Cancelling DRL on Impala 2003

Page 2 of 5  
I've got a question..........concerning the new cars that turn the headlights on when you turn the wipers on.
I assume the headlights come on when you turn the wipers to low, med,
high or delay.
When you hit the mist cycle and the wipers make one sweep - Do the headlights come on for one blink & go out when the wipers return to park ? Does anybody know ?
If the headlights do come on that would be annoying to have a guy behind you that hits the mist cycle once every block and a half and the headlights come on for 3 seconds then go off then on then off again..
========Harryface ======== 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE 3800 V6 ( C ), Black/Slate Grey _~_~_~_~277, 028 miles_~_~_ ~_~_
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harry Face wrote:

light outside it right at that threshold where the lights come on for a mile or two then go off for a bit then back on the off. I bet that annoys the guy in front.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I hate it when people feel the need to drive during the day with their HIGH BEAMS on! High beams don't make a difference in the daylight people! No, these aren't cars with high-beam DRLs, they're from LONG before DRLs...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I've got a question..........concerning the new cars that turn the | headlights on when you turn the wipers on. | | I assume the headlights come on when you turn the wipers to low, med, | high or delay.
My understanding is that is true. The Malibu I had didn't have the wiper cross-connect though.
| | When you hit the mist cycle and the wipers make one sweep - Do the | headlights come on for one blink & go out when the wipers return to park | ? Does anybody know ?
No. It's my understanding that there is some delay built in...probably to keep that from happening. I got that from a NG member here that lives in Houston that I conversed with that had a Bonneville with the feature. I think he said it was about 20 seconds or so after turning on the wipers before the lights came on. He daid sometimes the lights would come on when he was using the wiper-washers.
| | If the headlights do come on that would be annoying to have a guy behind | you that hits the mist cycle once every block and a half and the | headlights come on for 3 seconds then go off then on then off again.. |
Well that situation happens a lot anyway when you live in a area where one drives under building bridges (between buildings in cities), long bridge overpasses, etc. (or heavy traffic that causes you to be under this type of overpass for longer than 8 seconds). My Malibu would switch to headlight mode after about 8 seconds under one of these structures (usually in traffic) and then switch back to DRL mode after 18-20 seconds after coming back into the light. Of course, can't see the dimmed radio or odo sometimes. It's actually pretty annoying, if you ask me (but I think the old timers in the NG that know me already know my opinion over this useless gimmicky stuff) ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was driving an 01 LeSabre from Green Bay back to Milwaukee and we ran into some really thick fog or really light rain and I had to use my wipers to clear the windshield. Everytime that I hit the mist thing to get the wipers going the lights went on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Hi, | | I want to cancel the DRL (Dayrunning light) on my Impala 2003, so i would | open light manually. | | I there a relay, fuse or connector to unplug??? | | STF | |
You're out of luck, even though US (and most state) written vehicle lighting laws are very clear that the operator is the sole entity authorized to be in control of the lights on the vehicle, GM has decided to insinuated themselves into that process. Sure a operator can decide to use the car's automatic system, but it's clear that the operator is to decide what is best for them.
To your question...disconnecting the DRL resistor or pulling the fuse will disable the DRLs. However, that act will set a code in the BCM and cause your "Service Vehicle Soon" light to come on. GM won't disable either. Although other manufacturers that have DRLs will honor their customer's request, GM won't.
Enjoy your new Impala! :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm trying to develop a workaround for Impala's and Monte Carlo's, (and anything else that is a W-body) that will disable the DRL's, not turn on a trouble light, and it easy to do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:47:48 -0700, "Paradox"

Have they done away with the trick where you can disable the DRL's by starting the car with the parking brake engaged?
That's been my workaround in my 96 Beretta.
PITA, granted, but at least you have an option.
Rick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thre trick still works on my 2000 Impala, but the parking brake chime sounds continuously until the brake is released then the DRL's come back on. Roy
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Thre trick still works on my 2000 Impala, but the parking brake chime sounds | continuously until the brake is released then the DRL's come back on.
Setting the parking brake method also disables the anti-lock brake system on some models...not a good idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I suppose if you just put the parking brake on a "liitle" and it's just for a short approach to the guard/gatehouse it's liveable. Personally I would replace the photoresistor with a fixed value resistor and call it a done deal if I were still in the military. I don't like the idea of rolling with the brake on, specially on a somewhat regular basis. The photo resistor only works for the headlamps though, not DRL.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:46:35 -0500, "James C. Reeves"

** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I suppose if you just put the parking brake on a "liitle" and it's | just for a short approach to the guard/gatehouse it's liveable. | Personally I would replace the photoresistor with a fixed value | resistor and call it a done deal if I were still in the military. I | don't like the idea of rolling with the brake on, specially on a | somewhat regular basis. The photo resistor only works for the | headlamps though, not DRL. |
Some people in this NG have done the fixed resistor trick you suggest. Another wired a LED to the ignition switch to place over the sensor and covered it with black electrical tape to disable the auto system. Some customers obviously hate the system enough to go through all that trouble because they have no remedy/option from the manufacturer, which is really rather sad when you stop to think about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I find it odd that GM implemented the "DRLs on when in gear only" thing on the trucks and not the cars. My 2000 S-10 only has the DRLs on in gear, and it's not that they go on the first time it's put in gear and not go off till the truck is shut off, they go off anytime it's put in Park.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | I'm trying to develop a workaround for Impala's and Monte Carlo's, (and | anything else that is a W-body) that will disable the DRL's, not turn on a | trouble light, and it easy to do. | |
You'll be rich...good luck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So it really begs the question.... why the hell are they so motivated in this, that they risk alienating customers or would-be customers? What do they get from forcing this DRL shit on us that they want soooo bad? You would think they would want to please customers, especially when it costs LESS to do so. Hmm.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:55:04 -0500, "James C. Reeves"

** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| So it really begs the question.... why the hell are they so motivated | in this, that they risk alienating customers or would-be customers? | What do they get from forcing this DRL shit on us that they want soooo | bad? You would think they would want to please customers, especially | when it costs LESS to do so. Hmm. |
That is the $64,000 question. I've asked that very question of GM by telephone, email and by letters to Mr. Lutz himself. The call center person I was assigned wouldn't return my calls, the email response was "we will no longer accept email from you on this subject" (I saved that email and the hundreds of people I showed it too were quite taken aback that GM would send a customer such a email. The two letters to Mr. Lutz went unanswered. Your excellent insight is so obvious that one would think that such a elementary concept would be realized by the GM executives (wouldn't you think?). Obviously their reaction to the subject is to crawl into a hole and bury their heads. They quite obviously don't want to deal with it at all for some reason.
On the cost question, one common theory that is thrown around is that forcing DRLs on the US allows GM to produce one inventory stock of each model for both Canada/US consumption since Canada does require DRLs by law, thus saves GM some amount of re-tooling at assembly and inventory control costs. But that doesn't make complete sense to me since their competitors manage around that just fine and with today's technology the "feature" activation is largely a simple BCM programming change to set one way or the other (since GM needs to accommodate police/military applications that need DRLs to be off regardless). Plus they need to provide other changes for the different markets anyway, such as different speedo faces.
So, who knows. I'm sure it is a contributing factor to their continued loss of market share though.
One interesting note. The first couple of years that Toyota had DRLs they were also mandatory. Now it's a $40 option (or so I've heard). Toyota's management out smarted GM's...they provide what ALL customers want (so they don't loose some of them) and also make a little extra cash on the side to boot! :-) Although a small percentage of the buyers actually take the option. Now recently Toyota is claiming in their commercials that they "outsell every other car line in America". GM..wake up!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:02:15 -0500, "James C. Reeves"

I can _almost_ see a response like that provided that they had already answered your question or addressed your concern, and you kept asking. But they gave you no response other than to say they never were going to respond. That is a TERRIBLE attitude to take towards a customer. It's almost unfathomable that any business would take such a stance, especially a large one that has real competition.

Even so you would at least expect some sugar coated canned statement meant to dry you up and let you blow away.

Right. I agree completely. They can make them just one way and do a simple BCM configuration change for U.S. customers. No real cost there. Heck, they could even set it up to be where you pay the dealer $25 to make the change. So as long as we're getting into theoretical territory... I have another potential theory that might explain it, even considering the simple BCM change ability.
I'm sure we're all aware of the tort and liability problems we all (especially deep pockets) face in the U.S. today. Could it be that GM gets some kind of liability insurance break for having this "safety" feature essentially mandatory on it's vehicles? Even if they are self insured they may see it as a reduction in liability risk.
Now, I'm not saying that DRLs make things safer. Initial logic would imply they would since they aid in visibility, and visibility is a proven virtue for safety. But things aren't always simple and there can be many other factors that figure in. In the end, large sample statistics should be able to observe the reality. According to what some have reported here, such statistics do not show any marked improvement in safety for DRL forced vehicles. Maybe GM should pay attention.

No joke. If the giant doesn't wake up soon, he may find himself all pinned down & tied up; unable to perform.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

visibility. Most drivers don't put their headlights on untill it's dark. It really doesn't cost you anything because they are on reduced voltage. Don't be so anal. Shees! some people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hello. If you've followed this thread at all you should have learned a couple of things by now:
1. Despite casual inclinations to the contrary, DRL aren't proven to enhance safety. In fact, some have sited evidence which indicates there is no meaningful difference between those vehicles so equipped and those which are not.
2. Many drivers in here like to control if / when to turn on / off the lights, and do in fact mind when their options are taken from them.
3. Just because you are someone who doesn't require proof or else maybe just doesn't mind having his options taken away, doesn't give you the right to insult those who do.
Have a nice day. Sheesh.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

other, maybe anal was a bad choice of words. This thing about "having control" is a bit strange don't you think? I don't like having my choices taken away from me either, but I'm not going to flip over my car turning the lights on. If that were my biggest worry, I'd be a very happy man :-)) As far as proof is concerned, I know I can see cars sooner if they have their lights on. Wouldn't that make me less likely to make a mistake. Have a nice day too :-))
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.