CLICK & CLACK : Key-Hauled

Q Dear Tom and Ray:

My 1994 Honda Civic, which was stolen about a month ago, was recently recovered. My family and I are pretty perplexed. No windows were broken, the car was locked and the ignition switch is still intact. Now, my family is convinced that someone must have had a duplicate of my key, but no one except my father has a copy. Is it possible that a similar key could have been used to start it? Or is there some type of device available that enables you to start cars? -- Carolina

A TOM: Well, Carolina, you can certainly break into a car without damaging the lock. We won't explain exactly how, in case any budding juvenile delinquents are reading today's column. But it can be done.

RAY: Starting the car without breaking the ignition is much harder. There's a steering-wheel lock in the ignition switch. And unless the thief breaks the switch and disables that lock, he'll soon find himself driving around in wide circles.

TOM: It's possible that someone stole the car, broke the ignition switch and then had it fixed. Maybe he used the car's vehicle identification number and managed to get a replacement lock cylinder and key from a dealer.

RAY: Dealers almost always require identification before they'll replace a lock cylinder and provide a new key, to prevent this sort of thing. But maybe the thief got around it somehow.

TOM: If not, then you have to look at the possibility that someone made a copy of one of the existing keys. It doesn't have to be someone you know, Carolina. You've probably left your keys with a parking lot attendant, or left them on your desk or in a coat pocket at work.

RAY: It's possible for an unscrupulous individual to take the key long enough to make a copy. Why anyone would do that for a '94 Civic instead of the boss's Jaguar, I have no idea .

Dear Tom and Ray:

Hey guys, I found an error in your otherwise good column. The subject was placement of weight in the trunk to make more-effective traction for a rear-wheel-drive car. You said the best place is directly on top of the drive axle. Sorry, but that is wrong. The most effective place is as far aft as you can put the weight. Let's say you have a car with a 110-inch wheelbase. If you put a 100-pound weight directly over the axle, the rear wheel load goes up 100 pounds. But if you put the weight 40 inches aft of the axle, the rear wheel load goes up 100 x (110+40)/110 = 136 pounds. Of course, the front axle load goes down by 36 pounds, but that is less than 2 percent of its load -- which is negligible. It will be interesting to see how you weasel out of this one! -- John

TOM: John, you think this is a tough one to weasel out of? You underestimate us, my man!

RAY: Actually, you are technically correct. But the reason we recommend putting the weight over the axle was stated in our original column -- and confirmed by your math.

TOM: When you put weight behind the rear axle, you lift weight off the front axle. Since the front axle is key in steering and stopping the car, we don't think that's a good idea.

RAY: You consider it negligible, but when does it become not-negligible? If you put 200 pounds in your theoretical car, now you've reduced the weight over your steering and braking wheels by 4 percent. Is that enough to argue against doing it? What about 300 pounds? What about a Jersey barrier hanging off the rear bumper? Better yet, forget the weight and stay home and watch daytime TV when it snows. Surely we can all agree on weaseling out of work, can't we, John?

Got a question about cars? Write to Click & Clack in care of The Post, or e-mail them by visiting the Car Talk Web site athttp://www.cartalk.com.

2007by Tom and Ray Magliozzi and Doug Berman