Wired magazine has mailed its real world subs a “Wired How To” mini-magazine. Within its pages, they’ll discover a section entitled “Get 50 mpg in a Buick.” To achieve this remarkable gas-miserly feat, the mag recommends that hyper-mileage seeking missiles (that’s you) turn the key off when you’re coasting. There’s no warning that turning the key off will lock the steering and kill the power brakes. Admittedly, the eds suggest you “turn the key back a notch so the engine shuts down.” But I’m sure some naif will either accidentally or purposely turn the key all the way off. And even if they do it correctly, they’ll still lose power steering, which can come as a shock to a 100-pound woman (naif waif?). Wired also advises motorists looking for mythical mileage to “inch up behind an 18-wheeler and kill the engine as you enter its slipstream. You’re drafting now, getting pulled along by the truck’s gas instead of your own.” Yes, they admit it’s “dangerous.” Especially when the truck driver gets pissed and taps his brakes. And as your own binders have lost power assist with the engine off, that could be something of a problem. So, anyway, how do you change your own oil?
In the section on DIY oil changes, Wired advises the ignorami to hand-tighten the replacement oil filter “because if you strip the threads it’ll cost a mint in repairs.” The reason you don’t wrench-tighten a filter is not because you’ll strip the threads–you’d have to use truly brutal pressure and a breaker-bar type extension on the wrench to possibly do that–but because the rubber seal will quickly swell and create the necessary extra pressure. I could go on–like their claim that you should be able to remove the old filter by mere hand pressure “unless you’re a wuss,” which reveals that theyt’ve never actually done it, but why bother. I wouldn’t let a sharetree mechanic reprogram my hard drive and I wouldn’t let a computer geek tell me how to drive or change my oil. You know; in general.
I just read that Wired and their publisher’s other magazines are being told to cut their staffs by 5%, along with other expenses. Sounds like that they could just cut out these “How To” special magazines, not to mention it should save them from lawsuits by idiots giving their advice a try.
Goto my brother-in-law’s shop and make him do it. I bring the 6 six quarts of synthetic and a filter (and beer and smokes as a bribe) and I know it gets done right (in spite of the beer and smokes).
Am I wrong in questioning a technology website’s advice on strictly automotive issues? You know, installing Windows and changing oil (let’s not even get into the ridiculousness of hypermiling) are two very different things.
As a techie, I thought Wired would actually be written by folks somewhat literate about technology. That mag is the Oprah of tech. They know nothing, but try to look good telling us about it.
I read those mileage tidbits online some time back. I can’t find the story now, but someone at Wired had posted several tips including coasting with the engine off and drafting 18 wheelers, also with the engine off – they said it would pull you along.
Learned my lesson about over-tightening filters when the gasket squished out while tightening on my 2003 Honda Pilot. Started the engine, looked under to check for leaks (always a good idea), and saw the black gold gushing all over my garage floor. Always hand tighten now, use the wrench to remove.
Disclaimer: Please be aware that your mileage may decrease to 0 mpg if you slam into the back of the 18-wheeler you happen to be drafting behind.
As a former mechanic (and a still practicing shadetree mech) I have only one thing to say:
Aaaaaaaaarrrrgh!
*Banging head on keyboard*
Airhen’s comment about Wired’s financial cutbacks is interesting. They did a cover story purporting to show that science wouild solve any potential food crises. Except it wasn’t a story. It was several pages of graphs and charts. I have seen other signs in the last year that they may be cutting corners. For example, they recently had a page comparing leaf blowers.
Wow.
-And as someone who’s been towed in a VW more than 1x, not having power brake assist will hammer your adrenal glands harder than chasing Maria Grazia Cucinotta across a moving rollercoaster in a James Bond movie.
“Learned my lesson about over-tightening filters when the gasket squished out while tightening on my 2003 Honda Pilot.”
Right.
But Wired claims that you’ll “strip the threads” by overtightening.
Wrong.
As a long time reader of Wired (on someone else’s subscription) I can assure you that it “jumped the shark” many years ago. I now read it purely for the (unintended) comic effect.
As a techie, I thought Wired would actually be written by folks somewhat literate about technology. That mag is the Oprah of tech. They know nothing, but try to look good telling us about it.
Wired weakened about, oh, five or seven years ago. They held out longer than the buff books of the technology world, but not much.
What happened, as I understand it, is this:
* Wired’s dead-tree revenues started dropping as it’s (generally savvy) consumer base went to the web for news
* Click-through revenues for wired.com never really made up the difference, nor did “premium content” that on-line users, frankly, never pay for.
* Wired tried to make the dead-tree edition more mass-market friendly–a sort of Psychology Today, but with more tech coverage–to broaden the audience. But normal people by and large don’t buy Wired.
* The blogosphere’s rise (god, it hurts to type that) just murdered them.
So now they’re stuck, trying to be part Popular Mechanics, part 2600, part Psycology Today and failing at all of them. Not a lot of dead-tree mags have made the transition well, and many that have tried to have an on-line presence have suffered for it (the car mags, for example, have a uniformly sucktastic web presence). Most magazines make the mistake of trying to use the web as a source of revenue and/or a push for dead-tree subscriptions.
I can count on one hand the number of publications that have a) survived the coming of the web and b) come up with a decent web model that complements their printed content. Consumer Reports is probably the big one, but there are a few others.
Wired. That’s un friggin believable.
Oil. Used to do it myself, but with family, work and community responsibilities, I go to the local quickie lube for oil changes and a local shop for tune-ups.
I’ve read exactly one issue of Wired, and that was in maybe 1999. From a publications standpoint I thought it was an editorial disaster both in terms of content and production editing. Call me old school but The New Yorker and Playboy, for example were parsecs beyond Wired even then. This hypermiling “advice” could put them out of business for good. Does anyone ever edit anything over there? Wired looks like an intern crapped it out of an Amiga in 1987 or so.
You have to really pay for good magazine content that’s mostly free of payola. I personally believe Consumer Reports has been guilty of accepting bribes. No evidence to back it up, it’s just a feeling. But their website is balls. They definitely throw a lot of money at it. There’s not much new with the magazine, but at least it doesn’t hurt your eyes and try to kill its readship.
I pay $50 a year for Motorcycle Consumer News. It’s ad free except for the publisher pushing its own books, and I think it’s bribe free. Their web presence is really sucky, but it’s maybe 10 people doing the best they can with limited resources.
In addition to coasting (by turning off the car’s engine) and tailgating large trucks, I believe they forgot to add “unbuckle your seat belts”. It may not do much for mileage but the nation’s collective IQ would bump up a notch.
“Not a lot of dead-tree mags have made the transition well, and many that have tried to have an on-line presence have suffered for it (the car mags, for example, have a uniformly sucktastic web presence). Most magazines make the mistake of trying to use the web as a source of revenue and/or a push for dead-tree subscriptions.”
You’re absolutely right. I used to write steadily for Conde Nast Traveler’s site, since I’m a CNT contributing editor, but I have completely stopped posting, it’s so bad. All they want to do is sell subscriptions.
One dead giveaway is that virtually none of the posts are interesting enough to get a single comment. “Comments: 0.” I should think they’d be embarrassed. My daughter Brook contributes to it, but only because she’s paid to, required to by her contract with the magazine.
John B: Ah yes, the old “hyper-chlorinating the gene pool” trick…