My biggest concern at this point is whether I should rust-proof the car. I have heard a number of positive and negative comments on the subject.
Is it a worthwhile expense or is it a waste of money?
Gilles
ANSWER: This is one of those areas where, as you note, there are proponents on both sides of the issue.
Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of rust-proofing, mostly due to the tremendous number of unethical companies involved in the business through the years. Two other factors have all but eliminated this once-burgeoning aftermarket industry - rust-proof metals and anti-corrosion warranties.
The situation got so bad some years ago that regulators took action. With laws requiring that new-vehicle warranties include anti-perforation protection for five to seven years, manufacturers demanded suppliers provide galvanized steel that provides a layer of protection against rust.
The combination of metals impervious to rust and factory warranties against that eventuality was a big improvement. But these warranties only cover perforation resulting from corrosion from the inside out - i.e. due to defects in the metal. If the paint is penetrated, cracked or otherwise compromised due to impact, accident, scrape etc., the warranty does not apply.
Some car dealers continue to offer a rust-protection service but the stuff is sprayed on top of galvanized metal already covered by the factory warranty.
However, you are asking about a vehicle that is nearing the end of its factory anti-corrosion limits. There are a couple of worthy entities still in business that I would not hesitate to use - those that require an annual inspection and application. I don't believe a single application of anything will last more than a few years in our climate.
If you have reason to believe your G35 was ever involved in even a minor fender-bender it would be a good idea to have some protection. If it is unsullied and you plan to maintain it that way, your money might be better spent on quality cleaning supplies and your water bill.
Paddle shifters
QUESTION: I'm constantly reading reviews about paddle shifters on some cars - and that they're often redundant.
What is the reason for these paddle shifters in the first place? And what are their limitations?
Michael
ANSWER: Paddle shifters come under a variety of names. Originally used by Ferrari for its Formula One cars 20 years ago because it provided faster shifts than the best drivers in the world were capable of, it grew into the "hot" system for performance-oriented drivers and companies.
The emergence of computer games with paddle-shifters meant a whole new generation of drivers associated them with high performance. It didn't take long for the fad to grow.
I'm not a fan of the vast majority of these systems as most are merely marketing exercises. Whether operated by paddles mounted on the steering wheel or through moving the shift lever, most of these mechanisms will shift automatically anyway if the driver fails to do so at redline or when coming to a stop.
I've spent hundreds of hours on race tracks and can appreciate their worth in that realm. But I also routinely test more than 100 new vehicles every year and can count on one hand the number of times I've needed to shift an automatic transmission manually.
Now before every auto enthusiast who reads this dashes off a letter or e-mail, note that I said "needed to shift an automatic manually." Sure, it is fun to select the proper gear for slowing or accelerating in particular circumstances - commonly when enjoying the dynamic attributes of a fun vehicle and even preferable to do so in some difficult conditions.
But the fact is that the modern automatic transmission, with five to seven gears and electronic controls, has become so sophisticated it is often better off left to its own devices.
And instead of dividing your attention between steering, braking and shifting, you can remove one of those distractions.
Click
No comments:
Post a Comment