My intention wasn't to be rude to you, but if that's how you read into it, so be it. I won't sugar coat this one, unfortunately.
Have you ever worked in a shop? A different Taurus comes in every week: although the problems will be similar, the solutions will not necessarily be so.
Yes: the shop of nearly 20-years real-world, hands-on, consistent experience and flawless service from every vehicle I've ever owned (including 3 Nissans) and haven't owned (yet no Tauruses). I'm not a "real" mechanic (are you?), I just play one on the Internet unlike almost everyone else here
. I guess I just had other career paths, and my day job only affords this part-time hobby. I don't work on my vehicles to save a buck; I work on them because I can and want to, and it will always be done correctly, to spec, and to my satisfaction.
Would you be satisfied if you took your car to your buddy's Taurus shop that occasionally
needs to find some band-aid solution to bleeding brakes, or any repair for that matter? Atop that, one that puts Teflon tape—something primarily used for household plumbing and should NEVER be used on automotive brakes—to seal something that has never (across an entire braking industry) needed a thread sealant before?
Rather than rudely state that there is nothing magical or different about these brakes, try to accept that what comes out of the factory is not necessarily the same product a decade later in a different part of the world.
Hardly rude, but apparently too sarcastic for some. Are you suggesting that we have a global industry full of auto parts stores, dealership parts counters, and automotive parts recyclers dedicated to providing new and used OEM-quality replacements to ensure that OEM specs and procedures
can be adhered to during the service life of vehicles so that those vehicle can be operated in a safe manner? No, I totally
do not accept that! (Your suggestion here is about as relevant as the other guy's gear oil leak on brakes, and blaming the brakes for poor performance. And this statement also has sarcasm, which you will probably construe as being rude.)
The only method that worked for me
Do you think that your Pathfinder is some exception to the rule just
because you had difficulties? Did you see any asterisks in the FSM regarding potential issues with, or alternative methods for, bleeding brakes? Do you think automotive engineers want to provide two or more ways to do one thing right, especially a safety item like brakes? Did you even consult the FSM at all?
You've not proven that you're bleeding your brakes correctly. Care to describe this ambiguously-named "down-up" process? I highly doubt that's SAE-approved terminology. Seriously, if you have problems bleeding your brakes, it's probably an indicator of some other problem you're ignoring or failing to diagnose, if not just an incorrect procedure. Your "long time" takes me 10 mins, tops
, to do both rear brakes with a small wrench, a plastic water-bottle with tubing that I rigged up for catching fluid, and someone's right foot. (Tying back into the topic, it's no different for rotors than it is for drums.)
And of course the Teflon tape method didn't work for you! Let me guess: the brake fluid dissolved the tape? I'm ignoring for a moment that Teflon tape is used for sealing threads, which has nothing to do with the process of bleeding brakes. Why would you have needed to remove the bleeder valves at all anyway? They require about a 45° turn to go from close to open, and that's it. If it needed removing, they'd have called it a plug...or bolt.
This is an internet forum, and it comes with the territory that every answer will not be right, and not every response will be suitable to your situation.
Yup, completely understood and
expected, though unfortunately more so here at NICO more than any other forum I frequent. It has the potential to be a better source of information, and that's why I hang out.
You can nitpick every response that comes down the tube, or you can accept that you're simply having a conversation with friends.
If you get so tied up about misinformation, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news: you're in the wrong place. The rest of us take what we can use and discard the rest. We do this without letting incorrect information bother us, and without being a-holes (yep) to others who use the forum.
And when my friends are wrong, I correct them, too. Why would I allow my friends to keep incorrect information in their heads? I don't want my friends (or family) to die from not being able to stop in time due to improperly-bled brakes.
What you're calling "nitpicking" is the process of the dialog (friends, strangers, professionals, other), and your response to me is nothing short of nitpicking, at that. I raised an eyebrow to a blatant statement about the safety of drum brakes as a reason to convert to rotors, someone spun out a bunch of bad justification, and it was throughly refuted. And now you're barking at me for the same reason.
Some people don't like it when others disagree with them (many more don't like being proven wrong), and I explained why I disagreed to each invalid point and provided (hopefully) thought-and-reason-provoking questions. That is exactly
the nature of a forum, and you don't have to like that I'm correcting bad information. I don't like having to correct bad information either. Don't trust me? Fine, good luck, and please keep your unsafe vehicles off the road.
Do you think all readers here can "take what we can use and discard the rest" if they can't tell what information is good or bad? Would you want to give someone bad information and have them incur other issues or financial woes, with or without disclaimer, just because it worked for you even though it flies against a conventional process that you might not understand? You've had some good informational posts out there about other topics, but this area simply isn't one of them (and this isn't me being rude, it's me providing constructive criticism to you). Many automotive forums best operate when people who don't know an answer, don't answer...you don't have
to answer..and many forums will set this rule up front. I have provided ample proof that I have first-hand knowledge of this topic (well, not so much converting to rotors, but the maintenance of brakes...though technically, I've done a 4-lug to 5-lug disc conversion on an S14 before, now that I think about it).
I was not, and am still not, attacking anyone here. I'm defending myself much like you are, and countering your "possible solutions" with mine...except I've interjected logic into my responses along the way. About your suggestion to running the transmission to check transfer case fluid (although irrelevant to discussion here): transmission and transfer case are two separate fluid systems, the transfer case doesn't know nor care what state the transmission is in, and the FSM does not imply doing any voodoo witchcraft to it (sticking with the magical theme) short of that creepy eyeball in the FSM looking into the fill hole when we all know you can't see eye-level into the hole because of the chassis. If your process worked for you, awesome. Cycling the transfer case gearing isn't bad (and I can only presume that changing the fluid in the first place is because you have intention to use it). But what you described is above and beyond what is necessary, and you are the only source of this procedure (congratulations?), but what you should be doing is questioning and understanding why you felt compelled to do it any differently than instructed in the FSM. You can do absolutely anything else that you feel is right or warranted, but it reads like you are wasting your time and proposing to others that they also consider wasting their time because you did it some unconventional way without explanation.
Seriously, no hard feelings. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'm totally cool with that. There's nothing like learning a new trick. But please make a better attempt to defend your statements and prove it's a good trick.