<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog</title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com</link>
<description>Autoblog</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[GM drops HotShot windshield washer system after expensive recall]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/08/gm-drops-hotshot-windshield-washer-system-after-expensive-recall/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/08/gm-drops-hotshot-windshield-washer-system-after-expensive-recall/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/08/gm-drops-hotshot-windshield-washer-system-after-expensive-recall/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/recalls-tsbs/" rel="tag">Recalls</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/gm/" rel="tag">GM</a></p><a href="http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/ANA02/810079976/1128"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/10/microheat_opt.jpg"  alt="" /></a>General Motors has nixed an optional hot-spray windshield washer system called HotShot from all of its cars and trucks after an electrical short in the systems caused the recall of 944,000 vehicles. GM told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that a short on the circuit board of the fluid heater could overheat the control-circuit ground wire. The problem has resulted in 34 warranty claims so far and three reports of fires may have been caused by the system. To fix the problem, dealers will add a wiring harness with an inline fuse, and all GM retail outlets should have the required parts to fix the problem free of charge by November 1. Vehicles affected include the Buick Lucerne and Enclave, the Cadillac DTS and Escalade, the GMC Yukon, Sierra and Acadia, the Saturn Outlook, the Hummer H2, and the Chevy Silverado, Avalanche, Tahoe, and Suburban.<br /><br />GM blames the system's suburban Detroit supplier, <a href="http://www.microheat.com/">Microheat</a>, for the problem, and the small company has reportedly shrunk in size in preparation of forever closing its doors. The General wants Microheat to pay for the recall, which is estimated to cost between $20 and $25 million, and the small supplier has countered by reminding the automaker that it's still owed $3.7 million for parts and tooling. The whole affair is a shame, as heated windshield washer fluid is a nice luxury that makes de-icing and de-bugging your windshield a hands-off affair. As far as we know, Microheat is the only supplier offering this technology, so when it goes, so does the option altogether. <br /><br />[Source: <a href="http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/ANA02/810079976/1128">Automotive News</a>, sub. req'd]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/08/gm-drops-hotshot-windshield-washer-system-after-expensive-recall/">GM drops HotShot windshield washer system after expensive recall</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:29:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/ANA02/810079976/1128>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/08/gm-drops-hotshot-windshield-washer-system-after-expensive-recall/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/1336218/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/08/gm-drops-hotshot-windshield-washer-system-after-expensive-recall/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>GM</category><category>hot spray windshield washer</category><category>HotSprayWindshieldWasher</category><category>recall</category><category>windshield wipers</category><category>WindshieldWipers</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Shunk]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:29:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Rain-X versus PPG Aquapel: Grudge Match]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/17/rain-x-versus-ppg-aquapel-grudge-match/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/17/rain-x-versus-ppg-aquapel-grudge-match/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/17/rain-x-versus-ppg-aquapel-grudge-match/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/maintenance/" rel="tag">Maintenance</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/tech/" rel="tag">Technology</a></p><a href="http://www.jwardell.com/mini/2006/04/11/rain-x-vs-aquapel/"><img width="450" vspace="4" hspace="4" height="232" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/04/aquapel-day72.jpg" /></a><br /><br />Autoblog reader Josh Wardell, who loves his MINI Cooper very much thank you, has posted an interesting comparison test between the well known windshield treatment called <a href="http://www.rainx.com/">Rain-X</a> and a lesser known competitor named <a href="http://www.aquapel.com/">PPG Aquapel that's usually used by service professionals rather than vehicle owners. We hadn't heard much about PPG Aquapel so we were interested to learn which product Wardell found to more effectively whisked away rainwater over a period of time. <br /></a><br />The results from Wardell's unofficial comparison test were surprising. After having applied both products to separate sides of his MINI's windshield, Wardell waited for rain and then taped the results at various stages, all the way from day one to day 72. What we learn from Wardell's accompanying <a href="http://www.jwardell.com/mini/media/06/aquapel.mp4">video</a> is that both windshield treatements need speeds above 40 mph to whisk rain away effectively, but that the windshield wipers dramatically reduce the effectiveness of Rain-X over time, whereas the PPG Aquapel side was still effective after 60 days. <br /><br />How many of you out there have had the chance to try <a href="http://www.aquapel.com/">Aquapel</a> and were your results similar? Any Rain-X defenders out there who'd like to speak up?<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/17/rain-x-versus-ppg-aquapel-grudge-match/">Rain-X versus PPG Aquapel: Grudge Match</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:03:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.jwardell.com/mini/2006/04/11/rain-x-vs-aquapel/>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/17/rain-x-versus-ppg-aquapel-grudge-match/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/609159/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/17/rain-x-versus-ppg-aquapel-grudge-match/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>aquapel</category><category>rain</category><category>rain-x</category><category>windshield wipers</category><category>WindshieldWipers</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[John Neff]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:03:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>