One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

The offensiveness of DRL's is that they are a significant drain all of the
time. Power steering, power windows, and AC only really draw power when
they are used. Power brakes use throttle body vacuum, which is nearly free
(cost of power brakes is part of the penalty for throttling the engine).
SoCAM (the group shaking down malls and dentists for playing the radio where
other people can hear it, without paying a license fee) will eventually
get around to suing everybody who play copywritten music where anybody can
hear it without paying for it (this was recently slashdotted).

That makes three of us, but I will claim to being merely Canadian,
not an idiot.

 

Actually, auto boxes have improved so much recently that the economy
benefit of a manual is less than you might think. Some of the very
latest types are actually *better* than a manual (but admittedly most
of them are not very pleasant to drive!)

The problem for the auto makers is that offering a manual box option
is actually pretty expensive - you need to design the box itself (or
licence it in from an outside company at considerable expense), modify
a whole load of things in the engine ECU to match the characteristics
of the manual box, certify emissions and durability, etc, etc. If only
a small number of people will take up the option then it's just not
worth doing. Admittedly though, the demand may actually be much larger
than is generally believed - since manuals aren't an option on most
medium and large vehicles, the makers have no way of knowing how many
people would choose one if it was offered.

Tony

 

And those cost how much to replace?

 

A significant drain?! This just keeps getting better and better. Whether
you love or hate em DRL's are not a significant energy waster, this is a
stupid argument. And some people are too stupid or just don't care to turn
their lights on in low visibility conditions, so there is a need for them.
I seem to recall people criticizing the addition of a 3rd brake light as
needless. I used to think so too. But, look at how many people seldom
check to see if their brake lights are working. At least now there is a 1
in 3 chance that you'll see a brake light!

 

Power steering: Significant engine power is drawn only intermittently and
at low vehicular speeds.

Power brakes: No.

Power windows: Minimal power, very intermittently.

HID headlamps: use less power than halogen headlamps.

Air conditioning: Uses engine power, but consumes less of it than driving
with one or more windows open above approximately 45 mph.

Stereos: Obviously.

Thing is, there are currently-available ways of implementing DRLs so that
their power consumption -- and therefore their fuel consumption -- is a
tiny fraction of what most DRLs consume. It's not an either/or issue.

 

Yep.

 

Please repost; you obviously accidentally hit "send" before including the
support for your implication that the extra fuel consumption and resultant
pollution from DRLs is consequence-free.

 

DRL's don't turn on the lights in low visibility conditions.
Infact, I'd argue the percentage of idiots driving in the rain/snow/fog
without proper lighting has gone UP since DRL's were introduced.

Ray
01 Trans Am - all lights controlled by the DRIVER.

 

New Audi A8.

They already have. Luxeon Star, etc.

LED headlamp prototypes are well along. half-decent performance potential,
power consumption about the same as current HIDs, much more compact
physically.

DS

 

A significant drain.

Go back and read the first post in the thread, which has the power
consumption worked out mathematically -- in actual gallons of gasoline.
You can convert to litres if you wish, but the facts trump your opinion.

Nope. DRLs are not designed or intended to compensate for improper use of
lights in low-visibility conditions. That is why they are called DAYTIME
running lights. Bad weather and darkness still call for appropriate use of
the vehicles main headlamps. DRLs not combined with complete automatic
control of all vehicular lights aggravate the tendency for some people to
misuse their vehicle's lights. ("Oh, my lights come on by themselves, so I
don't have to do anything now that it's raining/foggy/dark").

Some people did that. But it's not relevant to this discussion, which is
about the fuel consumption of DRLs.

 

I far prefer top posts as well. I'm fully capable of scrolling down if I
need to get additional context from an earlier post. I often see long
threads with an inane bottom posted "Yup, me too, har har har" or the
equivlent...

Brian

 

Sorry, but he's right. Manual transmission cars HAVE to be operated with
those sudden throttle changes, automatic cars only see them occasionally
(and never during the certification testing procedures). Plus, with the
PCM in control of spark, fuel, AND shifting, the during-shift emissions
are virtually eliminated with an automatic. It is a simple fact that
this is why manual transmissions are getting so rare.

 

That's actually been true for over 10 years now... another reason that
automatics are so heavily favored that many car lines aren't even made
with a manual option anymore. They go a long way toward helping the
manufacturers meet CAFE requirements.

 

Then you SHOULD be able to produce some non-stupid math that disproves
the article.... I'm still waiting.

Intuition: 0
Mathematics: 1

 

Bob, you're absolutely right. There are situations in which bottom-posting
is appropriate, situations in which top-posting is appropriate, and
situations in which interspersed posting is appropriate. These types who
bitch about top-posting as though it's equivalent to standing up at a
fancy restaurant and taking a shit on the table remind me of those
annoying little yappy dogs -- except the dogs' arguments are usually more
cogent.

 

As well as the percentage of idiots driving with their high-beams on in
traffic, and the percentage of idiots driving with nothing but DRLs on
in the middle of the night.

 

Oh save it already. The proper way to post is to STICK TO THE SUBJECT
and make an intelligent contribution, and where you put your text is
irrelevant.

I do agree with trimming, though.

 

Which begs the question: "WHY???"

How do DRLs improve GM's profits? I know it only costs them a fraction
of a cent per car, given the asinine way they implement DRLs, but where
do they recoup that half cent anyway???

 

From their Canadian models. It saves having to have two different wiring
schemes for two different countries.

 

Then just delete everything and post only text that you type. If you're
not responding to a specific point, there's no need to include the
quoted text.