On 15/10/2018 01:20, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:12:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Since you prefer a minimalist approach to test equipment, as an
alternative to your light bulb, may I suggest a return loss bridge:
https://www.google.com/search?q=return+loss+bridge&tbm=isch
Note that there are several basic designs and configurations but all
are fairly simple and easy to construct. Note that these are NOT the
same as directional couplers.

To use it, you need a minimum of an RF signal generator and a
voltmeter or oscilloscope. I prefer to sweep the frequency range of
interest, so I use an RF sweep generator, and display the result on an
oscilloscope. With this arrangement, you can tune your antenna
without requiring a light bulb.

So, let me get this right. By employing a return-loss bridge, an RF
signal generator, and either a voltmeter or an oscilloscope, you can get
results that a distant station can't distinguish from those obtained by
using a torch bulb?

Given your ability to estimate the performance of an antenna by looking
at it rather than employ modelling methods, I would have though you
would be sympathetic to the merits of the torch bulb approach.


--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity,
but if you want to test a man's character,
give him an internet group to manage"

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:16:14 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 15/10/2018 01:20, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:12:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Since you prefer a minimalist approach to test equipment, as an
alternative to your light bulb, may I suggest a return loss bridge:
https://www.google.com/search?q=return+loss+bridge&tbm=isch
Note that there are several basic designs and configurations but all
are fairly simple and easy to construct. Note that these are NOT the
same as directional couplers.

To use it, you need a minimum of an RF signal generator and a
voltmeter or oscilloscope. I prefer to sweep the frequency range of
interest, so I use an RF sweep generator, and display the result on an
oscilloscope. With this arrangement, you can tune your antenna
without requiring a light bulb.

So, let me get this right. By employing a return-loss bridge, an RF
signal generator, and either a voltmeter or an oscilloscope, you can get
results that a distant station can't distinguish from those obtained by
using a torch bulb?

No. Per my previous rant, if your intent is "to be able to transmit
signals intended to be received by another station", then a light bulb
will suffice at producing the desired result. If your intent is to
design the best possible antenna, then you'll need something better.
If you just want to talk to someone, almost any kind of RF metering
device is sufficient.

There have been plenty of accounts of comparing various types of
antennas. For example, PSK Reporter is a good way to perform such a
test, where one can actually see the effects of antenna changes.
https://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html
What I've found is that such side by side comparisons do not account
for variations in propagation, path, interference, local noise, time
of day, position of the moon, and other factors beyond the operators
control. A given antenna might be far superior under one set of
condition, and rather disgusting under another. Most signal reports
also tend to be very subjective, inaccurate, and not repeatable.

If you are using a light built to tune a commercial antenna, which has
already been optimized in extensive lab and field tests, I suspect
that it is likely that a light bulb will give a similar result a
proper VSWR measuring device. (Actually, that's not quite correct
because I don't tune my antennas for minimum VSWR). However, that's
not why someone purchases and uses a VNA or swept return loss bridge.
They use these because they're building their own antenna, or
optimizing a commercial antenna. Once the antenna has been properly
tuned and tweaked, the VNA and return loss bridge are no longer needed
unless something changes.

Incidentally, I use a remote field strength meter to compare antennas.
It has it's limitations, but it's better than using VSWR or maximum
antenna current as in your light bulb method.

Given your ability to estimate the performance of an antenna by looking
at it rather than employ modelling methods, I would have though you
would be sympathetic to the merits of the torch bulb approach.

Since you seem impressed with my powers of observation, it might be
useful to know that to the best of my limited knowledge, light bulbs
went out of fashion in the 1930's, to be replaced by thermocouple
antenna current meters.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thermocouple+rf+ammeter&tbm=isch
It is much easier to see changes in a meter deflection than changes in
light bulb intensity, unless you also use a light meter. If you
select different light bulbs for different power levels, you might be
able to keep the losses to a minimum.

In any case, a VNA or even a return loss bridge is not for you. There
are plenty of things one can do with ham radio including "to be able
to transmit signals intended to be received by another station". You
seem intent on using the oldest and most crude methods of
accomplishing this. That's fine as there is room for retro-radio,
antique radio techniques, and preserving historical technology. I
would guess(tm) that your radios all use tube (thermionic valves) and
that you tune the transmitter for maximum cherry red glow in the
finals. Best of luck, but that's not for me.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 15/10/2018 16:45, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:16:14 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 15/10/2018 01:20, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:12:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Since you prefer a minimalist approach to test equipment, as an
alternative to your light bulb, may I suggest a return loss bridge:
https://www.google.com/search?q=return+loss+bridge&tbm=isch
Note that there are several basic designs and configurations but all
are fairly simple and easy to construct. Note that these are NOT the
same as directional couplers.

To use it, you need a minimum of an RF signal generator and a
voltmeter or oscilloscope. I prefer to sweep the frequency range of
interest, so I use an RF sweep generator, and display the result on an
oscilloscope. With this arrangement, you can tune your antenna
without requiring a light bulb.

So, let me get this right. By employing a return-loss bridge, an RF
signal generator, and either a voltmeter or an oscilloscope, you can get
results that a distant station can't distinguish from those obtained by
using a torch bulb?

No. Per my previous rant, if your intent is "to be able to transmit
signals intended to be received by another station", then a light bulb
will suffice at producing the desired result. If your intent is to
design the best possible antenna, then you'll need something better.
If you just want to talk to someone, almost any kind of RF metering
device is sufficient.

There have been plenty of accounts of comparing various types of
antennas. For example, PSK Reporter is a good way to perform such a
test, where one can actually see the effects of antenna changes.
https://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html
What I've found is that such side by side comparisons do not account
for variations in propagation, path, interference, local noise, time
of day, position of the moon, and other factors beyond the operators
control. A given antenna might be far superior under one set of
condition, and rather disgusting under another. Most signal reports
also tend to be very subjective, inaccurate, and not repeatable.

If you are using a light built to tune a commercial antenna, which has
already been optimized in extensive lab and field tests, I suspect
that it is likely that a light bulb will give a similar result a
proper VSWR measuring device. (Actually, that's not quite correct
because I don't tune my antennas for minimum VSWR). However, that's
not why someone purchases and uses a VNA or swept return loss bridge.
They use these because they're building their own antenna, or
optimizing a commercial antenna. Once the antenna has been properly
tuned and tweaked, the VNA and return loss bridge are no longer needed
unless something changes.

Incidentally, I use a remote field strength meter to compare antennas.
It has it's limitations, but it's better than using VSWR or maximum
antenna current as in your light bulb method.

Given your ability to estimate the performance of an antenna by looking
at it rather than employ modelling methods, I would have though you
would be sympathetic to the merits of the torch bulb approach.

Since you seem impressed with my powers of observation, it might be
useful to know that to the best of my limited knowledge, light bulbs
went out of fashion in the 1930's, to be replaced by thermocouple
antenna current meters.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thermocouple+rf+ammeter&tbm=isch
It is much easier to see changes in a meter deflection than changes in
light bulb intensity, unless you also use a light meter. If you
select different light bulbs for different power levels, you might be
able to keep the losses to a minimum.

In any case, a VNA or even a return loss bridge is not for you. There
are plenty of things one can do with ham radio including "to be able
to transmit signals intended to be received by another station". You
seem intent on using the oldest and most crude methods of
accomplishing this. That's fine as there is room for retro-radio,
antique radio techniques, and preserving historical technology. I
would guess(tm) that your radios all use tube (thermionic valves) and
that you tune the transmitter for maximum cherry red glow in the
finals. Best of luck, but that's not for me.

Very interesting, but I'd have to say that none of what you say refutes
my original contention that the distant station, which after all is the
one we are trying to communicate with, will notice any difference to the
received signal whether the sending station's antenna was tuned with a
20c torch bulb or a $300 VNA. You touched on the main vagaries of the
system when you said "What I've found is that such side by side
comparisons do not account for variations in propagation, path,
interference, local noise, time of day, position of the moon, and other
factors beyond the operators control".


--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity,
but if you want to test a man's character,
give him an internet group to manage"

Spike wrote:
On 15/10/2018 16:45, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:16:14 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 15/10/2018 01:20, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:12:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Since you prefer a minimalist approach to test equipment, as an
alternative to your light bulb, may I suggest a return loss bridge:
https://www.google.com/search?q=return+loss+bridge&tbm=isch
Note that there are several basic designs and configurations but all
are fairly simple and easy to construct. Note that these are NOT the
same as directional couplers.

To use it, you need a minimum of an RF signal generator and a
voltmeter or oscilloscope. I prefer to sweep the frequency range of
interest, so I use an RF sweep generator, and display the result on an
oscilloscope. With this arrangement, you can tune your antenna
without requiring a light bulb.

So, let me get this right. By employing a return-loss bridge, an RF
signal generator, and either a voltmeter or an oscilloscope, you can get
results that a distant station can't distinguish from those obtained by
using a torch bulb?

No. Per my previous rant, if your intent is "to be able to transmit
signals intended to be received by another station", then a light bulb
will suffice at producing the desired result. If your intent is to
design the best possible antenna, then you'll need something better.
If you just want to talk to someone, almost any kind of RF metering
device is sufficient.

There have been plenty of accounts of comparing various types of
antennas. For example, PSK Reporter is a good way to perform such a
test, where one can actually see the effects of antenna changes.
https://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html
What I've found is that such side by side comparisons do not account
for variations in propagation, path, interference, local noise, time
of day, position of the moon, and other factors beyond the operators
control. A given antenna might be far superior under one set of
condition, and rather disgusting under another. Most signal reports
also tend to be very subjective, inaccurate, and not repeatable.

If you are using a light built to tune a commercial antenna, which has
already been optimized in extensive lab and field tests, I suspect
that it is likely that a light bulb will give a similar result a
proper VSWR measuring device. (Actually, that's not quite correct
because I don't tune my antennas for minimum VSWR). However, that's
not why someone purchases and uses a VNA or swept return loss bridge.
They use these because they're building their own antenna, or
optimizing a commercial antenna. Once the antenna has been properly
tuned and tweaked, the VNA and return loss bridge are no longer needed
unless something changes.

Incidentally, I use a remote field strength meter to compare antennas.
It has it's limitations, but it's better than using VSWR or maximum
antenna current as in your light bulb method.

Given your ability to estimate the performance of an antenna by looking
at it rather than employ modelling methods, I would have though you
would be sympathetic to the merits of the torch bulb approach.

Since you seem impressed with my powers of observation, it might be
useful to know that to the best of my limited knowledge, light bulbs
went out of fashion in the 1930's, to be replaced by thermocouple
antenna current meters.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thermocouple+rf+ammeter&tbm=isch
It is much easier to see changes in a meter deflection than changes in
light bulb intensity, unless you also use a light meter. If you
select different light bulbs for different power levels, you might be
able to keep the losses to a minimum.

In any case, a VNA or even a return loss bridge is not for you. There
are plenty of things one can do with ham radio including "to be able
to transmit signals intended to be received by another station". You
seem intent on using the oldest and most crude methods of
accomplishing this. That's fine as there is room for retro-radio,
antique radio techniques, and preserving historical technology. I
would guess(tm) that your radios all use tube (thermionic valves) and
that you tune the transmitter for maximum cherry red glow in the
finals. Best of luck, but that's not for me.

Very interesting, but I'd have to say that none of what you say refutes
my original contention that the distant station, which after all is the
one we are trying to communicate with, will notice any difference to the
received signal whether the sending station's antenna was tuned with a
20c torch bulb or a $300 VNA. You touched on the main vagaries of the
system when you said "What I've found is that such side by side
comparisons do not account for variations in propagation, path,
interference, local noise, time of day, position of the moon, and other
factors beyond the operators control".


#Waves

--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur

In article , lid
says...

Very interesting, but I'd have to say that none of what you say refutes
my original contention that the distant station, which after all is the
one we are trying to communicate with, will notice any difference to the
received signal whether the sending station's antenna was tuned with a
20c torch bulb or a $300 VNA. You touched on the main vagaries of the
system when you said "What I've found is that such side by side
comparisons do not account for variations in propagation, path,
interference, local noise, time of day, position of the moon, and other
factors beyond the operators control".




Sometimes it is who is doing the adjusting and not how good the
equipment is.

Almost 40 years ago I started keeping a repeater on the air that was
started by someone else. My test equipment at that time was a VTVM, a
$ 25 Heathkit signal generator, old Oscilloscope, swr meter, and
frequency counter.

To tune the receiver my best 'signal generator' was a ham near the edge
of the repeater coverage. I would have him just to key down for a
minuit or two at a time while I adjusted the receiver. Over the years a
better receiver and transmitter was installed. Now I have some very
good test equipment, but can not say the coverage of the repeater is
very much better. What little improvement is made is probably because
the radio equipment is better.

At that time one thing I did not try to adjust or check was the duplexer
as I did not think I could with what I had to work with. Many years ago
the tuning instructions for duplexers was to tune for maximum signal on
the pass and best rejection. As test equipment became better and priced
in range, the pass tuning changet to using a return loss bridge and
SA/TG. This seems to work much better. I found the pass was broad and
you could usually give the tuning rod a turn or two without much effect,
but he RLB shows up in less than 1/2 of a turn. Does it make a
difference ? Probably not in effective coverage (it may extend the
range a foot or two,hi), but atleast I know it tuned the best it can be
with what I have to work with.

One thing that does come with better test equipment is knowing that the
equipment is tuned so it meets or exceeds the specificatioins. Before
it was just a guess as if the equipment did or did not meet
specifications.

On 16/10/2018 14:38, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , lid
says...

Very interesting, but I'd have to say that none of what you say refutes
my original contention that the distant station, which after all is the
one we are trying to communicate with, will notice any difference to the
received signal whether the sending station's antenna was tuned with a
20c torch bulb or a $300 VNA. You touched on the main vagaries of the
system when you said "What I've found is that such side by side
comparisons do not account for variations in propagation, path,
interference, local noise, time of day, position of the moon, and other
factors beyond the operators control".

Sometimes it is who is doing the adjusting and not how good the
equipment is.

That's very true, of course. Some good equipment is in the 'wrong hands'.

Almost 40 years ago I started keeping a repeater on the air that was
started by someone else. My test equipment at that time was a VTVM, a
$ 25 Heathkit signal generator, old Oscilloscope, swr meter, and
frequency counter.

To tune the receiver my best 'signal generator' was a ham near the edge
of the repeater coverage. I would have him just to key down for a
minute or two at a time while I adjusted the receiver. Over the years a
better receiver and transmitter was installed. Now I have some very
good test equipment, but can not say the coverage of the repeater is
very much better. What little improvement is made is probably because
the radio equipment is better.

Thanks! That's just the sort of thing I was on about - in this case you
actually used a distant station to help with the set-up, and it worked well.

At that time one thing I did not try to adjust or check was the duplexer
as I did not think I could with what I had to work with. Many years ago
the tuning instructions for duplexers was to tune for maximum signal on
the pass and best rejection. As test equipment became better and priced
in range, the pass tuning change to using a return loss bridge and
SA/TG. This seems to work much better. I found the pass was broad and
you could usually give the tuning rod a turn or two without much effect,
but he RLB shows up in less than 1/2 of a turn. Does it make a
difference ? Probably not in effective coverage (it may extend the
range a foot or two,hi), but at least I know it tuned the best it can be
with what I have to work with.

One thing that does come with better test equipment is knowing that the
equipment is tuned so it meets or exceeds the specifications. Before
it was just a guess as if the equipment did or did not meet
specifications.

Quite so. But 'specifications' are often written with other things in
mind - compatibility, spurii, stability, etc, and not necessarily
anything at all to do with how the distant station receives/perceives
one's signal.


--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity,
but if you want to test a man's character,
give him an internet group to manage"

Spike wrote:

On 16/10/2018 14:38, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , lid
says...

Very interesting, but I'd have to say that none of what you say refutes
my original contention that the distant station, which after all is the
one we are trying to communicate with, will notice any difference to the
received signal whether the sending station's antenna was tuned with a
20c torch bulb or a $300 VNA. You touched on the main vagaries of the
system when you said "What I've found is that such side by side
comparisons do not account for variations in propagation, path,
interference, local noise, time of day, position of the moon, and other
factors beyond the operators control".

Sometimes it is who is doing the adjusting and not how good the
equipment is.

That's very true, of course. Some good equipment is in the 'wrong hands'.

Almost 40 years ago I started keeping a repeater on the air that was
started by someone else. My test equipment at that time was a VTVM, a
$ 25 Heathkit signal generator, old Oscilloscope, swr meter, and
frequency counter.

To tune the receiver my best 'signal generator' was a ham near the edge
of the repeater coverage. I would have him just to key down for a
minute or two at a time while I adjusted the receiver. Over the years a
better receiver and transmitter was installed. Now I have some very
good test equipment, but can not say the coverage of the repeater is
very much better. What little improvement is made is probably because
the radio equipment is better.

Thanks! That's just the sort of thing I was on about - in this case you
actually used a distant station to help with the set-up, and it worked well.

At that time one thing I did not try to adjust or check was the duplexer
as I did not think I could with what I had to work with. Many years ago
the tuning instructions for duplexers was to tune for maximum signal on
the pass and best rejection. As test equipment became better and priced
in range, the pass tuning change to using a return loss bridge and
SA/TG. This seems to work much better. I found the pass was broad and
you could usually give the tuning rod a turn or two without much effect,
but he RLB shows up in less than 1/2 of a turn. Does it make a
difference ? Probably not in effective coverage (it may extend the
range a foot or two,hi), but at least I know it tuned the best it can be
with what I have to work with.

One thing that does come with better test equipment is knowing that the
equipment is tuned so it meets or exceeds the specifications. Before
it was just a guess as if the equipment did or did not meet
specifications.

Quite so. But 'specifications' are often written with other things in
mind - compatibility, spurii, stability, etc, and not necessarily
anything at all to do with how the distant station receives/perceives
one's signal.

ISTR it being a licence condition that one checked all the above
periodically - more honoured in the breach, perhaps, with commercial
kit.

--

Roger Hayter

On 17/10/2018 10:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 16/10/2018 14:38, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , lid
says...

Very interesting, but I'd have to say that none of what you say refutes
my original contention that the distant station, which after all is the
one we are trying to communicate with, will notice any difference to the
received signal whether the sending station's antenna was tuned with a
20c torch bulb or a $300 VNA. You touched on the main vagaries of the
system when you said "What I've found is that such side by side
comparisons do not account for variations in propagation, path,
interference, local noise, time of day, position of the moon, and other
factors beyond the operators control".

Sometimes it is who is doing the adjusting and not how good the
equipment is.

That's very true, of course. Some good equipment is in the 'wrong hands'.

Almost 40 years ago I started keeping a repeater on the air that was
started by someone else. My test equipment at that time was a VTVM, a
$ 25 Heathkit signal generator, old Oscilloscope, swr meter, and
frequency counter.

To tune the receiver my best 'signal generator' was a ham near the edge
of the repeater coverage. I would have him just to key down for a
minute or two at a time while I adjusted the receiver. Over the years a
better receiver and transmitter was installed. Now I have some very
good test equipment, but can not say the coverage of the repeater is
very much better. What little improvement is made is probably because
the radio equipment is better.

Thanks! That's just the sort of thing I was on about - in this case you
actually used a distant station to help with the set-up, and it worked well.

At that time one thing I did not try to adjust or check was the duplexer
as I did not think I could with what I had to work with. Many years ago
the tuning instructions for duplexers was to tune for maximum signal on
the pass and best rejection. As test equipment became better and priced
in range, the pass tuning change to using a return loss bridge and
SA/TG. This seems to work much better. I found the pass was broad and
you could usually give the tuning rod a turn or two without much effect,
but he RLB shows up in less than 1/2 of a turn. Does it make a
difference ? Probably not in effective coverage (it may extend the
range a foot or two,hi), but at least I know it tuned the best it can be
with what I have to work with.

One thing that does come with better test equipment is knowing that the
equipment is tuned so it meets or exceeds the specifications. Before
it was just a guess as if the equipment did or did not meet
specifications.

Quite so. But 'specifications' are often written with other things in
mind - compatibility, spurii, stability, etc, and not necessarily
anything at all to do with how the distant station receives/perceives
one's signal.

ISTR it being a licence condition that one checked all the above
periodically - more honoured in the breach, perhaps, with commercial
kit.

That's the sort of road that Liebermann wanted to take the discussion
down; an interesting topic but not the issue under discussion.


--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity,
but if you want to test a man's character,
give him an internet group to manage"

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:44:53 +0000, Spike
wrote:

Very interesting, but I'd have to say that none of what you say refutes
my original contention that the distant station, which after all is the
one we are trying to communicate with, will notice any difference to the
received signal whether the sending station's antenna was tuned with a
20c torch bulb or a $300 VNA. You touched on the main vagaries of the
system when you said "What I've found is that such side by side
comparisons do not account for variations in propagation, path,
interference, local noise, time of day, position of the moon, and other
factors beyond the operators control".

Perhaps an analogy might be useful. Instead of an HF radio, you're
dealing with your automobile. Under normal circumstances, it will get
you to work and back fairly efficiently. However, you notice that
your gasoline (petrol) mileage is not quite what you might expect. So,
you have a choice of mechanics. The first mechanic tunes the engine
with a light bulb, divining rod, magic incantations, and offers a
rather bizarre description of what work was done on the vehicle. The
second mechanic uses proper computerized test equipment to analyze the
situation, uses factory parts, and delivers the car with a detailed
printout of what was done, what changes were made, what parts were
used, and a before-after gas mileage comparison performed on a
dynamometer.

Now, which mechanic would you prefer? Your car will still go to work
and back in some manner. The second mechanic will cost more, because
he has to pay for all the expensive equipment and genuine parts. If
you're impoverished, obviously the first mechanic will be the only
available choice, but assuming you plan to keep the vehicle, one might
suspect it is a bad long term solution.

From my perspective, both professional and as a ham, I deal in
numbers. I can tell by looking at the numbers what is happening and
what needs to be done. I have a small collection of aging test
equipment to help me generate the numbers. Light bulbs do not
generate numbers and are therefore (in my never humble opinion)
useless and worthless.

However, I will concede that if your intent is "to be able to transmit
signals intended to be received by another station", a light bulb is
sufficient to determine that your transmitter is spewing RF, spurs,
harmonics, and noise into an antenna-like device that is either
radiating the RF, absorbing it into heat, or reflecting it back to the
transmitter (because the light bulb indicates the same in both
directions).



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In article ,
says...

Perhaps an analogy might be useful. Instead of an HF radio, you're
dealing with your automobile. Under normal circumstances, it will get
you to work and back fairly efficiently. However, you notice that
your gasoline (petrol) mileage is not quite what you might expect. So,
you have a choice of mechanics. The first mechanic tunes the engine
with a light bulb, divining rod, magic incantations, and offers a
rather bizarre description of what work was done on the vehicle. The
second mechanic uses proper computerized test equipment to analyze the
situation, uses factory parts, and delivers the car with a detailed
printout of what was done, what changes were made, what parts were
used, and a before-after gas mileage comparison performed on a
dynamometer.

Now, which mechanic would you prefer? Your car will still go to work
and back in some manner. The second mechanic will cost more, because
he has to pay for all the expensive equipment and genuine parts. If
you're impoverished, obviously the first mechanic will be the only
available choice, but assuming you plan to keep the vehicle, one might
suspect it is a bad long term solution.



Again, it all depends on the mechanic. The computer tune may only get
you a small improvement and it will take 5 years to make up the cost
difference. I had a car that started running real bad. After the
simple things I replaced like spark plugs, wires and coil, I looked on
an Autozone page and one thing was a $ 500 sensor that may cause the
problem. I took it to a dealer that should have all the proper
equipment. After about 3 weeks he finally replaced that sensor and it
fixed the problem. The part would have taken less than half an hour to
replace. They may still have been working on it if I had not sent off a
nice email to Toyota after a week and a half of no repair.

I know of a case where a Freeze plug was leaking and the motor company
wanted to pull the engine to get to it. Shade tree mechanic pulled back
the carpet inside the car, took a hole saw and cut a hole in the
firewall to get to the plug. Repaired the hole with a beer can and pop
rivits for less than $ 100.