Fellow fiends:
Okay, the time appears to have come for me to reveal the "answer" to my
quiz. What with all the talk about tennis balls, knee injuries, and Volvos
(actually, during my youth (sic) I dreamed I wanted a Volvo on the probably
mistaken notion that Liv Ullman drove one and therefore by association the
car had total mystical quality, too.) But I digress. As you may care to
forget, my quiz read as such:
"One time a fellow with an XJ6 came into the shop with the following
problem. The car ran fine at idle, but would misfire badly under hard
acceleration. Interestingly, it would run fine under hard acceleration, BUT
ONLY IF IT WAS IN REVERSE, moving backwards.
What is the explanation?"
There is no question in this writer's mind that the tennis ball theroy has a
certain inner beauty to it, and deserves recognition. In its own way the
knee injury theory is deserving of mention too, though it is hard to see how
the phenomenon could be repeatedly reproduced at a work shop.
I regret to report that no one actually came up with the explanation that
was given to me by the original story teller. Because of this I declare
that the tennis ball theory wins, by virtue of its deviousness.
Congratulations.
What *was* the "correct" explanation? It appears that a retired mechanic,
who happened to be 'hanging around' the shop that day, recollected that he
had noted the same exact phenomenon in a Chevy pick up that had been through
his shop, back in the old days. His advice was, "Change the coil." His
advice proved to be correct, plain and simple. A new coil was installed (in
exactly the same position, with exactly the same wires) and the car ran
perfectly, both forward and backward. What was the explanation? The casing
on the old coil had developed a leak, and the liquid insulant inside had
partially drained out. Hence, when the car accelerated forward, the liquid
went to one side of the coil, resulting in a short at the other side, which
in turn caused a weak spark and a misfire. When the car accelerated
backward the liquid of course went to the other side and protected from a
short, resulting in no such misfire. At idle the liquid rested so as to
protect from a short.
Now, before you all swamp me with "That has got to be one of the most
ridiculous..." messages, remember that this is *just a story that I was
told* by some guy who insists it is true but whose name and address I have
been asked to withhold. For that matter, I don't care to reveal my own
address and telephone number at this time either. I know that you folks out
there are the 'sporting' sort and aren't going to get too upset that you
waited so long for this... answer.
Will "No, he's not taking any calls right now" Zehring
P.S. Can I go, now?
|