Видео

That is correct, when you shut the car off the lock pin Engauge's and keeps the cam solid for the next start up, once the engine starts the ecu controls oil pressure flow to the gear to unlock the gear so it can change its timing based on its programed map.

he got locked up? for what?

@@A2J_Tim Peter Stormare, the actor in this commercial, played a character called "John Abruzzi" in the tv show Prison Break

@@A2J_Tim He was a mob boss, and played a very important role in the first seasons

you are welcome, please share my video to help others out thank you.

I am not exactly sure what you are asking, but if you are referring to the heat exchanger on the exhaust outlet of the burn chamber, that was an after thought experiment that worked out to strip more heat off the exhaust before it left the building.

you probably could, but I opted to just ad a spring out of a pen, it fit nicely inside the original spring and added a little bit more tension. you could also take the spring to a hard ware store and find one of similar size with more tension that would work aswell. Just make sure it doesnt exceed 10 psi of pressure that way the piston can move out of the way with oil pressure as its designed too. Oil pressure is likely over 25 psi at idle. and probably above 45 psi when reving above 2k rpm

Would this be on the 2.4ltr and 1.8ltr?

@@GunnersCarHole 1.8, but I'm confident this will work for the 2.4 aswell, I did this on a honda crv with a k24 engine that also had the same rattle, just stretch that spring and the rattle stops.

@@GunnersCarHole 1.8 but would also work for the 2.4

@@GunnersCarHole yes

this engine only has one camshaft.

Hi thanks so was it camshaft in the end? Thanks.

@@jahanzaibmaqsood3331 yes it was, I changed it out the when the new cam showed up. this was back when I didnt do how to videos, I wish I did.

Thanks bud! Was it a 2.0 litre or 1.9? Videos do really help good stuff!

@@jahanzaibmaqsood3331 1.9 BRM engine.

imagine if they destroyed a MKIV supra.

@@A2J_Tim dont fuel my nightmares, im german already xD

how so?

@@A2J_Tim too creepy shit

yah..

afraid of offending the extreme minority.

@@A2J_Tim everyone is so afraid of everything these days , sad

the damage is done, unfortunately the rod bearings are failed. If you shut it off soon enough though the crank and rods will be salvageable and you might be able to get away with just rolling a new set of bearings in it. but its still alot work to change the rod bearing out on this engine as they do not come apart very easy compared to inline 4 engines.

@@A2J_Tim yea unfortunately she's been sitting in yard after getting dropped off by tow truck started the past two days but instantly turned it off because I knew already that I had rod knock. Went to crank it today and isn't starting anymore 😔 I'm guessing not enough or no compression at all. All good tho I got a junkyard an hour away from me with 7 Corollas like mine and sells engines and trans for $150 each I'll just have to find a way to haul it back to my house since I don't have a truck or trailer but I also gotta make sure I do leak down and compression test at the junkyard to make sure it's all good.

@@SlowRollaKy did you say corolla? I was under the impression it was a Subaru. what year of corolla? Also you could rent a truck or a van from uhaul.

@@A2J_Tim its the 8th Gen Corolla 1zz-fe 1998-2002 year model. Check out some of my RUclips reels it's a fun freaking car and lowkey fast for its age. They have such strong motors and all I needed to focus on was the oil because on the 8th Gen and most older Corollas they had a oil burning problem due to piston rings. I guess I didn't check it enough because it was a quart low and after pulling out of a driveway with a steep hill I'm assuming all the oil splashed to the front and when I took off after pulling out that's when I heard the bang and then the knocking. A new engine is $150-200 and same for the trans. I could also do a 2zz swap and push way more horsepower since I'd have to also drop in the 6 speed manual which reduces our 0-60 times by a whole two seconds. Just check out my page or you can read more about them they don't have much tuning upgrades but they have turbo kits. The TRD supercharger fits. Like 3-4 standalone ecu options and a lot more. That turbo kit is what I'm dying for because it's a street demon turbo kit that can produce 300-400 horsepower. They also have a TRD body kit and my god is looks sexy

@@SlowRollaKy I would go with the 1zz engine if you want boost, The iron block will take more and the 2zz block is limit because of its liners. If you really want to go for it why not look up a JDM 3sgte engine and trans combo for a swap, the 3sgte is an incredibly strong engine and is turbo already. doing a 3sgte swap might be cheaper in the long run as when you get the engine/trans from a jdm wrecker you get the ecu and engine harness. 2nd gen 3sgte is also the one that you want.

Just pick up another engine from an autowrecker. it might cost you a couple of thousand but its not over for the car. Subaru engines are fairly easy to remove and replace. Rebuilding them on the other hand requires a higher skill set.

I thought about that when I was doing it and I should have mentioned that in the video. Yes It can be done on the floor with a floor jack, you would have room to remove the shock as long as you have the heavier duty Floor stands that are taller than the typical light duty car floor stands. I would highly recommend only using the heavy duty stands with a pick up truck over the light duty car stands, they provide alot better stability than the lighter duty ones.

Thanks for the update. I appreciate. I've bought some new shocks for my 2016 silverado and I love the way you did this job. Thanks for the video.

@@adaleparker1956 no problem at all, its my heart to share this kind of information that other technicians would not share as they have this belief that keeping your secrets will bring you more business, this is a lack poverty mentality. Sharing information is how we make the world a better place because it will help to build people and those people will build on the information they have learned. I know at some point some one will make a video doing something that I need to see that will help me with something that I am working or want to build because what Goes around Comes around, you reap what you sew, And if you sew good thing, you will reap good things.

you should inspect it and make sure the lifters are not damaged, if they are they can cause damage to the valves.

if the rattle goes away shortly after start up, chances are your timing chain tensioner seals are leaking and your timing chain is stretched, if it rattles at idle your phazers are not getting enough oil pressure, you can try unpluging your phazers and see if the rattle goes away, if it does your phazers are forsure not getting enough oil pressure. if it doesnt then its probably timing chain slap from a stretched chain. I recommend looking at live data on the scan tool to see what the graph looks like, if its choppy your phazers are not getting enough oil pressure and or are failing.

​@@A2J_Tim got it into my friend's home shop this weekend (he's a certified mechanic and does some side work) - we put it on a computer and listened with a stethoscope. Turns out noise is not coming from phasers, but from back passenger side cam. We put it on his computer and timing is really good, graphs are solid and not out of variance. He recommends a new camshaft, maybe lifters/followers but that phasers and timing chain etc. are likely OK. Oil pressure is good. He doesn't have the Ford timing tool and cam tool. I'm thinking I'll just find those for him. Will start looking for new (OEM or good quality) cam parts. While we've got it open should I just get a new updated OEM phaser installed too?

@@GuyKelseySaskatoon could be a collapsed lifter, some times ticking sounds can sound like they are comeing from one area but the sound can resonate through the engine and sound like its coming from another part of the engine. I still highly recommend the high pressure high volume oil pump though. But do as you feel is right for you, your friend is very likely correct. also the oil pressure gauge in these trucks is not a gauge, its a switch that activates the gauge to put the needle in the middle, its litterally an on off switch, its not actually showing you oil pressure, the only way to check that on these trucks is to connect a manual oil pressure gauge to check what the pressure actually is.

I didnt video it but in the end I ended up cutting the zipties and getting them back on with a pry bar and then checking the timing after ward, its a little bit difficult but it can be done.

yes they are.

I dont know how you see the shadow moving from west to east in my experiment, when we started the shadow is almost on the east coast of the usa and when we finished 45 degrees of the earth rotation the shadow is almost to the rocky mountains, which is east to west. According to the heliocentric model the moon only moves 12ish degrees in 24 hours to the earths 360 degrees and in this experiment you can see that the shadow moves east to west, which is what my hypothesis was before doing this experiment. The only part of your argument That I will tell you is wrong, is that your argument is just theory. Build a model and put it into practice then tell me why you are right. I plan on building another model with balls that are scaled down even more because I didnt realize the size of the scale until I started measuring the balls that I chose and until I started doing the math on what that scale should look like. next time I will make the earth the size of a ping pong ball to try and get a scaled in light source, just to see what happens, my Hypothesis remains the same though but I will see what happens with that model when I do it. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, But, in practice there is. experimentation is the only way to prove theory.

@@A2J_Tim "when we started the shadow is almost on the east coast of the usa and when we finished 45 degrees of the earth rotation the shadow is almost to the rocky mountains, which is east to west." This magical event could happen, as you described it, only if the Moon shadow (and Moon) was standing still. But, we know that the Moon moves, therefore its shadow also moves with it. Now, lets see what actually happens in your model. At 07:30 in your video, we can see your model of the Earth, aligned with the Moon, and solar eclipse in USA is already finished, since entire continental USA is on the left side of the globe. The shadow of the Moon (let's assume for simplicity that it falls down around equator) falls approximately on the left side of that dark blue pattern in the middle of your Earth model. After Earth rotates 3 times by 15 degrees (total of 45 degrees), the Moon has moved 3 times by 0.5 degrees (total of 1.5 degrees) and its shadow is not falling on the surface of Earth any more (we can clearly see that you moved centre of your Moon model past the tile on your floor which is aligned with right side of your Earth model). Therefore, it is more than evident that shadow of the Moon travelled more than 90 degrees of Earth rotation, by the time Earth has rotated just 45 degrees (half slower than the Moon shadow). Again, at 07:30 in your video, shadow of the Moon falls in the middle of the Earth model (90 degrees from left edge of your Earth model), while at 08:20 in your video, shadow of the Moon went past the right edge of your Earth mode. That's distance of 90 degrees of Earth's rotations, while Earth rotated only 45 degrees by the same time. "in this experiment you can see that the shadow moves east to west, which is what my hypothesis was before doing this experiment." In this experiment we can clearly see that shadow of the Moon moves from West to East since it moves from the centre of your Earth model (which is West) to the right edge of your Earth model (which is East). If you aligned your Earth model so that the West coast is aligned with the Moon at the beginning of eclipse (your Model of the Moon should be moved 1.5 degrees to the left, so that the centre of the Moon model is aligned with West coast) the shadow of the Moon would move from West coast to East coast. "The only part of your argument That I will tell you is wrong, is that your argument is just theory" Theory?! I am simply explaining to you what we see in your model, since you are to blind to see the obvious. "Build a model and put it into practice then tell me why you are right." There is no need for me to build the model, since you already made it. And I just explained to your why I am right. I can already tell you that your future model will fail for couple of reasons: - you don't understand the model you are trying to replicate (nor you are trying to understand it) - smaller scale of mode Earth and Moon will lead you to bigger error - Earth model of a size of ping pong ball (40 millimetres) will need Moon model of diameter of only 11 milometers and distance of 120 centimetres means you will need light source far enough away to produce almost parallel light rays, and extremely dark environment without any reflective surfaces But, none of that is needed when you know that shadow falls behind the Moon, moves with it, and stays practically parallel all the time "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, But, in practice there is." You don't understand the theory, therefore your practice as equally bad as your theory. " But, in practice there is, experimentation is the only way to prove theory." In science, theories are not proved, but accepted, since scientific theories are not just mere assumptions but scientifically based explanation. Maybe this will help you understand: If you are running in a small circle in the middle of athletic stadium (say diameter of that circle is 10 meters) while the best athlete from your country is running in a outer lane of athletics track, who will run one circle faster, you or him? You of course, since length of your lane is just fraction of the lane he runs. But if you run at night and strong reflector is lighting the stadium from the side, who will be faster, you or the shadow of that runner?! His shadow, of course , since his shadow moves at the same speed he is running, and he is running much faster than you.

@@max5250 cool story, build a model and prove it.

@@A2J_Tim I gave you detailed explanation how your model proves that, and this is all you can say about it?! Which part of my explanation your can't understand?! The fact that West is left side (when watching Earth from direction of Moon), while East is right side your Earth model?! If I had to bet, I would say you have no clue when shadow of the Moon falls on the Earth, and you still "believe" shadow of the Moon is orbiting the Earth.... Here is another "cool story" for you: Earth and Moon are aligned at the centre of tiles on the floor 07:41 Earth rotates first 15 degrees 07:50 Moon moves 0.5 degrees on the sky 07:55 Earth rotates second 15 degrees 08:04 Moon moves second 0.5 degrees on the sky The Moon shadow passe entire half of the face of the Earth I must say it is quite fascinating you can't follow time line from a video you created.

@@A2J_Tim It's extremely telling that you keep telling us to build a model, when I've repeatedly told I HAVE the Stellarium model that you too can download for free, but you keep REFUSING to LOOK at it. Already too emotionally invested in your conclusion to reconsider the truth, eh?

furnny how in practice that is not what I observed.

using all those speed numbers might get people lost in the math, So I simplified it to degrees per hour which is straight forward and easy to comprehend.

@@A2J_Tim "furnny how in practice that is not what I observed." That's because you was not trying to solve the problem but to demonstrate your ignorance and utter misunderstanding of both physics and geometry. "using all those speed numbers might get people lost in the math," Are you an adult person or just another lazy school boy?! "So I simplified it to degrees per hour which is straight forward and easy to comprehend" You haven't simplified anything, but you focused on angular speed which is drove you aways from ability to solve the problem correctly. Try making model to scale, in both: size of the Earth and Moon, distance between them, and actual speed of rotation of Earth and orbiting of the Moon around Earth, and you will get exactly the same result as I did with some math that might get people lost in math...

@@max5250 and here comes the name calling and personal attacks, tell me your triggered with out telling me your triggered. I am sorry the results I got didn't match your view on things, you are more than welcome to build your own model and see the results for your self.

@@A2J_Tim I personally attacked you?! Where exactly?! When I asked you if you are an adult or lazy school boy?! Couple of four digits numbers and one five digits number is something that "get people lost in maths"?! "I am sorry the results I got didn't match your view on things" Well, I am sorry you haven't noticed your result do match with what we observe on the sky. Even in your model, which is not exactly accurate, at 7:40 we can clearly see that after just six 0.5 degrees movement of location of the Moon in its orbit, shadow of the Moon passed over entire Earth. But you somehow managed to missed it. By your own admission: 1 degree of movement of the Moon around Earth is 3.5 inches. From that we can calculate that '.5 degree (one hour movement of the Moon on the sky) is 1.75 inches. Now, the size of the Earth in your model is roughly 2 times the size of the Moon (it should be 3.6 times the size of the Earth), and we can clearly see that the size of the Moon is slightly less than 5 inches while the size of the Earth is around 10 inches. Therefore it takes just 6 hours (or six moves, each 0.5 inches long) for the Moon shadow to travel from one side of the Earth to another. In 6 hours, surface of the Earth moves just 1/4 of full circle, or one half of diameter of Earth, which is twice slower than the movement of the Moon. In our reality it takes only 3.5 hours, since your model is not correctly to scale. So, sorry to inform you, but you did actually confirmed observations from reality, even with your only partially correct model. Now, if you think you can refute in any way, anything I said, feel free to do so.

Only critical thinking without your ego and with an open mind will anyone find truth and knowledge. Then nobody gets notified of the knowledge. So utilizing your knowledge is wisdom question everything trust nothing. Ignorance is just blindly following the status quo of forced agenda. Absolutely great video and I'm sending out good energy positive vibrations and healing frequencies also mad respect 🙏 SKAL brother. Be the change the world needs baby step to a better place.

@@douglaswegener6463 💯

While it may be true that a _shadow_ cannot be smaller than the object casting it, the part considered to be the shadow during a solar eclipse is actually just the smaller _umbra._ The penumbra is bigger than Earth, that's the shadow you see during experiments like this. Exactly as expected, for those who understand it. Protip: don't claim the universe's physics are incorrect just because you personally were misled into misunderstanding it by FE propaganda.

@@noneofyourbusiness7055 oh, it's not FE propaganda. It's SIMPLE physics. The umbra/penumbra idea sounds great, as a theory to explain something that makes no sense. Regardless of whether or not the umbra casts a smaller, more directed shadow, the penumbra should still be 50% as dark as the umbra and in your model, it isn't. I would like to see a demonstration that shows a smaller shadow than the object (the umbra) with no discernible outer shadow (the penumbra), like the one that you yourself said was displayed in these experiments. Sorry, but youve got holes. Pro tip: don't assume that people are flat earth buffoons. Some of us study quantum physics/mechanics and think that people who argue over the shape of the planet, really dont fully grasp how reality works. Have a great day! Sik

It makes no sense -- to YOU. "the penumbra should still be 50% as dark as the umbra" False, the umbra is full shadow & luminosity increases gradually through penumbra. That's why it's hard to see. "Some of us study quantum physics/mechanics" Suuure. Good luck with that, already struggling with simplified diagrams & geometry.

Laser gyroscopes & Foucault pendula detect Earth's rotation. It measurably counteracts gravity at the equator by the expected centrifugal force. The Öetvös effect confirms this. Speaking of deception, I see whoever convinced you into your current position failed to find a working explanation for eclipses. I wonder why.

with the size of balls I used I can not put the light source to scale as I would need a lazer beam to shoot the light from 2 miles away. So for the shadow part no its not to scale, its exaggerated. but for the distance between the earth and moon I did put it to scale, but then had to exaggerate the moon closer for filmng reasons. I may have to do it again with smaller balls, but I expect the same result.

@@A2J_Tim the crazy thing is, a light further away would make an even bigger shadow... based in our current understang, anyways. Sik

@@sik7476 I think your right

@@sik7476 " the crazy thing is, a light further away would make an even bigger shadow... based in our current understang" Diameter of the Sun is 400 times bigger than the diameter of the Moon, so, although Sun appears to be small half degree object on the sky, it is massively bigger than the Moon or Earth, so shadow of the Moon gets smaller with the distance.

@@max5250 indeed, the umbra would shrink, but the pnumbra would grow. You can do this experiment with your hand and a flashlight. ...but we are also applying earth's physics in this scenario, when we arent 100% certain if any of the exterior forces in the solar system would have effects on how light and shadow work. We know that density of matter effects time, time effects space and light creates matter... so honestly, I both agree and disagree, by having zero solid idea, other that earth based physics. Lol! Sik

please explain how I got the geometry wrong? thank you for your comment though.

Wow. Someone's triggered. Lol. Funny how you brought up dissonance as it seems you are struggling with it yourself.

@@A2J_Tim I don't think you did. You are asking very legitimate questions. I genuinely hope you keep at it. Good luck!

@@IIIFleshCageIII Looks like this guy and his twitter defenders haven't figured out that some diagrams are simplified, and penumbra is obviously a gradient of luminosity. Much easier for fragile egos to project their misunderstandings, than to correct them...

@@noneofyourbusiness7055 ...says the guy operating off of the unconfirmed studies of other people. Sik