baileyblog

July 18th 2008

People are funny! In the peculiar definition of the word, not the hilarious one.
Because some of them are definitely not hilarious.

They will call us and make an appointment and the appointment sheet says "full inspection, car making peculiar noises".
On the prescribed date, the car shows up, usually a half hour too late and in due course it goes into the shop.
In most of these cases, the car is quite old and is into a garage for the first time in a coons' age.

Needless to say, the resultant inspection report is not too optimistic. There's this and there's that and the estimate is a
large number.

Now comes the the reaction we've been waiting for. How long will it take to fix it, because I have a doctors' appointment,
(or a dentists' appointment, or the kids are waiting to be picked up).

This tight scheduling when taking your car for repair, is the most frustrating aspect of our business.

You might think its' the "No thanks, that's too expensive, I can't afford those repairs right now" reaction, but we don't regard
that reaction as anything but an honest one, on the part of someone who is in the corner between a car that is getting very,very
decrepit and the the depleted bank account.

That situation we fully understand, but to schedule other appointments, knowing full well that the repairs may be more
extensive and time consuming that was first thought can drive us absolutely bananas.

Oft times, we're able to overcome the situation with one of our loaner cars, but then we run into the child seat problem and
the fact that the client has agreed to pick up thousands of kids from a baseball game, which means our loaner cars are not suitable.

The end result of this unrealistic scheduling of car repairs is tantamount to going to a hospital waiting room and expecting to get
instant service. It just doesn't happen that way.

The consequence of this type of client encounter is that the car owner drives away with a dangerous or unreliable (or both) vehicle
that may continue on until it fails. At which point it comes back on a tow truck and now we're not so sympathetic to the idea of
instant repairs and the car has to wait in our lot until someone cancels, or we get a lot more work done than we expected and
can take the fugitive in more quickly than we first thought.

But even then the every half hour phone calls continue: "Is my car ready yet?"

In our shop we have a sign that says it all: "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency for us".
The sign it replaced said "The impossible we can do right now, miracles might take a little longer".

The other type of car owner we find frustrating to deal with is the one that has had all his or her work done elsewhere and is
now deeply dissatisfied with the outcome and wants us to instantly take the vehicle in and analyse what's going on so he or
she can go back and raise hell with the other garage.

What on earth makes these people think that they have a ghost of a chance of getting through our front door?

The last but not the least of our frustrations is the phone call that asks "What's your hourly rate?".
Well our rate is a lot less than the dealers and a lot more than the red triangle.

When we answer the question (depending on the day, we may not answer at all) we then get berated for being too
expensive and how Joe Blow at the corner gas station is much cheaper.

So why'd you call us and does Joe Blow even have a scanner or other expensive electronic equipment?
Of course he doesn't.

So please, the next time you need your car serviced, give the garage time to do a proper job and reckon that the
repair MIGHT run into more than 2 hours. How about 3 days?

July 11th 2008

And not all cars are lemons.

A news item this week establishes that the Los Angeles Times is doing away with its automotive section. This in the middle of
the most car oriented city in North America and with one of the very best and most honest (therefore outspoken) auto writers
around, Pulitzer prize winner, Dan Neil. Maybe that's the problem.

As I've been saying for sometime, writing about cars when the publication you work for relies on auto industry advertising
dollars for a lot of its revenue is the most restricted and polluted environment imaginable. If you're honest, you're out. If you toe
the line you lie a lot. What choice does a poor journalist have?

But never mind the journalists, who at least get to fly by private jet to some pretty nice parties and exotic locations, what about the
general public? Where is the factual information they need not to find they have wasted 20 or 30 large on some piece of junk
that every one in the industry knew was either going to be discontinued or had so many problems of a basic nature that visits
to the dealer for warranty work were going to become a bi-weekly event?

Well fortunately, Consumers Reports remains ad free and independent and as I have said many times, our experience on
the shop floor and their red dot/black dot reliability index closely resemble one another. In other words, we profit hugely ,
but with honesty and integrity, from black dot cars. The only problem is that cars are often designated as "too new to
assess" which in interpretation means "never buy the first years production of any brand new design".

In Canada, the Automobile Protection Agency is a very good source of independent opinion and joining the organisation
can be beneficial in that they won't let you buy a bad car, but they will help you negotiate a very good price for the one you
want. The price of admission is a bargain.

Other than quality if course, is consideration of the actual driving experience.
Somebody who just went out and bought a Pontiac Wave based on price alone may understand getting to know the dealer
very well, but won't have a clue about the driving experience, because so far as they are concerned, the car is an appliance
to be regarded with the same matter-of-fact contempt as a refrigerator or a stove.

Maybe even less.

The only true way in which to assess whether you and your prospective new friend are going to get along well is drive the thing.
Not just round the block with incessant salesperson chatter, but for a full weekend. Wherever possible, renting the car you're
thinking of buying may cost a bob or three but you may find something about it that will cause you to fall in love
(according to the marketing psychologists, the buying of a new car is sexual in nature for both sexes).

Or will there be some minor feature that is going to drive you absolutely crazy for the whole time that you own the car?
Can you live with an offset or split instrument panel, for instance?

This week I test drove a manual shift car that had a permanent centre arm rest. Every time I shifted into second or fourth gear,
my arm was paralysed by the nerve in my elbow coming into contact with the sharp edge of this arm rest. I hated every minute
of that drive, even though it was only ten minutes long.

So that research on the internet is still vital to your choices, but be sure that the site in question has no adverting links to the
car manufacturers.

Beyond that you can call, or e-mail me, you can do your own test drive and there's absolutely nothing wrong, at least in gun free
Canada, in approaching an owner of the car you're considering purchasing in a parking lot and ask him about his experience
with the car so far.

With this last option, however, remember that many people are reluctant to admit they've made a bad choice, unless the choice
is SO bad that they're only too glad to fire off a salvo to anyone who will listen.

Take a month to make the right decision and DON"T be in a hurry.

July 4th 2008.

Twenty years ago, in the days of my radio show, I berated the American manufacturers for their piss poor efforts at building
a really good small car.

The Vega, the Chevette, the Gremlin and the Cadillac Cimarron just didn't cut it, I said. Furthermore, I couldn't understand why
this was such a problem since the Big 2.5 (big 3 in those days) had all the small car engineering know how they could possibly
want stored away in the UK and in Germany.

Even after the faux fuel "crisis" of 1983, the Big 3 continued to produce crap cars, making it obvious that they simply weren't
interested in that particular type of vehicle. There was far too much money or excess profit to be made in big cars and trucks
and no one in Detroit was going to admit that Europe or Japan had the inside track on world class small car design.

And so we come to today when Red Ink Rick has led GM into a $9 stock price with strong possibilities of bankruptcy.
At the last minute, they suddenly start to develop an electric car, hoping it seems, that if Obama ends up in the White House,
they can use the "we're doing everything possible excuse" to extract a support plan worth $30 billion or so, out of the new guy.
With Obamas' debt of gratitude to the UAW and its voting memebers, it's a distinct possibility.

But before Obama makes that move, he should study the case of the disappearing car company known as British Motor Corporation.

After billions of Brit tax dollars in support, the company got sold off to Honda who realised after a while that 20 communist unions
couldn't be persuaded to produce anything approaching a quality product and sold the whole thing off to BMW.

Who really only wanted the 4x4 expertise for the X3 and the X5 and the drawings for the MINI. When they had those, they sold
Rover and Jaguar to Ford and two villains created the Phoenix corporation for the rest, stole 20 million quid from the company
and then declared bankruptcy and flew away to somewhere that doesn't have an extradition treaty.

Similarly, Red Ink Rick just paid himself another $14 million for his god-like guidance and has so far milked GM for over $100 million.

I have no truck for the UAW, who carry at least half of the responsibility for the current situation, as they wilfully produced cars and
trucks that were very, very badly screwed together, but you can understand their frustration as the GM Board of Rubberstampers
allows Rabid Rick and Lusty Lutz to get away with larceny.

It's quite possible that Cerberus/Chrysler is hanging in, bleeding money, hoping that GM will blink first, since the the Big 1.5 MIGHT
then get enough sales slack to survive without GM in the competition. Although there would be a slew of fire sale trucks sitting on
vacant lots all over America for a very long time.

Unfortunately, the ostrich syndrome didn't lead to a good swift kick in the ass about 10 years ago, when it was most needed.

While Toyota and Honda stuck to their knitting producing quality cars that were good to drive and easy to maintain, America has
lived on cheap oil for 20 years and now the chickens are home to roost.

Europe has had high energy prices for the same 20 years and all the energy conservation expertise is in their and by clever
copying, Japanese, hands.

The big 2.5 deserve all they're going to get for their past and present sins of omission and if the US government bails them out,
then the worst of the worst will have come to pass. For America and its' long suffering tax payers.

A year ago, I bemoaned the fact that a really stupid horsepower race was under way.

Every time a new car was introduced, it had more horsepower than the out going model. Sometimes fuel economy also
increased, on the other hand, it's obvious that fuel economy COULD have been given priority, however, if you ever needed
proof that the car manufacturers are out of touch with reality, according to TTAC this week the race for ever more power
is still on.

"Gas is more expensive than ever and because everything else costs two arms and/or legs, much more painful to purchase.
Many consumers are switching to fuel-sippers. Regardless, cars are more powerful than ever.

Even cars that aren't here yet are going to be more powerful than ever.

Examples? The new 911 Turbo is up 20 hp. The M5 is growing in displacement and probably leaping in power.
MB's upcoming Gullwing will be in the 750 horse ballpark. Audi's S4 will be dropping two cylinders, but gaining 10 hp and
gobs of torque. And that's just the Germans.

The 2009 Maxima is up to 290 horses. The 2010 Mustang, despite losing its big-block 6.2-liter Boss V8, should grow to
5.0-liters and make much more than 300 horses. Then there's that Camaro SS which very well might have over 500 horsepower,
the 550 hp CTS-V and the 638 pony ZR1. These are just off the top of my head.

Is "more POWA!" the future, or has the entire industry been caught without pants and excuses?"

Common sense HAS to prevail in the horsepower race that is still underway in the Western world.
Showing an illustration of the FIAT at the top of this page is merely to illustrate that fun and horsepower are not necessarily
the same thing. Ask anyone who raced or rallied a Mini Cooper back in the 60s.

Equally, that old war horse of a 1988 Chev Celebrity that I still use for carrying stuff, gives me 28 mpg and is excellent for the
use to which I put it. This weekend, for instance, I managed to transport a ten foot tree in a three foot pot, home from the nursery,
by opening the tailgate and the backward facing seats. That old 2.8 liter GM V6 banger will go forever and does all that I want it to.

Sunday mornings, out comes the 944 and off I go for a different kind of motoring on my own. Nevertheless, the Porsche consistently
delivers 30 mpg, 200 Km/h and road holding and brakes that are still second to none. All this with 170 horsepower. If I want to out run
a G35 on a twisty back road, I wait for the first substantial bend in the road, then out brake and out corner the 300 horsepower
monster. If he (she) happens to have a gas guzzling automatic transmission, so much the better. Select second gear and say
goodbye!!

Equally I'm also driving a 99 Infiniti G20. 33 mpg is standard and although the brakes and road holding don't come close the
Porsche, it's still a fun car to drive fast from point to point.

Giving the likes of Clooney or Cowell 1000 Veyron horsepower is like Napoleon invading Russia, it's bound to result in disaster.
and is completely unnecessary. (Iraq, anyone?)

Most of us agree that even if the entire planet swapped from a vehicle putting out more than 200g/km of CO2 to one
which emits less than 110g/km, such as a Toyota Prius, not a lot would change on the global weather front.

Yet, if you listen to any politician - or worse still, the popular media - us drivers are dooming the planet to be drowned
and then fried!

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the industry should ~~keep~~ start working on improving fuel efficiency, but I also reckon people
need to try and keep things in perspective.

There probably should be a voluntary limit on cars' horsepower or power to weight ratio, before the do-gooders force
a stupidly low one on us all!

One TV channel recently opened its' six thirty 'show' by revealing that there was now "no doubt" that it is humans who
are causing climate change. However, in the item, leading environmental scientists - mostly operating on politically
generated funding (which tends to dry up if they give the wrong answers) - said that they were only 90 per cent certain
that it was down to motor vehicles.

So there's a one in 10 chance these potentially biased people are wrong. Clearly some doubt then.

But before I go on to quote every page of Michael Crichton's State of Fear - a great novel, backed by plenty of factual
references, with far more common sense than anything failed US presidential candidate and eco-warrior Al Gore has
ever dreamt up - I'll get to the point I am trying to make. You see, even though motorists like me are sure we are doing
nothing wrong to the planet, there are those who will poke their noses in and spoil our fun, whether we agree with
them or not.

That's why I think we should voluntarily bring in a maximum limit on horsepower figures for cars, before some
do-gooding minority forces some stupidly low limit on us. I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but today's motors
have more than enough performance - 300 horsepower in a family sedan is obscene.

Developing models with even more, could do more harm than good with the accompanying bad publicity.

This idea came to me after driving some first class hot hatches, such as the Mazdaspeed3. This car, among others, is
more thrilling to drive than some supercars from a couple of decades ago. It is controllable, enjoyable and can
rocket from 0-60mph in under seven seconds, which means it's easily fast enough for most people.

Not only would my plan give motorists some 'responsible' publicity, but it also saves the car companies from all the cost and
bother of forever pumping up the power figures with every successive model.

Each new Audi RS4, BMW M3 or Porsche 911 Turbo simply 'has' to have more bhp than its predecessor.

In reality, this can't go on forever.

For much of the time, you don't get to use much of these cars' full potential, as the mass of modern-day computerized
'aids' they are fitted with rush to interfere as soon as there is a glimmer of traction loss or slip angle.

So what's the point in having it in the first place?

Now, I haven't done a detailed survey of outputs, but any form of limit should work on a sort of sliding power-to-size-to-weight
ratio scale. And once all the manufacturers have got their models up to the respected benchmark figure, they can focus their
research and development solely on improving the efficiency and safety of future models.

Which means we can keep what we all want - performance - and yet get cleaner, greener, safer cars... which cost less to run.

Common sense or what?

June 20th 2008

It used to be that when one encountered a BMW, it was being driven very well by someone who knew what he was doing.
He (or these days, she) wasn't drinking coffee or even listening to the radio. This was in the days before cell phones were
invented, so talking on a cell phone while driving wasn't an issue. In those days, a BMW was being driven to enjoy to the
maximum its marvellous handling and very useful power to weight ratio.

But something dreadful has happened.

Just lately, I've come across Bimmers being driven very, very badly indeed. Hogging the left lane at well below the speed
limit, changing lanes without signalling, dithering and causing other road users to try and guess the next move.
It's fairly obvious that retirees (of which I'm theoretically one) and other people with absolutely no interest whatsoever in the
art of advanced driving have latched on to Bimmers as the "choix du jour" for impressing the golf club crowd or the bridge club.

It's not only the blue rinse brigade that's in there impressing the world, there are folks who are obviously from somewhere else,
newly arrived with a bag full of money, who also don't appreciate what it is they've bought.

This isn't the Mercedes bullying that one encounters. At least those people THINK they can drive. No this is a crowd that has
no interest whatsoever in the driving process, which should be commanding all your attention all the time.

I can forgive drivers of X3s and X5s, they are in the same group as Porsche Cayenne owners. We shouldn't expect much from
people who bought a 4x4 just for the name on the badge.

No, what makes my heart sink is to see an M-series Bimmer being driven so badly and so slowly that it's pretty obvious that
the owner hasn't got a clue what they've actually saddled up on. "I own a BMW" is all that matters.

I'm not saying that all Bimmer owners are driving skill challenged, but there is more and more of them that are.

Because the Bimmer is still the best handling and best overall performance sedan available and that is what these people
with more money than sense have heard and reacted to. A chicken in every pot has now become a Bimmer in every driveway
and it's sad to see.

If you asked these people to compare their car to a Buick (which is what they really should be driving) they won't have a clue what
you're getting at. To see 6 and 7 series putzing along, or to see a Z4 being used as a blondemobile is frustrating for the average
car enthusiast.

If you were to take these owners to a proper race track and ask a good experienced race driver to demonstrate what these
cars will actually do when challenged and if they then survived the ever present heart attack, such owners would come away
dazed and hopefully, impressed.

At least one can say that the capability of the car is so great that even the most idiotic of driving manoeuvres will not result in
a fatality.

Not unless as I have witnessed recently, a Bimmer doing a u-turn right in front of an 18 wheeler and then blithely driving
away (very slowly) while the air horns are screaming in the background. Maybe the law of the survival of the fittest will
eliminate them, or maybe the insurance company will wake up to the fact that they're very much at risk even insuring
these people.

June 13th 2008

We're running into a lot of cars with "behavioural problems" these days.

Check engine lights coming on and giving a scan code related to the evaporative system. Usually this means that the gas cap
hasn't been tightened up properly. Hasn't been tightened "five clicks" as the vehicle instruction manual advises.

But the fuel supply system is more complicated than that.

Environmental regulations require that a system of solenoids direct any fumes generated by the gas tank back to a canister
containing activated carbon, instead of being vented to the atmosphere. These are known as carbon canisters.
The vapours are adsorbed within the canister, which feeds the resultant fluid into the inlet manifold of the engine.

With the price of gas being what it is and as the price fluctuates by as much as ten cents a litre day to day, so people are letting
their tanks run down to almost dry and then filling them as full as is humanly possible.

Which naturally entails force feeding.

This is the practice of pumping on the gas pump nozzle several times after the poor filling machine has indicated that your tank
is as full of gas as Al Gore is of bullshit.

This force filling saturates the carbon canister and causes it to malfunction.

If the fuel tank is rusty on the top, out of your sight, it can also force gas out of the top of the tank, to the exterior of the car.

If your tank is in good condition and all the solenoid valves are working properly, nevertheless, you can still flood your canister
which is under the hood near the air intake system.

Once the canister is flooded , it stops working and that crafty on board computer of yours knows this has happened.

On comes the dreaded check engine light and in a number of cases recently, the canister has been ruined, resulting in
a $400 (average) replacement cost.

So stop the force filling, when the nozzle shuts off, hang it up and be content that you got in at a good lower price,
at least this week.

Otherwise the extra $1 you "saved" can result in a repair job that can neutralize your gas savings by force filling for
another eight years - or so!

June 6th 2008

As the cost of fuel rises, so do the number of recycled witch doctor devices offered for sale.

These things are nothing but snake oil, but they are not necessarily cheap. Not one of them has ever been approved by
the SAE (Society of Automobile Engineers) and I doubt any of them ever will be.

Jonathan Welsh published an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal this week and what he has to say is accurate.
(it also saves me the trouble of having to repeat what he has already said):

"High gas prices have produced a bountiful supply of one kind of product: fuel-saving gadgets for your car.

These devices, which cost anywhere from $35 to $300, are pitched as simple ways to improve fuel economy. While not
all of the devices are new, $4-a-gallon gasoline has increased consumer interest and inspired new ad campaigns
-- often evoking hybrid vehicles and alternative fuels.

A kit called Water4Gas, for example, has instructions for converting your car into a "water hybrid" that uses "the atomic
power of hydrogen" for less than $150. The Magnetizer offers to save fuel by rearranging the ions in your fuel line.
The maker of the Fuel Saver 7000 says the $170 device boosts fuel economy by treating gasoline to a "3-stage"
vaporization process.

One familiar type of fuel saver looks like a fan or turbine made of sheet metal or plastic and ranges from $35 to $65.
Installed in a vehicle's air-intake system -- typically by the driver -- such products, with names like Turbonator, Spiral Max
or CycloneFuelSaver, are supposed to improve fuel combustion inside engines by causing incoming air to swirl.

Another type of device works on the fuel to make it burn more efficiently. Some systems inject air, water or other vapors
or liquids into the fuel mixture before it enters the engine or infuse fuel with tiny amounts of platinum.
Others use heaters to expand the fuel or employ magnets attached to the fuel line to modify the fuel.

But auto-industry officials and federal energy experts say fuel-saving add-ons don't work.

The US Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Trade Commission have tested products that claim to boost fuel
economy and found they generally don't improve vehicles' efficiency -- and they sometimes actually harm performance
and increase emissions. The dozens of products tested include some air-swirling gadgets, magnetic devices and
liquid-injection systems, though not specifically the FuelSaver 7000, Water4Gas, Magnetizer, Turbonator, Spiral Max
or Cyclone. And drivers, beware: In some cases, installing certain devices can void cars' factory warranties.

"We have tested a range of these products and have found they generally do not improve fuel economy,"
says EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn.

'Best and the Worst'

Manufacturers of the devices stand by their products, some saying the EPA and FTC reports make negative statements
that are too broad. "The high price of gasoline has brought out the best and the worst, and there are a lot of gimmicks
on the market," says Roy Martin, owner of Fuel Concepts LLC, the North Royalton, Ohio, company that makes the
Fuel Saver 7000. "I've read the EPA reports, and I say they're crazy. My product works," he says.

The EPA and FTC "only test the ones that don't work," says Louis H. Elwell III, chairman and president of Vortex Fluid
Optimizer Corp. The Hattiesburg, Miss., company makes the Vortex Fuel Saver, a system that uses magnets to affect
the fuel, air and coolant entering an engine. He says the Vortex uses technology that boosts fuel economy by at least 10%.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, many consumers are turning to fuel-saving products, hoping for an easy way to get
more out of each gallon of gasoline. John Signorotti was looking for a quick, simple way to improve the fuel economy of
his 2004 Toyota pickup truck. For about $70, he bought the TornadoFuelSaver, a small, fan-like device that swirls air into
the engine in an effort to improve fuel combustion.

"It didn't work," says the California financial adviser. "I tested it and then returned it for a full refund." He says local mechanics
told him any swirling effect would dissipate by the time the air mixed with the fuel and entered the engine. But he says he did
have some luck with a device called a throttle-body spacer, which swirled the air and fuel mixture closer to the engine.
He says it boosted his fuel economy by about 10%. The maker of the Tornado product, now called CycloneFuelSaver,
couldn't be reached to comment.

Sales of Products Grow

Sales of fuel-saving products, which also include fuel and oil additives, have continued to grow even as the overall auto
and auto-parts markets have sagged. Peter MacGillivray, a spokesman for the Specialty Equipment Market Association,
a trade group that includes some manufacturers of fuel-saving devices, says 2008 so far has been the biggest sales year
ever for add-on fuel-saving products. While the group doesn't release sales figures for the segment, it says fuel-saving
products contributed to 4% growth last year in the auto aftermarket.

Mr. MacGillivray says the broad category includes some "smoke and mirrors" products, but it also includes many that
improve engine efficiency, such as certain high-performance air-intake and exhaust systems.

These upgrades, ranging from improved mufflers to entire exhaust systems, can cost $1,000 or more, and they require
more time and skill to install than the products covered in the EPA and FTC reports.

How to Improve Efficiency - stop pressing hard with your right foot.

EPA officials say there are simple, proven methods people can use to increase fuel efficiency, starting with changing
their driving style. Avoiding rapid acceleration and hard braking, coasting whenever possible and obeying highway
speed limits can increase fuel economy by more than 20%, according to the EPA.

Properly inflating tires, keeping the engine in tune, removing excess weight from the vehicle and avoiding idling for
long periods also helps.

Aaron Flies, a coffee-shop owner in Vancouver, Wash., bought a device called a Scan Gauge II with a screen that
gives readouts of moment-by-moment fuel economy, average and throttle position. It is meant to remind drivers to go
easy on the gas pedal. Mr. Flies says the company van was getting 12 to 13 miles per gallon, mostly in urban driving,
and has logged 15 to16 mpg since he changed his driving technique.

"Now I'm saving about $120 a month on fuel," he said.

May 30th 2008

Prius battery pack.

Many years ago, as some of you will remember, the media were all over the fact that an electric blanket produced a pretty
hefty electromagnetic field and these blankets should be turned off when you went to bed, because it wasn't a good idea to
bathe in radiation while you slept. That whole affair seems to have faded to nothing, possibly because electric blankets are
a thing of the past. Whether the bum warmers in your car seats produce the same effect, is an unknown at this point.

Next up was the kafuffle over high-tension power lines, which when strung over farmers' fields caused cows to abort, or stop
producing milk. The electromagnetic radiation these lines produce can be easily detected when you drive below them as your
radio will momentarily stop working.

When microwave ovens first arrived, the standing advice was to stay away from them while they were working and not to peer
through the window at your food as it rotated on its little stand. In this case, it's microwave radiation that is the concern, but it's
still a case of the unsuspecting public being subjected to radiation without their full knowledge.

Then, of course, the cellular phone showed up and the jury is still out on whether your brain is subjected to enough electromagnetic
radiation to do you any real harm. Although, The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection says that use
of the phones by both pregnant women and children should be "limited". It concludes that children who talk on the handsets are
likely to suffer from "disruption of memory, decline of attention, diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, increased irritability"
in the short term, and that long-term hazards include "depressive syndrome" and "degeneration of the nervous structures of
the brain".

I know of one case where a car owner who parked in a particular spot, used to come back to find his trunk lid was open.
The lid was openable from a distance by remote and at that particular place, some random, stray radiation was on the same
wavelength as his remote. So we are surrounded and unsuspecting of the electromagnetic radiation that is ever increasing
every day.

Many scientists and policy makers agree that hybrid vehicles may be good for the planet.
To a large and insistent group of skeptics, however, there is another, more immediate question:

Are hybrids and eventually fully electric cars, healthy for drivers?

There is a legitimate scientific reason for raising the issue. The flow of electrical current to the motor that moves a hybrid
vehicle at low speeds (and assists the gasoline engine on the highway) produces magnetic fields, which some studies
have associated with serious health matters, including a possible risk of leukaemia among children.

With the batteries and power cables in hybrids often placed close to the driver and passengers, some exposure to
electromagnetic fields is unavoidable. Moreover, the exposure will be prolonged — unlike, say, using a hair dryer
or electric shaver — for drivers who spend hours each day at the wheel.

Some hybrid owners have actually tested their cars for electromagnetic fields using hand-held meters, and some say
they are alarmed by the results.

Their concern is not without merit; agencies including the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute
acknowledge the potential hazards of long term exposure to a strong electromagnetic field, or E.M.F., and have done
studies on the association of cancer risks with living near high-voltage utility lines.

While we live with E.M.F.’s all around — produced by everything from cellphones to electric blankets — there is
no broad agreement over what level of exposure constitutes a health hazard, and there is no federal standard that sets
allowable exposure levels. Government safety tests do not measure the strength of the fields in vehicles — though Honda
and Toyota, the dominant hybrid makers, say their internal checks assure that their cars pose no added risk to occupants,
as you would expect. But that's like sending the fox to guard the hen house.

Researchers with expertise in hybrid car issues say that while there may not be cause for alarm, neither should the potential
health effects be ignored.

Charges that automobiles expose occupants to strong electromagnetic fields were made even before hybrids became
popular. In 2002, a Swedish magazine claimed its tests found that three gasoline powered Volvo models produced high
E.M.F. levels. Volvo countered that the magazine had compared the measurements with stringent standards advanced by
a Swedish labour organization, not the more widely accepted criteria established by the International Commission on
Non Ionizing Radiation Protection, a group of independent scientific experts based near Munich.

The concern over high E.M.F. levels in hybrids has come not just from worrisome instrument readings, but also from drivers
who say that their hybrids make them ill.

One lady in New York, bought a new Honda Civic Hybrid in 2007 for the 200 miles a week she drove to visit grocery stores
in her merchandising job for a supermarket chain. She said that the car reduced her gasoline use, but there were problems
— her blood pressure rose and she fell asleep at the wheel three times, narrowly averting accidents.

I never had a sleepiness problem before, she said, adding that it was her own conclusion, not a doctors, that the car was
causing the symptoms.

She asked Honda to provide her with shielding material for protection from the low frequency fields, but the company declined
her request last August, saying that its hybrid cars are “thoroughly evaluated” for E.M.F.’s before going into production.
The lady's response was to have the car tested by a person she called her wellness consultant, using a TriField meter.

The TriField meter is made by AlphaLab in Salt Lake City. The company defends its use for automotive testing even
though the meter is set up to test alternating current fields, whereas the power moving to and from a hybrid vehicle’s
battery is direct current. Generally, an A.C. meter is accurate in detecting large electromagnetic fields or microwaves.

Testing with a TriField meter led one Californian to sell his 2001 Honda Insight just six months after he bought it
— at a loss of $7,000. He said the driver was receiving “dangerously high” E.M.F. levels of up to 135 milligauss at the
hip and up to 100 milligauss at the upper torso. These figures contrasted sharply with results from his Volkswagen van,
which measured one to two milligauss.

He said he tried to interest Honda in the problem in 2001, but was assured that his car was safe. He purchased shielding
made of a nickel-iron alloy, but because of high installation costs decided to sell the car instead.

Honda points to the lack of a federally mandated standard for E.M.F.’s in cars. Despite this Honda takes the matter seriously.
“All our tests had results that were well below the commission’s standard,” referring to the European guidelines.

Kent Shadwick, controller of purchasing services for the York Catholic District School Board in York, Ontario, evaluated the
Toyota Prius for fleet use. Mr. Shadwick said it was tested at various speeds, and under hard braking and rapid acceleration,
using a professional quality gauss meter.

“The results that we saw were quite concerning,” he said. “We saw high levels in the vehicle for both the driver and left rear
passenger, which has prompted us to explore shielding options and to consider advocating testing of different makes and
models of hybrid vehicles.”

Donald B. Karner, president of Electric Transportation Applications in Phoenix, who tested E.M.F. levels in battery electric
cars for the Energy Department in the 1990s, said it was hard to evaluate readings without knowing how the testing was done.
He also said it was a problem to determine a danger level for low frequency radiation, in part because dosage is determined
not only by proximity to the source, but by duration of exposure. “We’re exposed to radio waves from the time we’re born,
but there’s a general belief that there’s so little energy in them that they’re not dangerous,” he said.

Mr. Karner has developed a procedure for testing hybrids, but he said that the cost — about $5,000 a vehicle
— had prevented its use.

A consultant with a speciality in E.M.F.’s and electrical sensitivity, was one of the electrical engineers who tested the Insight in 2001.
He agreed that the readings were high but did not want to speculate on whether they were harmful. “There are big blocks of high amp
power being moved around in a hybrid, the equivalent of horsepower,” he said. “I get a lot of clients who ask if they should buy hybrid
electric cars, and I say the jury is still out.”

May 23rd 2008

The price of oil, inflation adjusted is now back to where it was in 1983, at the time of the oil embargo.

So for twenty five years, we've all had a bargain ride and we've taken advantage of it by using up as much oil as we possibly
could. Now the chickens have come home to roost and our behaviour where energy is concerned is about to change
dramatically for the better

In 1983 I was working as an energy conservation consultant. In those days, the buzz word was energy conservation, the climate
change scam had not yet been adopted by the naive media. But as the price of oil dropped towards $10 a barrel, so my work
became less in demand, although I was still very well occupied.

This week, I dusted off a file for my own home. It involves the installation of a heat pump, a new furnace and a new electrical panel.
Total cost today: $ 17000. But I'm anticipating that my home heating oil bill this coming winter will be in the region of $3600.
The heat pump conversion will save about 50% of that, or $1800. Still, that only gives me a ten year return on investment and
that's not good enough, particularly since the calculations don't include the interest that the seventeen grand would earn if not spent.
Nevertheless, the heat pump file is going to remain on my desk. If oil really does hit $250 a barrel, the time will undoubtedly come
when my personal project will be viable.

The Saudi oil minister once said that the only true energy conservation method was price and he's absolutely correct.

We won't try to save energy if it's cheap.

Some nights, on my way home from the garage, I get caught at a railroad crossing. One locomotive (a diesel/electric "hybrid"),

rattles through pulling a mile and a half of containers on flat beds. If that freight were on the road, it would be pulled individually by
a hundred or so eighteen wheelers using an obscene amount of diesel oil to achieve the same result - delivery of goods.

The days of the trucking industry are numbered and the railroads are a very good investment.

The only advantage the trucks have is the concept of JIT (just in time), because the trucks can get it to its destination much faster.
But that concept has to change. JIT is no longer viable it it's going to cost twice as much as rail transport.

Same with buses and planes. We will no longer be able to run a bus with one passenger on board, or a plane that's half empty.

Major, major change is upon us. The era of the small car is about to blossom.

Ironically, the econazis will finally get their way. Not because of the simpering and whining of Al Gore and company, but because the
only true energy conservation method is price.

Gasoline at a $1.50 a litre seems outrageous today, but it's still the cheapest liquid around.

Take a look at this list from a US study.

This makes one think and also puts things in perspective:

Diet Snapple 16 oz ... ........$10.32 per gallon

Lipton Ice Tea 16 oz ..........$9.52 per gallon

Gatorade 20 oz ................. $10.17 per gallon

Ocean Spray 16 oz ......... ..$10.00 per gallon

Brake Fluid 12 oz ...... ........$33.60 per gallon

Vick's Nyquil 6 oz ............... $178.13 per gallon

Pepto Bismol 4 oz ............ $123.20 per gallon

Whiteout 7 oz ................... $25.42 per gallon

Scope 1.5 oz ......................$84.48 per gallon

And this is the REAL KICKER...

Evian water 9 oz $1.49..$21.19 per gallon! $21.19 for WATER and the buyers don't even know the source.
(Evian spelled backwards is Naive.)

Ever wonder why printers are so cheap? So they have you hooked for the ink.
Someone calculated the cost of the ink at $5,200 a gallon.

So, the next time you're at the pump, be glad your car doesn't run on water,
Scope, Whiteout, Pepto Bismol, Nyquil or God forbid, Printer Ink!

Not only this, but if you want to build an oil refinery think in the billions. If you want to bottle water, all you need
is a flat floor and some bottling machines. Think millions.

The oil companies are nowhere near as big a rip off as bottled water or Microsoft!

May 16th 2008

As followers of this site already know, I once was involved with the Montreal Gazette as a casual auto journalist.

From the get-go I was told not to say anything naughty about anyones' car or truck, lest the big advertisers, mostly
automobile dealers, get upset and cut their advertising in protest. So I stayed away from road tests and concentrated
on technical subjects.

Even then, I could not use gross examples of bad design, even though I knew they existed.

Sometime after that, Dan Neil, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist at the LA Times, wrote a pretty honest and therefore
scathing review of one of GMs' junkmobiles and GM withdrew all their advertising.

As I've been saying for some time, you cannot put much credence in the critiques of cars produced by people whose whole
life style is paid for by car manufacturers.

The used car market is flourishing right now, as people start to cut their budgets to suit their cloth and spend less money on
cars by buying a good used machine. On average, this results in a ten thousand dollar saving compared with a new vehicle.

In the meantime, since both the newspapers and the manufacturers are losing sales, someone has had the bright idea of
forming a group to write articles about cars that absolutely guarantees that nary a bad word will be said. A recent article in
TTAC by Frank Williams is the final evidence that what I have long known - most "professional" automobile "journalists" are
not to be trusted, or even respected. In Canada we have just one man who stands out with an attempt at an honest approach,
within the confines of the industry he has chosen to write about and his name is Jim Kenzie.

My motto is: when in doubt, read Consumers Reports.

Read on:

The vast majority of newspaper car reviews are written to fill the spaces between automotive advertisements while
sucking-up to the dealers and manufacturers who provide the ad revenue. When I caught sight of Tom Keane's take
on the new Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid in the San Francisco Chronicle, I decided to see if the paper had any teeth left
in its automotive editorial coverage.

In a word, no.

Keane didn't just imbibe the GM Kool-Aid, he cut-and-pasted it. The scribe went straight for the official press release.

Hey, at least Keane admitted the description came from "the Chevrolet people." But he begins the piece with his own,
bold assertion. "With gasoline topping $3.50, there's no better time to drive the Malibu Hybrid."

To make his case, Keane compares the gas-electric 'Bu to the much thirstier 3.6-liter V6-powered Malibu, which gets 17
mpg city, 26 mpg highway and 20 mpg combined. He points out that the Hybrid is $4k less than this more-deluxe model.
Well, yes. And it beats a Chevroletn Suburban $22K, 12 mpg city and 15 mpg highway.

Reality check: the 2.4-liter four-cylinder Malibu Hybrid gets 24 mpg city and 32 mpg highway; 27 combined on the EPA test cycle.
The non-hybrid model with a 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine gets 22 mpg city, 30 mpg highway and 25 combined
– a difference of only two mpg across the board.
In contrast, the Camry Hybrid betters its gas-powered sibling by 12 mpg city, three mpg highway and nine mpg combined.

But what can Keane do? He can't point out if you spend $4k more for the Hybrid you only gain two mpg.

That might make readers think GM isn't very good at hybrids, and we can't have that. In fact, reading this paean to erstwhile
pistonhead perfection, I began to wonder if Keane worked in the SF Chronicle's advertising department.
You know, formally. No joke. It happens all the time.

Motor Matters caters primarily to the newspaper industry. The website proudly proclaims they have "12 automotive writers
to provide editorial support for your automotive advertisers." They provide "accurate, clean copy written by… people [who]
are highly respected by the automotive industry."

Well duh! What's not to respect for an auto exec or dealer thrilled to the gills by glowing reviews of the latest metal?
Motor Matters cites the number of papers that carry their reviews as "evidence that what we produce is informative to readers
and beneficial to advertisers."

Motor Matters make no bones about their complete lack of editorial integrity. Their reviewers "give driving impressions,
report their findings with integrity, but not in an objectionable manner." Screw the readers, for whom an automobile is their
second largest financial purchase (after their house).

Screw the truth.

Motor Matters' website provides links to suitable examples of their fundamentally unobjectionable copy, hoping to lure
newspapers ready, willing and able to sacrifice editorial honesty for the good of their automotive advertisers.
One of these is Keane's review of the Chrysler Sebring convertible.

To refresh your memory, when TTAC tested the Sebring, we noted:
"when the trunk lid pops to swallow the top, the entire car shakes like a pole dancer, wobbles a bit and then clunks
alarmingly when sealing shut." Our conclusion? "I wouldn't keep the Sebring past the standard warranty period based
solely on the scary top operation… If it was my hard-earned $30Kish, I'd spend it on a Mustang GT Convertible, VW EOS,
SAAB 9-3, Mazda MX-5 or ANYTHING else."

So what was Keane's take?

He loved the "bright interior appearance, " the "remarkable shifting of various hardtop components as they… folded
into the rear compartment" and "its attractive design." In parroting a variety of numbers provided by the factory, he cites
the top's "30-second opening and closing operation" (which we actually timed at 45 seconds).
Keane closes with "this automaker offers up-scale quality vehicles with eye-appeal." Oh, and that "their products should
keep the Chrysler showrooms busy for a long time." Has he even driven past a Chrysler showroom lately?

Keane also mentions that a Chrysler engineer accompanied him on the test drive. Nope. No bias shown there.

We understand that automotive writers like Keane have to put food on their table. We know they're part of a corrupt system
that's as outdated as some of the products they're shamelessly promoting. Sadly, we also know that the average newspaper
reader is oblivious to the lies, spinmongery and propaganda perpetuated by the craven automotive press. Rest assured that
as long as media outlets keep publishing crap like this, TTAC will keep sounding the alarm. And telling The Truth About Cars.

May 9th 2008

Honda Clean Diesel.

This year marks the 150th birthday of Rudolf Diesel, the inventor of the engine that bears his name.

In his original demonstration, he ran it on peanut oil at the Worlds Fair in 1900.

Unfortunately, North America, unlike the Europeans, associate diesel engines with the noise and smoke of heavy trucks.
And today, nothing could be further from the truth.

The case for diesel and its inherent fuel economy is so substantial that the hybrid will prove to be a stop gap measure at best
on the way to 100 mpg cars. The Audi TDi that runs in the American Le Mans series clearly demonstrates that diesel is not a fad
or a fantasy, as many fuel economy devices turn out to be.

A recent consumer survey shows that many people are hanging fire on the purchase of another vehicle as they wait for diesel
cars and trucks to hit the show rooms in North America. In fact, hybrid sales appear to have peaked. The message that we've
been trumpeting on this site for the last 5 years or so, is finally beginning to sink in.

Manufacturers of hybrids and electric cars are growing increasingly aware of the research and development costs and the high
unit costs that will inevitably result in high unit prices on the showroom floor. My prediction is that the GM Volt electric car, for instance,
will retail for over $50,000 by the time it is offered for sale, if that ever happens.

Automakers are hoping that economies of scale will eventually reduce the high costs and allow them to recoup some of their R&D
expenses. Not surprising therefore, that Toyota in particular is reluctant to introduce their European diesel technology, already bought
and paid for, to the American consumer.

High efficiency diesel engines have already demonstrated fuel economies and CO2 figures that equal or better hybrid performance
at a much lower cost. So, partly thanks to web sites such as mine, consumers remain sceptical and wary of the cost of buying and
owning a hybrid vehicle.

But the regulations for emissions levels keep tightening, almost as though some people are hoping to keep diesels out of
North America by means of emissions regulations.

Engineers working on key diesel systems such as electronically controlled Direct Injection (DI) the most expensive portion of a
diesel engine today, are working hard to help diesel engine builders minimize engine related emissions with various DI techniques
such as higher injection pressures and more injection events per cycle, combustion chamber and piston bowl modifications and
exhaust recirculation technology. Downstream treatments such as cleanable particulate filters are also under test.

These strategies and alternative fuels will ensure that diesel engines will survive and prosper in the North American market.

Sceptics should remember that they once said that diesel engines could never be made clean and quiet and even more never
foresaw the use of diesel engines in racing cars.

So those of you who have decided to wait to choose a diesel engined car, other than the new Blue Tech TDI from VW which just
started to enter show rooms this month, will be rewarded eventually, with a choice of cars whose fuel economies will range as
high as 65 mpg.

And that's only the beginning.

May 2nd 2008

Road testing after repair is a vital part of what we do. We don't test after oil changes, but essentially if the wheels have been
off, it goes out for a trial run and final approval (usually by me).

I'm sure that most experienced automotive technicians can detect faults in the same way that I do and road testing has a couple
of other advantages, if the tester knows his stuff.

At this time of year, we are very busy, but people will show up at the last moment with a noise in their car that is of concern to them.
Since we cannot possibly find a free lift, the next best solution is a road test.

A bumpy road will show up any looseness in the suspension and depending on the noise, it is very often possible to gauge the
seriousness of the fault. A loose sway bar link sounds terrible but is not really a danger and can be treated as a routine repair.
But a loose ball joint is now or never and has to be fitted into our schedule somehow.

The same principle applies to brake noises. A loud scraping noise usually indicates metal on metal and severe vibration under
braking needs immediate attention also. On the other hand, a little intermittent noise when turning usually indicates a mild amount
of rust build up on the edges of the rotors or drums and a routine cleaning may be all that is required. If the car has alloy wheels, there
is even the possibility of assessing how much life is left in the brakes, because the pads and rotors are easily visible.

Engine noises can be analysed mostly by just blipping the throttle and listening carefully to differentiate between piston slap,
wrist pin looseness, noisy valves and a terminal rapping noise from the main bearings..

Automatic transmissions don't usually make any noise, they just begin to misbehave and a road test is the only way to
analyse this fault.

A second advantage of road testing is that in many cases, where someone wants an inspection on an almost new car,
say one that is two years old and has less than 40,000 Km on the clock, a full wheels up inspection is probably not necessary.
Particularly if the prospective owner cannot wait a week.

A road test over a bumpy road signals any problems with the suspension.
A good hard application of the brakes tells a similar story.

Then an empty parking lot, where noise is at a minimum, is selected, the car is parked with the engine running and the front wheels
cranked over as far as they will go. An under the hood inspection of all fluids, except coolant, and a revving of the engine to detect
noises, is followed by engine shut down to inspect all the belts.

Going down on hands and knees then allows inspection of the CV boots, the exhaust system, the rust condition underneath
and a check for any fluid leaks.

A careful walk around will always show if the car has been repainted.

Tires condition is easily noted. On the way back to the shop, the clutch, air conditioning and electrical functions such as electric
windows can be checked. Wheel alignment can be judged with a smooth road and a "hands off the steering wheel to see what
happens next" approach. All this usually takes about twenty minutes and can only be done on a dry day, preferably with plenty of
sunshine.

Then there is the "seat of the pants factor" which develops in ones mind over many years. In spite of finding nothing immediately
wrong, it's sometimes hard to ignore the warning bell ringing in ones head that says all is not correct.

In which case, even a very late model used car has to go on the lift.

Of course there is also the "CR" factor. If a particular car has a bad reputation, it had better be in first class shape, because an
inherently unreliable vehicle that has been abused is just going to get worse and worse as time goes on.

25th-April-08

The weather has finally shown signs of turning warm this week and A/C systems are being turned on.
On the average car, this system is worth $3000 if every component had to be replaced.

Here are some typical prices for the components involved and this does not include the considerable
amount of labour that is required for their replacement.

Compressor - $600
The compressor is the heart of the AC system. It compresses and circulates the refrigerant around the system.
Low pressure refrigerant is drawn into one side of the pump, and expelled as a high pressure vapour.
During this process, the temperature of the vapour rises significantly.
The compressor is usually driven by a belt attached to either the engine directly, or the alternator.

Condenser - $250
Once compressed, the refrigerant vapour is at a high temperature, and therefore not too useful for cooling the car.
The condenser changes the vapour into a liquid, a reaction which causes a large drop in temperature.
The condenser is like the radiator on the engine, and is normally located at the front of the engine bay.

Evaporator - $400 plus 5 hours of labour.
The evaporator receives the cold refrigerant, and uses it to cool the air in the cabin of the car.
It is usually located in the heater air intake. Some vehicles have more than one evaporator to serve different areas
inside the cabin.

Expansion Device - $75
The expansion device comes in many forms. It can be a brass internally or externally equalised valve, a block type valve
or an orifice tube (the latter being part of an accumulator type air conditioning system). Expansion Devices have an inlet
and an outlet which separates the high side of the system from the low side. A small restriction in the valve allows only a
small amount of refrigerant to pass through it into the Evaporator. The amount of refrigerant passing through the valve
depends on the Evaporator temperature. The most common reasons for failure are contamination, moisture and lack
of regular servicing.

Drier - $100
This is where some AC systems differ. In an expansion valve system, the drier is known as a receiver, and in a fixed-orifice
tube system, it is an accumulator. A receiver removes impurities from the system, absorbs moisture, and ensures that only
liquid refrigerant reaches the expansion valve. In contrast, an accumulator prevents liquid refrigerant from entering the
compressor.

So, as I take out a selection of cars to test drive after repair, I notice that a lot of the systems have the A/C activated,
but were set to recycle cabin air.

This is a mistake.

A parked car that is unbearably hot needs first to have its windows opened to get rid of excess heat. Then 10 minutes of
recirculation should get the temperature down to a liveable level, at which point, the selector should be turned to the use
of outside air.

Apart from the fact that recycled air can make you very drowsy on a long journey, it is an inefficient way to run an air conditioner,
and is putting excessive loads on the A/C compressor, which is already absorbing as much as 10% of the engine horsepower to
drive itself.

Air conditioning causes a rapid fall off in fuel economy and one of the ways in which its' efficiency can be improved is to use outside
air as much as possible.

You may have noticed that a room air conditioner drips a lot of water outside. This water is known as condensate and is drawn out
of the air as it cools. A window air conditioner uses this water as a cooling medium by arranging to have the fan splash this water back up
into the hot coil.

The same is true of your A/C system in the car. The condensate in the air helps the evaporator, or cold coil, under the dashboard,
increase its' efficiency quite a lot and takes the equivalent load off your engine and A/C compressor.

Other good practices in the efficient use of your A/C system include;
the use of a solar driven ventilation fan attached to the window when you're parked to keep the cabin moderately cooler than it
otherwise might be;
parking in the shade whenever possible;
and the use of a reflective sunshade on the dash board that will not only keep the cabin temperature down, but will help alleviate the
damage that sunlight can do to the plastic materials of the dashboard itself. In the long run, this damage manifests itself as cracks
in the plastic that are expensive to repair.

Be cool while driving and have a good summer, short as it will no doubt be, in the Great White North.

18th-April-08.

Some e-mails I received this week, point out that many new cars now seem to be delivered with tires that are filled with nitrogen.
This may well have something to do with the fact that all new cars must now be equipped with tire pressure monitors.
And the basic question is " Do I really need nitrogen in my tires and why is it there in the first place?

So to repeat a blog I wrote about a year ago, here's the skinny on the subject of nitrogen in tires:

The air we breathe is 78% nitrogen and the other 22% is oxygen, so your tires already have a lot of nitrogen in them.
Garages (and dealers) that have invested as much as $5000 in a nitrogen generator, which extracts the gas from the air
and dries it, will tell you that racing cars use it, aeroplanes use it, that your tire pressures will remain much more stable
and that the pure nitrogen doesn't support oxidation so the tire doesn't rot from the inside.

Oh and by the way, there's a $10 charge for filling each tire.

On the other hand, there appears to be absolutely no harm in using nitrogen to fill tires, so as long as the shop doesn't
hit you with any of these extra charges.

I've done some research on the subject and almost everything I found was anecdotal.