If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
thanks for the advice. greatly appreciate it.
---------------------------------------------------------- Circuit=A0Breaker Wrote: You don't replace the solenoid. There are simply two small copper tabs inside the starter solenoid housing. You can pick them up from a starter/alternator repair shop for roughly $4 a piece. If yours is like my local shop, they won't mind selling you the pieces because they already have plenty of work to keep them busy. Anyway, take the housing apart, clean everything up, relube with something like bearing grease (lithium, perhaps?? dunno) and then replace the tabs and put it all back together. On my 3.0, it was a very simple device without a lot of ways if any to screw it up so long as you're sober and awake. Just pay attention to what you're doing and there's nothing to it. If memory serves, once it was dismounted from the car, there were a couple of long (brass?) screws, then the rear cap came off. I think I might have had to disconnect a small cable, but I don't recall. I recall pulling the rotor out basically to clean stuff up and relube, but I don't recall it being a necessity to do this in order to get to the contacts. Once you get to them, you'll find they are held on by something along the lines of 12 millimeter nuts. Remove nuts, pop out the studs, contacts come out, put new contacts in, replace stud, retorque nuts (torque not critical here, just put it as tight as the old ones felt when they came off, maybe a hair tighter, and you should be fine) (just don't stand on the breaker bar to torque them). In all, once I had the parts, I guess it took me shy of an hour to do the whole thing, including removal/installation (but my memory is not the best). HIH CJ -- THIS POST ORIGINATED FROM USENET, *NOT* ANY WEB-BASED FORUM! IF YOU ARE READING IT FROM A WEB BROWSER SUCH AS INTERNET EXPLORER OR NETSCAPE, THEN YOU ARE NOT READING THE ORIGINAL POST AND YOU SHOULD LEARN ABOUT "USENET" FROM http://www.ibiblio.org/usenet-i/usenet-help.html |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:00:31 -0400, drceacphc wrote:
> thanks for the advice. greatly appreciate it. Here's some more advice... and friendly advice, at that; I'm just wanting to help. There are two points he snipping and replying When most people reply on Usenet, they snip old text if it's not needed anymore. In your case, just thanking me (or anyone else) for advice doesn't typically need the old post quoted. It's mainly for archival purposes; places like Google store these posts, so it's unlikely that they'll get a hit on "thanks for the advice" that they wouldn't get on the previous post anyway, so there's no need to include the previous post. If, OTOH, you were carrying on a lengthy conversation, it's customary to reply to certain parts of that conversation and then remove whatever you're not replying to. When doing this, it's usually best to reply beneath the text you're replying to. This is called "bottom-posting" if your entire reply is at the end of the message, or "follow-posting" (IIRC) if you reply to bits here and there throughout the message. The reasoning behind this is for readability. Most people, when reading from google or from a threaded reader (the kind where replies are branched off from the parent article in the header pane), will see that it's a threaded article, and if they have been following the thread, will just go to the first unread article in that thread. That article would then be readable as though a normal conversation were taking place. If the respondents all top-posted (as you did here), then the reader would have to start at the bottom paragraph, read it from top to bottom, then skip /up/ to the reply, read it top to bottom, skip /up/ to the next.... As you can imagine, it would be much easier to read the thread if the original post is on top, then the first reply immediately beneath it, then that reply's reply beneath it, so forth... that way, the reader just starts at the top and reads his/her way down, just like reading a book or newspaper. There are many people who refuse to do it simply because they think it's stupid, a waste of time, or that others just need to fit in to their way of thinking, but truth be told, all they have to do is hit "CTRL-END" to get to the bottom of the post, so it's not really a waste of time. Furthermore, it makes reading threads much easier on those who have been here since the dawn of time itself. In that same sense, why should anyone who's been here forever be required to fit in to the new guy's way of thinking, eh? Unfortunately, these came about largely from an improperly configured/programmed newsreader that started their cursors at the top of the post instead of the bottom, so they topposted by default. What they didn't realize is that those people who had already been using Usenet for years were bottom-posting. So basically, because one group of programmers at a very large software company based out of Redmond didn't do a little research and therefore misconfigured their product (which still is, BTW), we now have two different groups of people posting two different ways. At least, this is the story as I have read it told. It may have been some other reason as to how topposting got started, but regardless, I think the majority still bottom- or follow-post. I have no stats on this, however, so I could be wrong. Still, it's just friendly advice, take or leave. Take care and best regards CJ -- THIS POST ORIGINATED FROM USENET, *NOT* ANY WEB-BASED FORUM! IF YOU ARE READING IT FROM A WEB BROWSER SUCH AS INTERNET EXPLORER OR NETSCAPE, THEN YOU ARE NOT READING THE ORIGINAL POST AND YOU SHOULD LEARN ABOUT "USENET" FROM http://www.ibiblio.org/usenet-i/usenet-help.html |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:00:31 -0400, drceacphc wrote:
> thanks for the advice. greatly appreciate it. Here's some more advice... and friendly advice, at that; I'm just wanting to help. There are two points he snipping and replying When most people reply on Usenet, they snip old text if it's not needed anymore. In your case, just thanking me (or anyone else) for advice doesn't typically need the old post quoted. It's mainly for archival purposes; places like Google store these posts, so it's unlikely that they'll get a hit on "thanks for the advice" that they wouldn't get on the previous post anyway, so there's no need to include the previous post. If, OTOH, you were carrying on a lengthy conversation, it's customary to reply to certain parts of that conversation and then remove whatever you're not replying to. When doing this, it's usually best to reply beneath the text you're replying to. This is called "bottom-posting" if your entire reply is at the end of the message, or "follow-posting" (IIRC) if you reply to bits here and there throughout the message. The reasoning behind this is for readability. Most people, when reading from google or from a threaded reader (the kind where replies are branched off from the parent article in the header pane), will see that it's a threaded article, and if they have been following the thread, will just go to the first unread article in that thread. That article would then be readable as though a normal conversation were taking place. If the respondents all top-posted (as you did here), then the reader would have to start at the bottom paragraph, read it from top to bottom, then skip /up/ to the reply, read it top to bottom, skip /up/ to the next.... As you can imagine, it would be much easier to read the thread if the original post is on top, then the first reply immediately beneath it, then that reply's reply beneath it, so forth... that way, the reader just starts at the top and reads his/her way down, just like reading a book or newspaper. There are many people who refuse to do it simply because they think it's stupid, a waste of time, or that others just need to fit in to their way of thinking, but truth be told, all they have to do is hit "CTRL-END" to get to the bottom of the post, so it's not really a waste of time. Furthermore, it makes reading threads much easier on those who have been here since the dawn of time itself. In that same sense, why should anyone who's been here forever be required to fit in to the new guy's way of thinking, eh? Unfortunately, these came about largely from an improperly configured/programmed newsreader that started their cursors at the top of the post instead of the bottom, so they topposted by default. What they didn't realize is that those people who had already been using Usenet for years were bottom-posting. So basically, because one group of programmers at a very large software company based out of Redmond didn't do a little research and therefore misconfigured their product (which still is, BTW), we now have two different groups of people posting two different ways. At least, this is the story as I have read it told. It may have been some other reason as to how topposting got started, but regardless, I think the majority still bottom- or follow-post. I have no stats on this, however, so I could be wrong. Still, it's just friendly advice, take or leave. Take care and best regards CJ -- THIS POST ORIGINATED FROM USENET, *NOT* ANY WEB-BASED FORUM! IF YOU ARE READING IT FROM A WEB BROWSER SUCH AS INTERNET EXPLORER OR NETSCAPE, THEN YOU ARE NOT READING THE ORIGINAL POST AND YOU SHOULD LEARN ABOUT "USENET" FROM http://www.ibiblio.org/usenet-i/usenet-help.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
89 dodge shadow 2.2 rev limiter???? | partsbrokers | Dodge | 4 | May 19th 04 06:15 PM |
Dodge Shadow, idles badly when cold | Snydley | Dodge | 28 | May 7th 04 11:02 PM |