The one thing that irritates me about GM's cars
07-19-2002, 01:20 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
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.
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.
07-19-2002, 02:16 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
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.
This could become a cool thread... Lets see what other peeves and public-BS-tactics get posted...
[edit]
[This message has been edited by ProudPony (edited July 19, 2002).]
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.
This could become a cool thread... Lets see what other peeves and public-BS-tactics get posted...
[edit][This message has been edited by ProudPony (edited July 19, 2002).]
07-19-2002, 02:45 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 188
...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).]
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).]
07-19-2002, 03:17 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,024
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.
07-19-2002, 04:04 PM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
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 $$$, a move I feel is a mistake. Unlike DRLs, there is no doubt whatsoever that ABS has saved alot of lives let alone prevent accidents.
But if GM succeeds in convincing the goverment to make DRLs mandatory with all automakers, I'm not likely to buy GM ever again.
I can see the possibility in those countries GM mentioned in their study (fog, blowing snow, haze, longer winter nights). But I would really be interested in seeing the results of a study of the lower 48.
I call DRLs only a pet peeve because (so far) they can be disabled, and as long as they can, it's not much more than an irritation with me. But I don't buy GM's safety argument while at the same time ABS is being removed from some cars to save GM $$$, 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.
07-19-2002, 04:13 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Lilburn, GA, USA
Posts: 2,072
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.
07-19-2002, 04:44 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
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.
------------------
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.
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.
------------------
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.
07-19-2002, 05:48 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,873
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ProudPony:
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.
</font>
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.
</font>
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
07-19-2002, 06:50 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: At car shows and cruise nights!
Posts: 3,647
LOL!!
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).]
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).]
07-19-2002, 09:16 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Commerce, mi, USA
Posts: 2,139
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).]
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).]
07-19-2002, 09:34 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: FL
Posts: 21
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.
07-19-2002, 09:42 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Commerce, mi, USA
Posts: 2,139
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
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