Rocker Arm problem

Our 2003 Olds Silhouette with 170,000 has started showing unfortunate aging pains.

Just after Christmas, coincidentally (or not) a couple days after a drive from NW Michigan to SE Michigan and back, the check engine light came on, we started having shaking and stuttering, reduced power, and stalling at stops (all per my husband, as I never drove it while it was in this condition).

We took it to a local mechanic, who diagnosed our #2 piston as having loose or stripped rocker arm bolts. He ended up also tightening a 2nd one. Total bill was about $388. He warned that this could continue to happen with the other ones.

Post-repair, the car was running beautiful. Couldn't tell the engine was running while idling at a traffic light.

Well, Sunday, same thing happened again. We're planning on taking it back to the same mechanic. My husband recalls him saying that if they did all 6 of them, the job would run about $700-$800. We're tight, but leaning towards that rather than a piecemeal "repair as they blow."

I do not have a specific question to ask. I'd like to know what people on here think about this situation. Whether the price sounds right, etc.

We absolutely HAVE to have this vehicle on the road. It's all we've got, and we live in Elk Rapids and my husband works in Traverse City. That money would have gone toward saving for a 2nd car so we don't keep ending up in a panicked, vehicle-less position. But we gotta keep this one running for now.

98 vw golf is slipping

My golf is slipping. Not sure if its the clutch or transmission or what. Sometimes it goes down the road just fine other times the engine can rev to the moon and the car barely goes. I had some oil leaking above the clutch and thought that was causing the slipping but after fixing the leak and spraying cleaner on the clutch plate it hasnt stopped. I quess I'm thinking the clutch plate needs to be replaced,but I've but i'm not positive

Did you clean the pressure plate and flywheel also?Also, is your pressure plate mechanically or hydraulically operated.

Upon futher inspection today, I'm not sure i was actually getting cleaner on the plate and disk. I was spraying brake cleaner through an inspection hole in the top of the bell housing and looking closer I probaly was just getting cleaner on the plate backside. I'm going to go out and see if I get cleaner on the disk.

Suggest to him to spray WD-40 on the plate and disc - will also cut down on squeeking!

I believe I figured out the slipping problem except I dont know how to fix it. This particular vehicle uses an automatic clutch adjuster cable and it seems it is to tight. I dont see any way of backing it off.

Here ya go: http://www.ehow.com/how_7720941_adjust-clutch-volkswagen-golf.html

Sorry that site is for a maual aduster cable. The 98 golf uses an automatic adjuster cable.

Cheap, high-mpg engines

3 companies push opposed-piston design, but skeptics concerned about emissions and oil use

 

The typical tradeoff for a greener powertrain is higher cost. Electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, Prius-type hybrids -- all come at a price premium.

But imagine an engine that promised a 30 percent increase in fuel economy and cost less. Automakers would race to get that kind of paradigm-buster into their cars, right?

Well, not exactly.

Three companies developing opposed-piston engines say they can produce the magic combination of sharply increased efficiency and lower costs. The trio -- EcoMotors International, Pinnacle Engines and Achates Power Inc. -- are refining a pre-World War II internal combustion scheme in which two pistons operate in a single cylinder.

But automakers remain wary, saying that use of opposed-piston engines on high-volume programs is years away.

For one thing, the EcoMotors and Achates engines are two-strokes, which characteristically have high hydrocarbon emissions and high oil use. The engine companies are trying to convince automakers that they can meet emissions standards. And they are starting to make inroads on the fringes of the industry.

Don Runkle, CEO of EcoMotors, points to a development deal with truckmaker Navistar International for a turbodiesel engine as establishing credibility.

"They obviously think our claims are real, and we are in the process of running test engines for them," he says. "This is not a theory."

But major automakers are a tougher sell. That's because big automakers plan powertrain programs in terms of billions of dollars of investments and a decade or more of lead time, says Dan Kapp, Ford's director of powertrain research and advanced engineering.

"When someone says, 'I've got a game-changing development,' you've got to understand what changing the game means to us in terms of time and investment," Kapp says.

But, he adds, Ford is not dismissing opposed-piston engines as an option.

"We do some deep internal technical vetting of these concepts," Kapp says. "We do take them very seriously."

The three competitors have their own takes on opposed-piston technology. But for all, improved fuel economy is central. Because of the engine design, that's linked to lower cost.

Opposed-piston advocates say that the engines can use many of the same parts, materials and tooling as today's internal combustion engines -- a piston's a piston, in other words. So there's no need to create a new supply chain.

Fewer parts, lower cost

EcoMotors CEO Don Runkle, a former General Motors and Delphi executive, is among the most enthusiastic boosters of opposed-piston technology.   But because two pistons run in a single cylinder, they don't use all the parts that today's engines use. No valvetrain, no cylinder head. That cuts costs. It also reduces heat loss, friction and weight, giving the engines an advantage in power-to-weight ratio. The engine companies' efforts represent a renewal of interest in a technology that the automotive industry previously rejected. Opposed-piston engines were invented in the early 1900s and probably are best known for powering Junkers airplanes in Germany. They also have been used in maritime applications. But automakers in the past have dismissed the technology, particularly because of emissions. "It took someone who didn't know it couldn't be done to figure out how it could be done," says Dave Johnson, CEO of Achates. "The first reaction is almost universally to say, 'That won't work. We tried that, and it won't work.'" Pinnacle CEO Ron Hoge says the company is focusing on small vehicles in Asia as a way to get to market faster. He said the company expects to announce a deal soon to put its engine into a two-wheeler for "a major Asian vehicle manufacturer." Pinnacle plans to power other two-, three- and four-wheelers in Asia. Says Hoge: "We would love to be in Detroit and have the right partnership, to be in Stuttgart and elsewhere in Europe. But we've got to build some credibility first." Other observers see large, fuel-hungry vehicles like semi tractor trailers as the likely initial use. But the engine companies say opposed piston engines can work on anything from a lawnmower to a semi, including passenger cars. The engine companies say that they are willing to license technology or supply engines. Their engines can be made in various sizes and can run on a variety of fuels, they say. "It's an internal combustion engine," Runkle says. "It runs on the fuel you stick in it, and you can make it the size that you need, powerwise. It'll just be half the size of the four-stroke that you would have designed and half the weight." And they're optimistic that they will start getting automaker deals within two or three years. They say their products are ready. "No one ever concludes the r&d phase, but we have done enough research," says Achates' Johnson. "We were founded in 2004. We didn't just wake up yesterday and start working on this."

On the web

To see videos showing the companies' opposed-piston engine technology, go to
• EcoMotors International ecomotors.com
• Achates Power achatespower.com/opposed-piston-engine.php
• Pinnacle Engines pinnacle-engines.com/technology.html

Slow acceptance

Ford's Dan Kapp: "When someone says, ‘I’ve got a game-changing development,’ you’ve got to understand what changing the game means to us in terms of time and investment."   Automakers, on the other hand, see penetration coming slowly, if at all. One automaker powertrain engineering executive who asked not to be named said the technology would have to be completely proved out today to be in cars by 2017. He sees opposed-piston engines as a post-2020 technology. "There's too much risk here to bet on," the executive says. "But there's enough promise to keep looking at it in our r&d space to get it sorted out." Part of the uncertainty, he adds, is whether modifying the engines for emissions would diminish fuel economy: "We haven't seen any data that we could put it into production and still produce the benefits." Tougher U.S. fuel economy standards might seem likely to make automakers snap up new technologies. But Ford's Kapp says the opposite is true: The need, under pressure, to make steady, year-to-year improvements gives Ford less flexibility and leads planners to stick with familiar, proven technology. "We certainly have a technology strategy and development plan in place," he says. "It's how we're going to evolve and keep deploying our EcoBoost engine. I have a line of sight of how we're going to get to that with our existing and limited resources." Others say automakers tend to resist powertrain changes. Gary Rogers, CEO of engineering giant FEV Inc., says that institutional inertia can be a barrier. But, he adds, sheer industry scale means that change takes a long time. For example, Rogers says, the move from carburetors to port fuel injection was slow: "It took about 20 years until we rolled all the cars over to fuel injection." Research analyst Greg Schroeder at the Center for Automotive Research says automakers may farm out design and subsystems but are territorial about powertrains. "In my opinion, the automakers really see themselves as having their core competency in powertrains," Schroeder says. "For someone outside to come in and sell a new powertrain, it's difficult."

Pushing opposed pistons

These companies are developing opposed-piston engines

• EcoMotors International
Allen Park, Mich. (Suburban Detroit)
CEO: Don Runkle, a former GM vice president and former vice chairman of Delphi
Description: With Runkle and John Coletti, former head of Ford's Special Vehicles Team, the company has strong Detroit links. Peter Hofbauer, former Volkswagen diesel engine designer, founded the company and is chief technical officer. Investors include venture capitalist Vinod Khosla and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
Product: An opposed-piston 2-stroke engine with a central camshaft operating 2 opposed cylinders; EcoMotors refers to its engine as "opposed-piston, opposed-cylinder."
Deals: Developing a turbodiesel with truckmaker Navistar International; developing an engine for Generac Power Systems, a maker of electrical generators; developing engines for Zhongding of China for power generation and vehicle applications

• Achates Power
San Diego
CEO: Dave Johnson, former vice president of product operations for military and export markets at Navistar and a veteran of Ford and GM
Description: James Lemke, an entrepreneur with a doctorate in theoretical physics, founded the company in 2004 and is its chief scientist. John Koszewnik, former director of Ford's North American diesel program, is chief technical officer. Several venture capital firms are backing the company.
Product: 2-stroke compression ignition (diesel) engine
Deals: Johnson says Achates is validating and developing engines for several clients under nondisclosure agreements. 

• Pinnacle Engines
San Carlos, Calif. (San Francisco area)
CEO: Ron Hoge, former CEO of Cummins Power Generation
Description: The company's founder and chief technical officer, Monty Cleeves, is a veteran of the semiconductor industry. Several venture capital firms are backing the company.
Product: 4-stroke, spark-ignited, opposed-piston sleeve-valve architecture
Deals: Hoge says a deal for a 2-wheel vehicle in Asia is imminent.

Honda SUVs recalled for fuel-tank fix

Honda Motor Co. is recalling about 8,700 copies of the 2012 Honda Pilot and Acura MDX SUVs to fix a problem in the fuel tank.

The flaw is with the vent-shut-float valve case in the fuel-tank assembly. Honda says the part doesn't meet the proper design specifications, which could result in a fuel leak and possibly a fire.

This recall comes one day after the company launched a recall to fix tailgate strut rods on the Honda Odyssey minivan.

Honda will notify dealers and owners of affected vehicles. Dealers will inspect the assembly and replace it if necessary. The recall is expected to begin on March 13.

Concerned owners can contact Honda Customer Service at (800) 999-1009. Owners can also go to www.safercar.gov to check out the recall or call the NHTSA vehicle safety hotline at (888) 327-4236.

Goodyear recalls Wrangler Silent Armor tires

Goodyear said it will recall almost 41,000 light-truck tires over concerns of partial tread separation. Tread separation could lead to vehicle damage if the tread strikes the car, or an accident could occur if the tire fails.
The sizes recalled include:
-- LT235/80R17 LRE
-- LT325/60R18 LRE
-- LT275/70R18 LRE
-- LT265/70R17 LRE
-- LT245/75R17 LRE
-- LT285/70R17 LRD

The affected Wrangler Silent Armor tires were produced from March 31 to May 31, 2009. To find out when the tires were produced, owners can look at the last four digits of the tire-information number on the sidewall. If the number is between 0909 and 2209, then the tires need to be replaced.
Goodyear says it estimates that only a small percentage of the tires are affected.
The company has been inspecting these tires since May 2010, when it observed elevated levels of warranty returns. Goodyear says it found stone drilling damage and other external damage. Goodyear continued to monitor the tires in 2010 and 2011, but the company claims it still found no safety issue.
In the third quarter of last year, Goodyear received an injury claim involving the tires: Two people died in a rollover crash in Texas when a Wrangler Silent Armor tire failed, Goodyear spokesman Scott Baughman told the Chicago Tribune.
Goodyear says customers will be notified by March 22, and the tires will be replaced at no cost to owners.

Toyota, GM channel big bucks to YouTube

If you needed a sign of just how audacious YouTube's $100 million experiment in original content is, consider the asking price for big advertisers such as General Motors and Toyota: as much as $62 million for the exclusive on a package of "channels" in categories such as music or pop culture.

No one has paid that yet. Early deals are in the $5 million to $10 million range, but the aggressive asking price reflects the ambition for YouTube's 96 premium "channels," designed to bring to the site TV-like appointment viewing, as well as TV-like advertising dollars.

A smattering of the nation's biggest advertisers and marketers have signed on, including:

• Toyota, which is backing a host of channels targeted at women, including "Cafe Mom," "Kin Community" and "Mom's View."

• General Motors, which signed on last week to sponsor Red Bull's action sports channel and a package of automotive-focused channels.

• Chrysler, AT&T and Lowes are also appearing on channels that have already been launched.

• Unilever, which is sponsoring "Young Hollywood Network," founded by well-known YouTube star R.J. Williams.

YouTube started conversations with brands and agencies in November in hopes of persuading them to part with chunks of their TV advertising budgets on a site once known for cat videos and vloggers such as Shay Carl.

But there was a catch: To get exclusivity in the premium channels, buyers also had to make a huge investment across the rest of YouTube. While deal terms varied, it was typical for YouTube to guarantee that just 20 percent of the ads would appear in the new channels, with the rest running in other videos on YouTube.

"YouTube is a pretty vast place," said one buyer familiar with the terms. "You are spending an awful lot of money on things that are nontargeted."

The Wild West

The terms reflect how YouTube hopes to use the channels -- some fronted by celebrities or produced by majro studios, such as Lionsgate -- to bring brand dollars into the rest of the site, which is a bit like the Wild West, with a wide variation in quality.

By making the sponsorships of channels and packages of channels exclusive, YouTube aims to ignite a frenzy among advertisers afraid of being left out.

According to a rate card distributed to ad agencies, two hot verticals -- music and pop culture -- were $62 million apiece for one-year sponsorships, a package of sports channels was $40 million, an autos package was $16 million and a mom's interest package $10 million.

YouTube has since subdivided the verticals into smaller packages in categories such as "Celebrity News," "Music and Film" or "Geeks, Gadgets and Games," which cost $10 million to $20 million to sponsor. YouTube also lets advertisers exclusively sponsor a single channel for anywhere from $2 million to $4 million on an annual basis.

None of the megapackages have sold, but GM and Toyota's deals are thought to be well north of $10 million for packages of channels, while Unilever is in the $5 million range for "Young Hollywood," one of the channel partners with a long history of producing popular celebrity programming on YouTube. YouTube declined to comment on deal terms or pricing.

"We were intrigued by the opportunity to be the inaugural and exclusive sponsor of YouTube's 'Young Hollywood' channel," Unilever Senior Director-Media Gail Tifford said in a prepared statement.

"The response from advertisers has been extremely positive," said Lucas Watson, the former Procter & Gamble executive leading the sales effort, in a statement provided to Advertising Age, an affiliate of Automotive News. Marketers that join early have the chance to "build relationships with content partners so they can come up with creative integrations for the future," he said.

The deals work out to $15 to $25 per thousand views, competitive with broadcast TV ad rates. At a low-end sponsorship cost of $500,000 a month, an advertiser would need roughly 25 million impressions to net a $20 CPM -- unlikely for most startup channels.

How it makes money

Channel producers will make money from ad impressions that run on the videos they create or curate within the channel, but only after YouTube recoups its initial investment in them, which ranges from a few hundred thousand to $5 million. Those deals were also struck on a variety of terms, but the expectation for most is that they will clear their advances back within a year. After that, YouTube will split revenue 50-50.

The breadth of prices also reflects the content that video producers have agreed to create. SB Nation's sports channel, for example, which was funded at the higher end, is planning to create 3,000 episodes this year, or 64 hours of programming. Others will produce substantially less.

The early advertisers are also big TV spenders, and while most have ad budgets devoted to digital, spending at these levels will inevitably mean shifting some dollars that once went to TV.

"In a world of finite marketing budgets, you do this in place of doing something else," said David Cohen, chief global digital officer of Interpublic Group's Universal McCann. Cohen has been in talks with YouTube for several clients.

"You can't get reach anymore just buying more TV networks or magazine ads," said John Lisko, head of media investment at Saatchi & Saatchi, which buys media on behalf of Toyota.

Lisko called the YouTube deal a "test and learn" opportunity to see if more dollars could be moved from TV.

"We will look at the performance of the media and the audience we are getting, just as we would with TV," he said. One challenge for YouTube has been to provide more TV-like metrics, such as how many people watched at a particular time, rather than "views" accumulated over a day, week or month.

In a break from the past, YouTube has been talking to outside data providers such as Nielsen Co. and AIG to provide ratings and engagement scores, comparable to TV. Advertisers have decades of historical data on TV advertising's impact on what people actually buy. That volume of data doesn't exist for the web. "The ultimate that we haven't yet cracked is: What does this translate to as far as in-store sales?" Cohen said.

The biggest obstacle to getting TV ad dollars is keeping viewers' attention longer. Google's vice president of content, Robert Kyncl, said in January that YouTube users were spending 30 minutes a day with the service, up from an average of 15 minutes in May. That's still a far cry from the more than average five hours Americans spend watching TV.

GM's interest

It's enough time that an advertiser like GM, which spent $240 million on Internet display advertising in 2010 (and nearly $1.2 billion on TV) according to Ad Age DataCenter, must place a bet there.

"When you have this much fragmentation taking place among audiences, its important that you touch all channels," said GM spokesman Tom Henderson. "We don't think one medium will replace another anytime soon."

Google is expected to capture $2.58 billion in display-ad revenue in 2012, or about 16.5 percent of the overall market, according to a recent estimate from eMarketer. In an estimate last spring, Citibank said YouTube revenue would exceed $1 billion in 2012.