Auto headlamp malfunction

I have a 2002 Sable sedan premium with an auto on/off headlamp feature. Presume same as Taurus.
In auto switch position, during daylight my light STAY on. I am assuming the
proble is the photocell mounted on the leading top edge of dashboard. I had a similar problem with an older Cadillac and switched out the photocell to solve the problem.
Question is. How to access and replace the photocell without tearing the dash apart. Is it ebulb cover a snap-in? are there leads to the cell long enough to pull through hole and work with. How do I access this cell.
Any input greatly appreciated.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
leave it alone, tell your insurance agent it has daytime running lights, and get the reduced safety equipment rate

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom wrote:

What is the reduced safety equipment rate?
Running lights are mandatory where I live and i can't understand why they aren't in states in all the USA. Are they mandatory in some?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Picasso wrote:

There's no "reduced rate" with the vast majority of automotive insurers in the USA, simply because they're not an officially recognized safety device here, in spite of what General Motors would have you believe. There my be SOME crash avoidance advantage in far northern countries like Canada or the Netherlands, but below 45º N latitude (most of USA), they do nothing except annoy a lot of people, while putting motorcycle riders and pedestrians at increased risk.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
not so in new jersey at least. if you have DRL on your car, you get a 3% rate decrease. and lojack with a pats key gets you a 10% discount

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom wrote:

not only that but make the car a hell of a lot easier to see coming.
I am an advocate of them. But then again, when people become so used to something, it seems odd to see a vehicle without.... such as when many American visitors are up here.
I drive a bike, and they don't bother me, that's for sure... not quite sure what was meant by that.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Picasso wrote:

Really? Here are a few letters to the NHTSA (there are thousands of other letters along these lines): http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf101/464289_web.pdf http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/456622_web.pdf http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/459646_web.pdf
As far as seeing a car coming toward me with its lights on, who cares? That car’s on the other side of the road! I’m concentrating on the car ahead of me, next to me (either side) or the car behind me – difficult when the car behind has the damn high beam DRLs turned on and I have my mirrors turned to nighttime dimming so I can see the cars that it would be most likely necessary to avoid. DRLs make it safer to drive? I don’t think so.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sharon Cooke wrote:

I don't know what in the hell kind of DRL's you have in the US, but the DRL's in canada are about 25w.
I suppose you could argue also that running DRL's put additional draw on the system, reducing fuel consumption ;P
Anyway, your arguement that they bother you while driving in the DAYLIGHT seems quite difficult... better put out that sun... better yet, drive at night without lights... lights certainly "appear" Brighter at night... especially when raining.
I really have a difficult time thinking they bother you while driving in daylight hours
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Picasso wrote:

The wattage limitation imposed by transport Canada (actually, lumen limits) may be one of the problems in communication between drivers in Canada and the USA as far as the evil of DRLs is concerned. What we have here (USA) is a god awful mess of full strength low beam DRLs, reduced intensity low AND HIGH beam DRLs, turn signal DRLs and - worst of all - people that don't have actual DRLs but drive around with their high beams on, pretending that they do. As far the sun bothering me in daylight, no, but that's because there's only ONE up there, not 15 or 20 of varying intensities, locations and movements, as is the case with DRLs. Night driving and the attendant necessary headlights don’t bother me in the least, since then I can use my dimming mirrors safely and not have to worry about DRLs causing ‘masking’ of other vehicles in traffic without DRLs. Of course, I do worry about DRLs at night, because careless drivers drive with just the DRL headlights on, with no SIDE or REAR illumination are disasters waiting to happen.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Picasso wrote:

They're a useless waste. Even GM recently claimed on their web site to only 47 lives saved by them over 10 years. Which seems statistically insignificant. And at 450,000,000 to 600,000,000 barrels of additional oil consumed annually just to power them in North America, seems to me the DRL experiment turned out to be a huge bust in GMs face.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom wrote:

In New York state also. But that is because the state legislature mandated the insurance reduction, not because there was necessarily any data to suggest a reduction in accident rates for DRL equipped cars.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
i never said they did any good, just that you get a reduced rate on your auto insurance if you can prove you have them.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom wrote:

In some states yes. In most states that isn't so though.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom wrote:

Or just use the switch and save the bother and the expense of replacing the ambient light sensor.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[This followup was posted to alt.autos.ford and a copy was sent to the cited author.]

That sensor is also used by the auto-climate system. It does double-duty as the 'sunload sensor.' If it always thinks it is dark out, your system may not cool as well as it could.
You can initiate a self-test of the climate system like this: Hold the OFF and Floor (arrow pointing to foot of little person icon) buttons down, then press the AUTO button within 2 seconds. Wait about 30 seconds for self-test to run. Display will show ---. Any error codes will display numbers. Write them down. 888 means test is complete. To exit, press Temp- to retain intermittent codes, or front-defrost to clear the codes.
Sunload sensor errors will be 051 or 053 if a short, and 050 or 052 if open. If there is a failure, there is a checklist to follow.
--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.