJustice posted:I'm noticing they're sticking the craftsman name on hand tools that isn't made in the US which is a surprise. I picked up a few plyers and wire cutters, and when I got home they were made in China. I know exactly which ones you are talking about. I was very pissed to find that out. About torque wrenches, I bring my craftsman one to the snap on truck all the time and check to see if it is still in calibration and it always has been.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 01:32
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Neat facto about torque wrenches... Side loading the 3/8" or 1/2" drive can make them read torque. So dont push hard on the heads or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 02:11
|
|
|
Curse you harbor freight, why can't I get some POWER FIST AWESOME SCOPE on sale up in this frozen bitch tundra.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
Suniikaa posted:Curse you harbor freight, why can't I get some POWER FIST AWESOME SCOPE on sale up in this frozen bitch tundra. Shipping?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 02:48
|
|
|
I'm sure this will interest someone so I will post it. This afternoon I decided to test the accuracy of my Harbor Freight 3/8" drive torque wrench. The torque range goes from 5-80 ft-lbs with a stated accuracy of ±4%. I clamped a threaded rod coupler (basically a really long nut) into a vice and used a 3/4" socket on the coupler to hold the wrench as close to perpendicular to the floor as possible. After setting the wrench to the desired torque value, I used a small cable and different combinations of free-weights to measure the actual weight and distance values required to click the wrench, which are then used to calculate the measured torque.  The black dotted line is the desired values. Some values have two data points because I used a second weight combination for those settings. EDIT: These numbers are slightly off, see my post below for updated chart. This is obviously not the most scientific test but it allows you to draw some pretty broad conclusions. Results are adequately linear although about 5% low. sbyers77 fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 06:20
|
|
|
sbyers77 posted:I'm sure this will interest someone so I will post it. Well that is pretty cool. I am not an expert on torque wrenches, but I am impressed that you took the effort to do this experiment and could get a HF torque wrench to register close to 'actual' values. I wanted to comment about the "error" between the HF wrench readings and actual readings. Since the HF wrench is consistently lower than the actual, your errors are definitely not normally distributed. What does that mean? I am not sure. It could be a mis-calibration of the wrench. Or, it could be a systematic bias in your experiment. In any case, it makes me feel less bad about torquing bolts with my own cheap Chinese wrench. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 06:42
|
|
|
NaturallyAspergated posted:Well that is pretty cool. I am not an expert on torque wrenches, but I am impressed that you took the effort to do this experiment and could get a HF torque wrench to register close to 'actual' values. I actually didn't re-calibrate the wrench at all. These are out-of-the-box accuracy measurements. NaturallyAspergated posted:I wanted to comment about the "error" between the HF wrench readings and actual readings. Since the HF wrench is consistently lower than the actual, your errors are definitely not normally distributed. What does that mean? I am not sure. It could be a mis-calibration of the wrench. Or, it could be a systematic bias in your experiment. There are certainly lots of room for error. For instance I didn't actually weigh my weights to verify them. This could explain why my readings are low, if all my weights were low for example. I'll take measurements again some time to verify my results are repeatable. NaturallyAspergated posted:In any case, it makes me feel less bad about torquing bolts with my own cheap Chinese wrench. Thanks. This was more or less the point of the experiment. Verify the manufactures claims and to make sure I'm not waaaay off when torquing something down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 07:01
|
|
|
sbyers77 posted:I'd be interested to see the same thing after a few months use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
I am interested in discussing some possible errors in your methodology of testing, but I dont have a real clear picture of what you did. Would you mind doing an MS paint of it? It sounds to me like you meant to say the torque wrench was parallel to the floor. I know a little bit about building an accurate torque wrench calibration fixture because one of the engineers at DMC tools built one with a calibrated confirmed accuracy thats very good, but it wasn't as easy to do as you'd expect. Things like the side loading I mentioned earlier played a real role and it sounds like that among other things could be present here but may be able to be minimized or eliminated quickly. Things like being a little off in your distance will create an error of course but also things like the socket being loose and creating a moment about/parallel to the handle can as well. Also, is it possible you just didnt screw it in quite enough or was this the digital torque wrench? EDIT: this post is not intended to be a criticism at all and I appreciate the data, its more of just a practice thinking about things I am studying and which are fun to discuss. AnomalousBoners fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Jun 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 07:18
|
|
|
my1999gsr posted:I bought one of the Mastercraft Maximum 1/2" torque wrenches for work but it's ratchet failed. Replaced it under warranty, and 3 weeks later the new one's ratchet failed too. After that I broke down and bought a Snap-On and no problems since. Maybe I just got a bad batch of wrenches but I was pretty disappointed that 2 failed. I'm hopefully not using it enough to fail the ratcheting part. I was thinking of picking up a Jet one for my 3/8 drive torque wrench - they are fairly nice quality. I'm in love with their 48tooth long-handle 1/4" and 3/8" ratchets that I have for normal use in the garage. Sockington fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Jun 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 07:22
|
|
|
RealKyleH posted:I am interested in discussing some possible errors in your methodology of testing, but I dont have a real clear picture of what you did. Would you mind doing an MS paint of it? It sounds to me like you meant to say the torque wrench was parallel to the floor. I know a little bit about building an accurate torque wrench calibration fixture because one of the engineers at DMC tools built one with a calibrated confirmed accuracy thats very good, but it wasn't as easy to do as you'd expect. Things like the side loading I mentioned earlier played a real role and it sounds like that among other things could be present here but may be able to be minimized or eliminated quickly. Yes, I meant the wrench was parallel to the floor so the weights would hang perpendicular. I'll take some pictures either tonight or tomorrow so you guys can tell me what I overlooked to make my measurements more accurate. Here is the crappy MS Paint in the meantime, image is a sideview:  I'd hang the weights from the wrench close to to vice then slowly move them out toward the end of the handle until the wrench would click. Then I'd measure the distance from the axis of rotation to where the wire was hanging. Known force X known distance = measured torque value.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 07:45
|
|
|
RealKyleH posted:I am interested in discussing some possible errors in your methodology of testing, but I dont have a real clear picture of what you did. Would you mind doing an MS paint of it? It sounds to me like you meant to say the torque wrench was parallel to the floor. I know a little bit about building an accurate torque wrench calibration fixture because one of the engineers at DMC tools built one with a calibrated confirmed accuracy thats very good, but it wasn't as easy to do as you'd expect. Things like the side loading I mentioned earlier played a real role and it sounds like that among other things could be present here but may be able to be minimized or eliminated quickly. Yeah, from a totally 'spergin  perspective, I think the most informative thing would be to try the same setup with a different wrench. This would help sort out whether the experimental error was due to the wrench, or the result of experimental design. All the factors you mentioned seem like potential candidates, but there are lots of other ones as well. The important question is whether any of these factors is a significant source of variance. As my statistics professor used to say: "Its all about partitioning of variance".
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 07:50
|
|
|
Out of :sperg: curiosity, can you not just chuck up the square drive directly in the vise? Seems like you'd avoid any possible slack between the square drive on the ratchet and the socket itself...then again, that's slack that will be there in a real-world use of it too. Also, on all of this side-loading talk, how many percent are we talking about in error? An additional 3% either way, or 10%, or what? Seems like these days a lot more companies are speccing out torque ranges like 65-75 ft lb instead of 70 on the dot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
Okay, so this was my method (and yes I know my garage is a mess): I bought a "threaded rod coupler" which is basically a giant nut. I also purchased a bolt to go into the coupler but I found a 3/4" socket fit so I just used the socket directly on the coupler.  Using a 3/4" socket on the torque wrench I positioned the wrench as close to parallel to the floor as possible. When I hang weights from it the force will be perpendicular to the wrench handle.  I then hung weights off of the wrench as varying distances from the axis of rotation. Starting close to the vise and working outward, I would slowly increase the distance in which the weights were hanging until the wrench clicked.  After the wrench clicked I used a tape measure to measure the distance from the axis of rotation to the middle of the cable. I would then record the weight(s) suspended, the distance measurement and the torque setting of the wrench. Using the equation Force X Distance = Torque I used Excel to plot my results. For greater accuracy I actually verified the weights with a scale and found them to be slightly off. Using the corrected weight values, and this time taking into account the cable weight, I updated the Harbor Freight torque wrench graph.  Again, The black dotted line is the desired values. Some values have two data points because I used a second weight combination for those settings. With the updated values I now I find my results are about 3% low, within the stated accuracy of the wrench. I also tested my 1/2" drive Craftsman torque wrench through about the first 1/3 of its range:  Since the Craftsman wrench is basically on the money I'm guessing this essentially verifies my test method (although there is still room for error and not super-accurate). sbyers77 fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
I recently purchased the digital Craftsmen 1/2 TQ wrench... did you test that model?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
That's really impressive for a torque wrench you can get for like $10 on sale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 03:55
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:That's really impressive for a torque wrench you can get for like $10 on sale. No poo poo. Makes me feel alot better about poo poo I've done with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
R-Type posted:I recently purchased the digital Craftsmen 1/2 TQ wrench... did you test that model? The Craftsman wrench I tested was MicroTork model 44595, click-style 1/2" Drive with a range of 20-150 ft-lbs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
I might have to get one of these clicky type wrenches. Is there any major advantage to them over a bar type? Other then having to watch how your store/transport it? I have a ~30 year old craftsman 1/2" bar type wrench that hasn't led me astray yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 16:51
|
|
|
It's easier to use them in awkward angles where you can't see the indicator.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 17:52
|
|
|
sbyers77 posted:Okay, so this was my method (and yes I know my garage is a mess): Can you post this somewhere else? I would like to show this to some non-AI friends of mine. Or could I post this on my blog (with credit to you of course)? PBCrunch fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
Go ahead and post it on your blog if you want. I don't know how many readers you have but it would be wise to remind them that this was one test, on one wrench - so I make no claims to accuracy or repeatability. Just because my Harbor Freight torque wrench seemed to be accurate does not mean all Harbor Freight torque wrenches are accurate. However, I would love to see other people rig up similar experiments and post their results. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and I believe this testing method is accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 01:38
|
|
|
sbyers77 posted:However, I would love to see other people rig up similar experiments and post their results. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and I believe this testing method is accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 02:03
|
|
|
I weighed them on a digital bathroom scale that is accurate to 0.1 lb. I also weighed the cable/strap on a digital kitchen scale accurate to 1/8th an ounce and took that in account as well. The weights can be totally arbitrary so long as you know their true weight. For instance my 30 lb and 45lb weights actually weighed 30.6 lbs and 46.0 lbs respectively. So if I was hanging the 30lb weight it would actually be 30.6lbs + 6 ounces or 30.935 lbs. If the distance measurement is 10 & 7/8th inches I would have 30.935 X (10.875/12) = 28.03 ft-lbs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 02:23
|
|
|
What, no deviation bars to take into account that its only to accurate to 0.1lbs times the precision of your distance measurement? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 02:38
|
|
|
I would guess the weight of the wrench isn't insignificant, but apparently doesn't affect your results, so who knows. Cool setup, and it eases my mind a bit about my cheapo torque wrenches, so thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
Anyone have experience with fuel injector cleaning setups? I have a little rig i bought off ebay that runs off a pressurized can of FI cleaner it's worked fine for me for 5 years on lots of cars but now I have an older chevy vortec with the spider injector and I've heard the pressurized can of cleaner doesn't have the pressure required for this weird rear end FI setup have to use something that connects to a compressor. (fuel pressure is like 60psi) I;ve put 30k on it since I've had it and I don't know if it's ever had a cleaning done. I just got this idea in my head that I need one and one of the first search results I saw was this: http://www.toolrage.com/prodview.asp?sku=MTY-MV5565 $165 so the price of 2 or 3 cleanings if I paid for them to be done on the vortec. and also would save me money doing FI clean on the other cars I use my current setup on since I wouldn't be spending $18 for a can of cleaner anymore. Seem good? are there better prices or better quality I should know about? If I end up getting something I'll sell the little rig I have  + ship.edit: my kit i have connects to the schrader test valve, you disable the fuel pump and disconnect the vacuum line from the regulator before connecting the kit up. removing vac from the regulator stops it from just flowing the whole can of cleaner to the fuel tank via the return line. This kit I linked says "Connects to vehicles with 3/8” quick-disconnect style fuel fitting." so it connects to the line itself instead of the schrader valve? is the rest of the procedure the same as I'm used to doing? Vin BioEthanol fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jul 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
I need to replace several connectors on my car (male/female blocks where a loom comes in and turns to pins or sockets). I need these blocks in specific numbers of pinslots (at least one must be 16 pins so Deutsch is out I think?), but they don't need to match anything but each other (replacing the male and the female at the same time on each set of connections). I think I need connector blocks, pins, sockets, and a crimper in the hobby/homemade price range. Tell me what I really need, what to call the things I need so I can look for them, and if my Craftsman standard automotive crimper is going to cut it or I need to weld/grind some pliers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
Why do you need a specific number of cavities? Can you not leave some empty? Deutsch makes lots of big connectors, 102 cavity and beyond. Deutsch is probably the best quality you can get. Deutsch is also expensive, though. Delphi Metripacks and GTs might be the good choice here. Tools, terminals, and seals are all pretty affordable I think. Use Metripack for all 5-way and below, and above 15 amp. GT can handle all else of your needs. What you are going to need: -Proper gauge wire -Male and female sealed connectors -Male and female terminals to match wire gauge -Terminal seals to match wire gauge -Crimpers that do the right gauge terminal AND seal crimps I wouldn't use unsealed for much of anything. And I wouldn't use a crimp tool not designed for your particular seals and terminals. Other connector types to look at: Tyco, Molex, AMP
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
SNiPER_Magnum posted:all 5-way and below What does this mean? I need a specific number of cavities because my OCD is blocking me from doing it the easy way; in this case I have 15 wires and just enough mental leeway to accept that most connectors with more than 1 row of cavities are probably going to have an even number of them. If I absolutely had to take 18 I might but 20 is really getting itchy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Wagonburner posted:but now I have an older chevy vortec with the spider injector and I've heard the pressurized can of cleaner doesn't have the pressure required for this weird rear end FI setup have to use something that connects to a compressor. (fuel pressure is like 60psi) FWIW, unless the leakdown tests done at the shraeder valve show less than the 60psi you might be looking at the fuel pump which is more the failure point to those 4.3 Vortec's than the poppet's (96 -- > 2002 1/2) valves. If you are convinced due to testing and leakdown tests that it is the FI setup, change the spiders to the 2002 1/2+ assembly for $150 + installation
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 03:00
|
|