There's one born every minute.

Some time ago, we took a Ford Mustang into our shop that was misfiring and burning gas at an incredible rate.
After analysis, we discovered that the owner had changed his spark plugs to the fabulous new Splitfires.
We promptly changed him back to the recommended Motorcraft plugs and all his problems went away.

SplitFire spark plugs were popular and heavily advertised in the 1990s despite controversy over their effectiveness. 
In 1997, the United States Federal Trade Commission charged SplitFire with deceptive advertising. The manufacturer
settled the charges with the FTC; as part of the settlement, SplitFire was prohibited from making deceptive claims
about fuel economy or emissions. After the settlement, the popularity of SplitFire's spark plug range declined,
but many drivers, probably embarrassed by their gullibility, continued to use the product.

Now, as I watch Formula One racing broadcasts, I see that another spark plug is making the same claims. It's called the E3.
Over the years, countless companies have come up with devices claimed to reduce fuel consumption. The claims have ranged
from plausible to the ridiculous. For example, Shell Oil company is flogging "nitrogen enhanced gasoline".
There is absolutely no evidence that Shell gas is any better than anyother name brand in this regard.
Air, is after all, 80% nitrogen to start with.

Wrapping magnets around your fuel line will not double your mileage and the only way you will ever get  rust protection for
your car is to buy the right car in the first place and have it sprayed underneath with oil formulas after the first five years of
factory protection have started to wear off. Electronic rust prevention costs upwards of $400 and simply
DOES NOT WORK - AT ALL

Spark plugs have long been a popular area for "innovation" of this sort. One of the latest comes in the form of the E3 spark plug
featuring its DiamondFire electrode. This one falls into the plausible-but-unlikely category.

A writer named Larry Edsall recently undertook the latest iteration of a 5,000 mile annual road trip and decided to try out the
E3 plugs. While E3 claims a 3-5 percent improvement in mileage, Edsall found his dipped from between 20.11/19.98 the
previous two years to 19.18 with the E3 plugs. He did all the usual maintenance things like oil changes and tire pressure
checks before leaving. Of course the vehicle was a year older and more worn which may have contributed to the dip.

But even a fully scientific test with two or more vehicles running side by side in the same conditions (aside from the spark plugs)
would probably yield a negligible difference at best. The E3 plugs aren't that pricey ($6-7 each) so if you do choose to try them
it won't cost a lot. Just don't be too disappointed if you don't see much improvement in mileage or if you pull into your favourite
garage only to be told that your experiment in engine design and engineering was a complete failure

A basic question no one seems to ask is why, if these devices are so effective, is it that the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) has neither bothered to test any of them, or more importantly, recommend them.

The following article was widely published this week, including CTV:

"Canadians are spending significantly less on vehicle maintenance this year as they put their faith in more reliable vehicles
to help them save money in an uncertain economy.

Canadians' annualized spending on repairs and maintenance has decreased 12.5 per cent to $9.8 billion this year from
$11.2 billion in 2009. The study, based on responses from 14,500 owners in Canada whose vehicles are between three
and 12 years old, attributed the drop to less routine maintenance spending by owners.

Consumers are forking out less cash as cars become more reliable and the average age of Canadian vehicles drops.
Stagnant economic conditions may be one reason owners might postpone expenditures, including routine vehicle maintenance.
There are also other factors contributing to this decline, including longer manufacturer-recommended service intervals (and)
improved vehicle reliability....

It seems Canadian vehicle owners are becoming comfortable with the notion that they don't need to do as much to maintain
their vehicles as they once did. Average spending per service visit fell more than 18 per cent to $287 this year from $352 in 2009,
while the overall number of service visits also declined. The study attributed the decrease to lower spending on maintenance,
saying revenue from vehicle repair work was stable. Average annual spending on repairs and maintenance was highest in
Ontario at $730, and lowest in Quebec at $499. In the Atlantic provinces, consumers spent an average of $681 per year.
On the Prairies it was $665 and in British Columbia it was $589."

At our shop, we have certainly seen a slow down. Although the work continues, a two week reservation booking is currently a thing
of the past.

I think there may be one more factor. A "zero percent financing, seventy two months to pay, $3500 cash back" offer may have
tempted quite a lot of people, faced with fairly large repair estimates from a stealershipto take the plunge.

Certainly GM is using taxpayer bailout money to bribe people into buying their products. GM is the incentive leader in this market.

But in our business, there's an old saying: "Pay me now, or pay me much more later".

The concept of planned maintenance is well known in most industries and every plant engineer knows that if you ignore your
equipment, it will fail at the most inconvenient time. As far as cars and trucks are concerned, planned maintenance breaks
down (if you'll excuse the expression!) into two parts - safety and reliability.

For the most part, reliability is no more than an inconvenience, particularly if you are an auto club member. But safety is a
completely different issue.

A loose ball joint MAY not give you any warning before it lets go. A tie rod end failure can leave you without any steering.
A rusty brake line can leave you with that sinking feeling as your brake pedal goes to the floor.

I can sympathise greatly with the person who just lost his or her job, has two kids to feed and clothe and needs to remain mobile
to go for job interviews.

So I would suggest that a check up every 6 months at a time when tire changes are necessary anyway, is the minimum that you
should do. At least disastrous defects can be dealt with and other defects coming at you can be scheduled and allowed for in
the family budget.

Putting on your own wheels in your driveway unfortunately will not tell you enough about the general condition of your car.
Lifting a car up in the air gives one an amazing view of what's really going on underneath. If you decide to have such an inspection
done, please make sure it is carried out BEFORE any rust treatment is applied.

That process makes our job unpleasant and far more time consuming.

Be nice to your turbocharger and it'll do the same for your bank account.

Red: HOT                                       Blue: Very cold

Most of the major car manufacturers and a couple of Ponzi scheme upstarts are rushing headlong into the production of
electric cars.

Either with ICE back up, or with batteries alone.

Most of these manufacturers really don't want to get into this rat race, but there is so much bailout money, so many Obamabucks,
available that they can't afford not to. All the testing in the world, doesn't prepare the manufacturers for what happens when their
products are placed into the tender, loving care of the general public. Let's wait awhile and see how much negativity develops
and how much unintended consequences occur as these wonderful (?) new machines hit the market.

In the meantime, what the manufacturers would like to do and are doing very quietly, is developing very high mileage cars and
trucks that are both comparatively uncomplicated, easy to assemble and very profitable. They all seem to have one common
agenda and that is the use of turbochargers.

Hyundais' new four cylinder, two litre engine in the Sonata for example, produces 135 HP per litre.
Which is an absolutely phenomenal figure obtainable only by outright racing cars ten years ago.
The ultimate turbo engine was Renaults' F1 twin turbo 1 1/2 litre engine which could exceed 1000 HP
when the "pull to pass trigger" was activated.

In principle, turbo charging is an elegant engineering solution to the need for both power and economy.

The turbocharger is not new. It was invented by Swiss engineer Alfred Büchi. His patent for a turbocharger was applied for
use in 1905. Diesel ships and locomotives with turbochargers began appearing in the 1920s.

A turbocharger is a small radial fan pump driven by the energy of the exhaust gases of an engine. A turbocharger consists of
a turbine and a compressor on a shared shaft. The turbine converts exhaust heat and pressure to rotational force, which is in
turn used to drive the compressor. The compressor draws in ambient air and pumps it in to the intake manifold at increased
pressure, resulting in a greater mass of air entering the cylinders on each intake stroke.

The objective of a turbocharger is the same as a supercharger; to improve the engine's volumetric efficiency by solving one
of its cardinal limitations. A naturally aspirated automobile engine uses only the downward stroke of a piston to create an
area of low pressure in order to draw air into the cylinder through the intake valves. The pressure in the atmosphere is no
more than 1 atmosphere (approximately 14.7 psi), so there ultimately will be a limit to the pressure difference across the
intake valves and thus the amount of airflow entering the combustion chamber. Since the turbocharger increases the
pressure at the point where air is entering the cylinder, a greater mass of air (oxygen) will be forced in as the inlet manifold
pressure increases. The additional air flow makes it possible to maintain the combustion chamber pressure and fuel/air load
even at high engine revolution speeds, increasing the power and torque output of the engine.

To avoid detonation and physical damage, the pressure in the cylinder must not go too high, to prevent this the intake pressure
must be controlled by venting excess gas. The control function is performed by a waste gate, which routes some of the exhaust
flow away from the turbine. This regulates air pressure in the intake manifold.

If you took two identical cars, one turbocharged and one normally aspirated and drove them side by side, thereby eliminating all
variables such as wind speed, humidity, ambient temperature and tire pressures, the turbo charged car would produce much
better fuel economy, because it is using waste energy from the exhaust system. In real life, the exhilaration of acceleration
causes the driver to push down much harder on the right hand pedal and fuel economy goes to hell in a hand basket.

A turbo is very stressed component when operating. On the one side it is drawing air at as low a temperature as minus fourty
degrees and on the other side is handling waste gas at 3600 degrees. Consequently, the  centre bearing and the connecting
shaft have to be very, very strong. In the last few years, the impellers have been made of ceramic material to better withstand
the temperature shock and eliminate turbo delay.

It has long been recommended that turbos be allowed to cool down by having the engine idle for at least three minutes
after an extended run at high speeds.

Therefore, as turbos become more and more common, on more and more vehicles, a word of warning is needed;

1) Never buy a used car with a turbo unless you are absolutely sure that maintenance has been carried out to the letter
     throughout the vehicles' life.
    A turbo is almost as expensive as an engine when replacement is required and therefore, proper lubrication is vital.

2) If you buy a new car with a turbo, RELIGIOUSLY FOLLOW THE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE TO THE LETTER.
    This doesn't mean you have to go to a dealer, necessarily, but make sure that the "jiffylube" or independent repair
    garage knows exactly what engine oil has to be used and when it should be changed.
   
3) ALWAYS use the best synthetic lubricant you can. Amsoil and Total Quartz, for example being two of the best.
     Make sure that the viscosity specification shown in your owners manual is always used.

4) Treat the turbocharger with some deference. From a cold start, let it warm up slowly with gentle driving and, as previously
     mentioned, let the engine idle for a few minutes before you shut it down.

Starting any engine before you fasten your seat belt and adjust the mirror, or clear snow off the windows is a good habit to
acquire.

For this reason and in the case of turbos particularly, remote starting is probably a good thing to have.

We must now have dealt with at least fifteen scenarios with the same basic score.

Car owners who have taken their older car to a dealer for assessment  and been handed an estimate that would
bankrupt Lehman Brothers!

This is a pattern that is developing. In every case we have found things that needed doing, but the total cost has usually
been less than 25% of the dealer estimate.

I speculate that with showroom activity at an all time low, the only place where free cash flow is being generated is in the
service department and when you're on the ropes, I guess you come out swinging.

Take the latest example that has happened over the holidays.

An older couple took their 1998 sedan into a dealer for a check, because they were expecting visitors from the UK who
wanted to drive down into New England while they were here.

The car had 55,000 kilometres on it in total.

I drove it and predicted that not very much would be found to be wrong with it when we did our inspection.

Apart from all the things dealers seem to be selling at every possible chance, such as ball joints, exhaust systems, tie rods,
sway bar links and shock absorbers, there is trend to also want to replace brake and fuel lines.

In the latter case, there is undoubtedly, some need for careful checking, because as cars age these lines under the car can
be susceptible to rotting and losing a brake line produces a soft, on the floor, brake pedal.

However in the case at point, the dealer said that new brake and fuel lines may not be available from the manufacturer
and in which case, they would have to make them by hand - something that we do routinely.

The dealer said that this may take up to twenty five hours and cost at least half of the estimate. In consequence, they wanted
a $500 non refundable deposit. I emphasise at this point, that the brake and fuel lines were not showing ANY signs of being
weak or leaking.

When the owners called the dealer back to tell him they were getting a second opinion,  suddenly they were entitled to a
25% discount and "they would match any price that we would quote".

This on the assumption that we would be "cheaper" than them, but would seize upon the opportunity to quote a lower but
highly profitable price. At the end of the day it took $400 dollars to put this car in top shape and rust proof the lines which
were in very good condition under the surface rust.

Bottom line:
Watch out  for dealer service departments.
Until they get busy with warranty work and routine maintenance, they are desperate to make a buck.
You'll notice that I didn't identify any particular dealer or car manufacturer.
That's because they're all at it - across the board.