The one thing that irritates me about GM's cars
 

http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?p..._code=07543943

This is more of a pet peeve than anything else, but had I known my 97 had these before I bought it, I would have certainly gotten an older version without these.

Notice that the studies that GM cites are countries of the far north where fog, haze, or long periods of night in the winter are the norm.

disable them?

------------------
'02 Silver WS6
*!CAGS
*!Baffles
*Direct-Flo Lid w/ Powershot
*BMR SFCs

Very insightful with the fog, haze, etc. comment - not to mention those countries also have much higher gas prices and therefore far more pedestrian and moped traffic than us too.

A peeve of mine regarding DRL's is that all the manufacturers say "they don't make the vehicle any less efficient or cost more to maintain". BS. WHAT A LIE. Bulb life is rated in hours and is calculated based on experiment and ionic discharge rate of the filament. They DO burn out and need replacement. Also, the Second law of Thermodynamics states (loosely) that "The energy inside a contained system remains constant." Well, if I am burning an extra 110 watts of "light", then I MUST need another 110 watts of energy from somewhere to make up for it. SOMEWHERE, in this case, is extra burnt fuel to turn the alternator under slightly more load and/or by chemical reaction in the battery to restore itself after the vehicle is shut off.

I know the extra power required is very very minimal in both the fuel and battery case - and the cost of an occasional bilb is tiny compared to the cost of the car, but those aren't my points. The point is how the manufacturers LIE to us because they don't think we know better. The public seems to believe anything they are told these days. http://web.camaross.com/bb/frown.gif

This could become a cool thread... Lets see what other peeves and public-BS-tactics get posted... http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif [edit]

[This message has been edited by ProudPony (edited July 19, 2002).]

I have hated DRL's from Day One.

...and if it's a "safety" item, why doesn't the insurance company give you discount for having the DRL feature? or do they???

Regardless, they offer discount for ABS, and GM's thinking about making ABS an option on cheaper vehicles??? I would have considered ABS to be a required feature on all new vehicles since ABS is a safety item.

Without ABS and it was a little wet, my wife would have slammed our Jeep into a Hyundai whose driver decided that she wanted to stop in the middle of the I-80 c-shaped on-ramp without warning. I was in the passenger seat and honestly thought we were going to hit her, especially when we were accelerating up to freeway speed to merge...We also had our 2-day old baby on board too.

[This message has been edited by gab (edited July 19, 2002).]

Why do you guys hate DRL's so much. I never even notice mine. It doesn't cost more, amoritize the cost of an extra light bulb over a couple of years and its trivial. My GM pet peve is interiors....but thats a whole nother topic.

DRLs are irritating to me because if a pedestrian is dumb enough to miss an object 6+ feet wide, 5+ feet tall, 16+ feet long in broad daylight, then they really shouldn't be allowed outside.

I can see the possibility in those countries GM mentioned in their study (fog, blowing snow, haze, longer winter nights). But I would really be interested in seeing the results of a study of the lower 48.

I call DRLs only a pet peeve because (so far) they can be disabled, and as long as they can, it's not much more than an irritation with me. But I don't buy GM's safety argument while at the same time ABS is being removed from some cars to save GM $$$, a move I feel is a mistake. Unlike DRLs, there is no doubt whatsoever that ABS has saved alot of lives let alone prevent accidents.

But if GM succeeds in convincing the goverment to make DRLs mandatory with all automakers, I'm not likely to buy GM ever again.

You know you can disable them. You would actually NOT purchase a car because of DRL's? I for one like them. I like seeing the amber lights from way off and I think they look good. I ride around with my parking and fog lights anyway.

I've always thought they were pointless. Pointless features on a car should go.

While they're spending all this study money, how about comparing the number of accidents/saved lives between ABS and DRL's, since one feature is now becoming optional. http://web.camaross.com/bb/rolleyes.gif

------------------
Mark

94 Z28, Red, A4, 3:23
Lone Mods--LPE CAI, !Lapeer Dragway.
(Hey, I'm a college boy I can't afford gobs of bolt-ons!)

Best time: 14.658 @ 95.1
with SES light on and Driver off! (First and only time at track)

The F-body will NEVER die.

Look at the Chevy/GMC trucks.

If they're going to have DRLs, at least fix it so that one isn't always burnt out! About 4 out of every 5 new GM trucks out there have one burned out DRL.

The mileage loss is roughly 1/4 MPG (of premium if you have a Camaro). That is also in addition to reduced battery life and bulb life as you stated above.

Also note that the studies often cited are from countries in the far north, which have much longer periods of dusk and darkness.

It also makes motorcyclists harder to see in the daytime, since most of them run with their lights on.


Next? Daytime Beeping Horns.

------------------
If it breaks, it wasn't high performance enough.

2001 Mustang Bullitt GT
2000 Jetta M5

LOL!! http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif

I don't think DRL's themselves had anything to do with those statistics. DRL's should be an option, a switch you can turn on and off. They are not only a stupid idea, they are stupid looking.

[This message has been edited by IZ28 (edited July 19, 2002).]

Maybe I'm in the minority here... but I like the DRL's. I think it's a small, in fact negligible cost over the life of the car. IF the impact is about 0.25 MPG, that's still only about 50 or 60 gallons per 100,000 miles of driving. However, the data I saw on the site referenced below said running 145W "dipped beams" (eurospeak for low beams) costs 0.1L/100km of extra consumption, which comes out a little lower yet, around 40 gallons per 100,000 miles. Plus, the company hosting that site has DRL's which only incur about 1/10 of that energy consumption... who's to say GM won't increase the efficiency of their DRL's in coming years?

http://www.racesearch.com/PDFCATALOGS/1676/13.pdf

Just from my own observation, I believe DRL's make a difference in avoiding accidents. One of my cars, my Camaro, does not have DRL's. I have been driving it this week to work... once today about 5pm I went thru the entrance to my place of employment, which has a guard. It must have been a shift change... one guard was getting out of his car with some fast food in his hands and the other was near his car. The one with the food turned toward me, his head was turning but did not stop when it pointed at my car, then he turned the rest of the way and WALKED RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY CAR. I was only going about 10 mph... but if I hadn't had my foot on the brake already, I definitely would have HIT HIM. I stopped (virtually no one stops there, and no one is required to unless flagged down by security) and the other guy waved me thru (he was kind of smiling, like a oops - thank you smile). I believe the fast-food guard would have seen me with DRL's.

Another thing about DRL's... they are not always a styling detriment. I like how they look on my Formula, and also on the Vette.

I am amazed someone would turn down an entire car because it has DRL's! That's your right guionM, but man... why? Especially when they can easily be disabled. It's not like a fatally flawed chassis design or something...

------------------
NBM 99Formula, DF Lid, K&N, SLP WS6 Takeoff Muffler | DFGreen 98 GTP, Insulated SLP K&N, !U!Res, transcooler
| Dark Red Metallic 1990 IROC-Z Camaro, stock

[This message has been edited by BigDarknFast (edited July 19, 2002).]

we had them on our 96 blazer and it used to go through a batterie every couple of months so me and my dad thought that maybe therer was a fuse we could pull becuase they do take energy to run.sure enough there was a fuse that said fog and drl took it out and to this day the batteir hasnt gone bad in about a year now.

I'm not understanding this battery impact stuff... granted there are conditions, such as idling in traffic, where the RPM's are too low for the alternator to be efficient, so a tiny discharge could go to the DRL's. But I don't see how such a small load and rate/magnitude of discharge could have any measurable effect on battery life. Statisticians have a name for effects this small... they call it "being down in the noise". I'd venture that DRL's have the same impact on battery life as the following:

1. Playing your stereo loud enough to make stop signs vibrate

2. Honking your horn and flashing your lights a lot due to road rage

3. Running your power windows down to tell every hottie you see your name and phone number at stoplights

------------------
NBM 99Formula, DF Lid, FRA, K&N, SLP WS6 Takeoff Muffler | DFGreen 98 GTP, Insulated SLP K&N, !U!Res, 3.5 Pulley, transcooler
| Brilliant Red Metallic 1990 IROC-Z Camaro, K&N, Camaro SS takeoff muffler

Is it easy to turn them off??

Do a search in LT1 or LS1 tech . Its been covered ALOT . The DRL module is right behind the radio . You can also diable the Auto-on headlights <---- a million times more annoying than DRL's ever could be .



------------------
Derek 95 Trans Am convertible
K&N fipk , CSI h20 pump , hooker lt's , mufflex 4" , LT1edit , ET streets , 373's , !A/C , !smog
Best Et 12.771@106.89
Best 60ft. 1.820
MTI/GTP stage 3 LT4 heads , cc306 , hyra-rev , 1.6's , r lifters , full manual 700r4 , ST3500 verter , roll bar and more all in the garage waiting for install .
92 Z28 - 5.7/G92 , stock daily driver

Unfortunately to the retarded general public the DRL's and Auto on headlights are considered luxary options in the car.

"Wow the headlights turn on all by themselves! WOOO!"

------------------
I WOULD RATHER PUSH A CAMARO THAN DRIVE AN IMPORT

1983Z28
Superramed roller 406 10.5 compression, AFR 195's and custom cam.

future mods:
N20 waiting to be installed

Wifes new car:

1995 Z28
AT, leather, T-tops bone stock for now. 250 RWHP 300 RWT 14.0 @ 99 MPH on a 2.2 60'

future mods:
header to tailpipe replacement and a cold air intake. Then I am just going to leave it alone (maybe) :D

No arguements here on the automatic headlights, what a useless item on an FBody. My wifes Buick has them, and I think it's ridiculous the way her headlights come on when we pull into our garage, or drive through a tunnel, or in the shade, or whatever. Thank God they're not installed on the Firebird/TA's like they are on the Camaro...I would have gone nuts if my headlights cycled like that all the time. I can see a use for them on minivans and luxury yachts and so forth. The types of cars that seem to have alot of drivers who don't notice when the sun goes down. But on average, I think the average Camaro/Firebird driver is with it enough to know to turn the lights on when it gets dark.

Regarding the DRL's, I wonder why they can't just make them so that when the switch is off, the lights are OFF. When you turn it to the first setting (the parking lights), THEN the high intensity front ambers come on, as well as the side and tail lights (since after all, you wouldn't want to get hit from behind would you?). And when you actually turn the headlights on, the front ambers would revert back to their normal brightness used w/ headlight operation.

Much of this argument has been based on the "pedestrian" not seeing your car, but I'm sure it applies to oncoming cars too. I remember the GM ad advertising these things showing how you could see a car like a mile or 2 away when before you could not. That's nice and all, but what difference does it make? I think the average driver w/ unblocked visibility should be able to see oncoming traffic far enough away that he can be aware of it's presence and recognize any potential conflicts (guy in the wrong lane for example). If somebody can't see a bright red formula coming at him in broad daylight, then maybe they shouldn't be driving.

------------------
2001 Formula
307RWHP/331RWTQ

Direct-Flo w/ Holley
!MAF screen
FRA
Flowmaster
Kirban Kwik Six
SLP STB and SFC's

Not an entire car. I simply would have bought a 1 year older Z28 (w/o DRLs) instead of the one I bought (I test drove my car 2 separate times in the daytime before I bought it).

Having bought my Z28, and seeing that it's DRLs can be disabled it isn't too much of an issue with me as much as it once was. but a good point was raised by WERM about DRLs on cars making motorcycles less visible. This strikes close to home because my dad (well into his 60s) is an avid motorcycle rider.

As I said, I would likely stop buying GM products if they succeed in making the goverment mandate DRLs on all cars sold in the US. GM won't let their service department disable them as it is, so I wouldn't put it past them to make it illegal for us to do it if it does become a goverment regulation.

They should make DRL's with LED's which are incredibly efficient, emit no heat, never burn out, and consume pretty much NO power at all and continue to use light bulbs for the primary parking lights & headlights.
It sounds funny at first because when you think LED's you think cheap remote control car joysticks and cheap 29-cent LED's you can get at radio shack. They remind you of low-tech basically. But the fact is that they've already been used successfully on cars, even by GM.. late model Caddy comes to mind. Next time you see a new 18-wheeler on the road, check the taillights.. they're likely to be LED's, as well as most newly installed intersection signals, the red/yellow/green are made of LED's.
One Jumbo white LED or a few small ones packed tightly, along with the proper parabolic mirror, would be bright enough and efficient enough to be a worthy replacement. I'm against DRL's for use in the United States since we're not as densely populated as Europe where they ran those tests, and our roads and pedestrian paths don't tend to be one & the same like they are over there. But if you're going to do it, do it efficiently.. LED's.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am (Y84), LU5/WS6/CC1/G80/J65/etc. 3,070 orig. miles (6/20/2002) - http://ohok.com/82recaro
1985 Base Firebird, F41/LB8/GU5/etc. CB radio, 142kmiles. http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsfb.jpg
1984 Firebird S/E, WS6/LL1/MD8/etc. All original, 102kmiles. Sold 5/02 http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsse.jpg

I used to really hate DRLs, but when you look at the other drivers on the road you have to wonder maybe they really are needed. Living in FL with all this rain really puts things in perspective. I've noticed that too many people refuse to turn on their lights in the rain or fog. All of them cars w/ no drls (duh) driving around in the pouring, blinding rain with zero lights. It seems a lot of people only turn their lights on when it gets really dark and they need them too see the road.

I still will disable them on any car I buy, but I won't complain unless GM hardwires them into something I can't disable.

The way I look at it is if the biggest problems I run into in life are DRL's and auto-on headlights, I'll be doing fairly well and probably be a relatively happy person.

------------------
2000 SS #1547
President,
Cadre Computer Resources, Inc.
www.ccr.com

DRLs are ridiculous.
Point 1:
How come every other GM or Toyota product with DRLs I see seems to have them on HIGH BEAM? Should this even be possible?

Point 2:
having DRLs probably makes the moronic masses even less likely to turn on their lights in early morning/evening/foggy conditions, where having the taillights on is crucial.

Point 3:
Rear foglights would be a MUCH more useful feature than DRLs, especially if we could train the public that in most day or nighttime conditions the fog lights should be OFF.

No way this feature should be forced on car-buyers. It should either be optional or easily defeatable (like a switch in the glove box). And BRIGHT DRLs should be illegal. Just like motorcyclists running their lights on bright 100% of the time. What an annoyance, potentially dangerous, too. I ride a bike and feel a lot safer with the light on dim in traffic. What good is blinding people going to do me?

Dan Baldwin
'95 Z28 M6 convertible

I actually like the daytime running lights. They really do improve the visibility of cars on the road, especially at twilight/dusk in the city when a lot of morons forget to turn their lights on, yet don't realize it because the street lighting is very bright. I've got them on my bonnie, and i've got 166,000 miles on it and have NEVER replaced a single headlight. While the '87 lesabre I had before it w/o DRL went through 2 headlight bulbs in the same timeframe.

I replace fog lights (at ~$9.00 a piece) about once every 3 months!

What's wrong with that picture!

------------------
'69 GTO 400 H.O. 350 HP
'96 Bonneville 231 S.D.
'96 Sunfire 2.4L H.O.

If it really is that often, what's wrong is you probably have a housing that is letting excess moisture in. I had the same problem on my car until I broke down and bought a new housing, haven't replaced one since.

------------------
Mark

94 Z28, Red, A4, 3:23
Lone Mods--LPE CAI, !Lapeer Dragway.
(Hey, I'm a college boy I can't afford gobs of bolt-ons!)

Best time: 14.658 @ 95.1
with SES light on and Driver off! (First and only time at track)

The F-body will NEVER die.

I have had two cars in the past 4 years with DRL, and I've never had a bulb burn out, or a battery drain. I totally forgot my cars even had this feature until I read this post. I also think they are a good idea. Like somebody said, I've driven through many thunderstorms during the day, and have seen way to many people without their lights on.
GuionM, I'm surprised at how strongly you feel about this issue, why does it irritate you so much?

Cost more???

Lets see...my package of two DRL were 1.50...and they lasted five years and I think we get better gas mileage now then before 97....I like them and I think they make our cars stand out in a crowd even more...especially the C5

------------------
98 Z28 NBM (A4)
Mods... Direct-Flo Lid, SLP Loudmouth Res, Tbyrne Maf Ends, EGR!

You have to wonder maybe they really are useless, since we all got along without them fine for a whole century and they haven't made things safer. We were driving in the same blinding rain and fog before.

I mean in Europe, maybe, because there people tend to disregard speed limits and even lanes. When I lived in Athens (not Georgia but Greece), nobody EVER paid attention to lane boundaries. It was just an accepted fact. Fit in whenever you can and pray you don't collide. And 80% or more of the cars NEVER went by the posted speed limits. I'm not exaggerating. It's a case of doing something illegal en masse and effectively reducing your chances of being ticketed. Then you factor in the very dense cities of Europe. Walkways and roads are sometimes the SAME space, and even if not, they almost always directly border each other. Most cities are not grid-type layouts like NYC where you know you're down a given path in a certain order. European cities are a lot less linear and they're full if hidden passages and shortcuts, curves, semicircles, etc. and so many endless lines of TAXI's everywhere I might add, and everyone is always striving to save time and go the quickest route, at any cost. maybe DRL's are needed there, but NOT here. Fact is the US is a very spread out country with good insulation between walkways and roadways. You cannot walk to any grocery store and back in a reasonable amount of time. In europe you can, because you're just walking down the road in a tightly packed city with the irresponsible driving I mentioned above. Besides DRL = DAYtime Running Lights. If one driver is unable to see another car in the friggin light of day, their license should be revoked for the safety of all other road users. I go back to my point that the auto industry and zillions of drivers got along great without DRL's for 100 years. The accident rate hasn't really been proven to decrease from DRL's so WTF are they for? and yes they are usually the high-beam lamps! How annoying and distracting.

[This message has been edited by kizz (edited July 23, 2002).]

Now thats an even dumber idea. Will seatbelts become an option next? http://web.camaross.com/bb/rolleyes.gif

I think DRLs look good on Camaros, Firebirds, and Corvettes. I think they look dumb on regular cars, where the DRL is lit up on the inside of the bulb.

One thing that is stupid is that DRLs should be turned off whenever your parking lights go on. Nothing looks dumber than some guy in a Cadillac or a Bonniville driving with the parking lights, fog lights, and DRLs on.

And for us pre-97 guys, we've always been able to turn our DRLs off. They're called PARKING LIGHTS http://web.camaross.com/bb/cool.gif

------------------
--David--
1995 white Firebird 3.4 V6 A4 w/ T-tops
Mods:Kenwood KDC516S stereo, front and rear Alpine speakers, Flowmaster 80 series, Firebat and Autografics decals, Moroso CAI, Rally Foglights, Painted interior (Silver Metallic), 3 10" MTX Thunder 6000 subs, BMR STB, Zaino, !speed, !horsepower Help CT get a dragstrip!

Good point! I'll check that out...I don't understand why GM used such an expensive bulb for a light that does NOTHING functionally anyway!


------------------
'69 GTO 400 H.O. 350 HP
'96 Bonneville 231 S.D.
'96 Sunfire 2.4L H.O.

It took me all of about an hour to disable my DRL's and auto headlights. Took out the radio, removed black box behind it, opened it soldiered 2 areas together and replaced black box and radio. I hated them on my 98 S-10 and in 99 they made it so that the interior light override switch could turn them off on the trucks. Made me wish I bought a 99.

------------------
James
------------------
2001 Z28 Hard Top Coupe Stripper,
NBM, M6, Power Steering Cooler
MI plate: 01 Z
Best 1/4: 12.097 @ 113.96
Mods