A Turbocharged Pet Peeve
I hope I’m not alone in this. One of my pet peeves is the all-too-common misuse of the term “turbocharged.” It seems as though manufacturers of just about any product feel that they can freely apply the term to promote the benefits of a host of consumer offerings.
If it’s new, or if they simply want to push their promotions over the top, they refer to the product as being turbocharged.
Stupid examples abound... turbocharged razors, turbocharged spray cleaners, turbocharged sandwich wraps, turbocharged candy bars, turbocharged boots, turbocharged soft drinks, etc. The list goes on.
Frankly, I’m sick of it. How is a razor turbocharged? Does it feature an impeller that sucks up evacuating bits of stubble, pressurizing the charge and slamming it back onto your chin? I don’t think so.
In a perfect world, there would be a law that prevents advertising agencies that understand nothing about forced induction from using the term with regard to anything that isn’t actually force-fed via a turbine compressor.
I’m tired of hearing this junk spewed daily on TV, the internet and in print ads. But hey, maybe it’s just me. Do you agree or not?
Recently, Toyota announced a recall of some 36,000 2016 and 2017 V6-equipped Tacoma pickup trucks for a crank position sensor malfunction issue.
The announcements, published by a variety of print and online news outlets, stated that the crankshaft timing rotor may have been produced with excessive anti-corrosion coating, which could cause the crankshaft position sensor to malfunction.
The reports continued by stating that Toyota dealers will replace the crank position sensors for free.
After reading this, I was a bit confused. If there is excessive anti-corrosion coating on the timing rotor (reluctor), I can understand how the sensor would not be able to obtain a proper or consistent timing reference. But how does too much coating on the reluctor translate into the need to replace the sensor? Is the “excessive anti-corrosion coating” on the reluctor or the sensor? If the coating issue involves the sensor itself, it makes sense that sensor replacement would be needed. But if the coating issue involves the reluctor (or, as the reports state, “the crankshaft timing rotor”), then how would replacing the sensor alone fix the issue?
After repeated attempts to find the answer, according to an anonymous source at Toyota, the replacement crank sensor apparently has a greater sensitivity range to function properly with the excess coating on the crank reluctor wheel. Just thought I’d let you know, in case any of you had the same question. ■
To read more of Mike Mavrigian's editorials, see: