Tehachapi News

All > Columns > Auto Q&A
Auto Q&A
Topics:
Posted by editor Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:31:55 PST
Viewed 792 times
0 responses 0 comments Dear Q & A: I was recently in a front-end accident with my gray 1991 Ford Econoline camper van. I took the damaged truck to my regular mechanic, “Art.” The repair bill was supposed to be $5,000 even. But after Art had had the car for 37 days, he gave me a revised estimate to sign, which was for $5,530.30. He said it was necessary because there were a number of additional parts needed to make the vehicle safe. So I signed it, assuming it was just an upward adjustment in the price.

I picked up the van last Tuesday (three weeks later), and when I parked it I noticed that it was leaking antifreeze under the front end, the right front door and hood don’t fit or close right, and my friends tell me the paint on the repaired parts is gray primer, not a finish coat. Also the final bill has some extra wording: “Because of age and condition, no guarantee or warrantee is made on repairs.” It is the one I signed, unfortunately, without reading it all. I paid the whole thing, but now I’m beginning to feel uneasy about this. Any suggestions?                                  
 — George P.

Dear George: You signed an obligation for over 55 hundred dollars without reading the contract, paid the whole bill, and only now you’re beginning to feel uneasy? Not good, all around. But you’re wondering what to do now. Present your dissatisfactions, in writing, to Art. Don’t be mad (yet), just frank and thorough in your presentation, making it clear that you expect the problems to be taken care of, and promptly. Give Art a two-week opportunity to make things right, since you appear to be in no hurry to get your van. Then, if he does no better than he’s done so far, your only relief may be in small claims court. At this point, it looks like you’re being had. At least, from what you wrote, it seems your “mechanic” may be trying to learn auto body work while you pay his tuition.

Dear Q & A: In your reply to “Skeptical,” presenting a simple way to compare performance, you cited weight, power, and torque as the key variables, but you fumbled. Your formula divides weight by horsepower and multiplies the result by torque, but this would yield a lower performance number as horsepower increased or weight decreased. You should flip the fraction over, and multiply by torque.          
— P.L.

Dear PL: You’re right. Those weight and horsepower numbers in our AQAP were inverted. Thanks for pointing it out. The following letter also contributes some simplifying clarity to the issue.

Dear Q & A: In reference to your “AQAP” performance ratio or whatever, what’s the matter with just looking at zero-to-sixty mph figures to get a good idea of the performance you’ll get in a make and model of car? Then you don’t have to monkey around with formulas and such. Or even better, how about a simple pounds-per-horsepower number (Pinto 27.8, Vette 9.4, Maybach 11.0), lower being better?                 
— Ted

Dear Ted: You make good points. To cite examples, the 1973 Ford Pinto goes 0-to-60 in 13.7 seconds, the ‘76 Corvette in 7.4, and the 2006 Maybach in 4.8. PL’s corrected version of our AQAP formula gives us Pinto 3.78, Corvette 39.77, and Maybach 60.09. Problem: These figures don’t show relative performance proportionally. For instance, the ‘Vette does not have ten times the performance numbers of the Pinto, nor does the Maybach have nearly twice those of the Vette. Your 0-to-60 or lbs/hp numbers show this relativity more accurately. Maybe we’d better just send AQAP into early retirement.

(Send your automotive questions to Auto Q & A, Box 2222, Tehachapi, CA 93581.)

Send to a Friend

Report a Violation