Chevrolet Malibu sales jump 51.5%; dealers pleased

Page 2 of 4  
SMS wrote:


One would think that the replaceable bulb non-sealed headlight housing would mean changing a burnt-out bulb easy as pie. Not in this crazy world. I just replaced my son's bulb in his Nissan and it involved removing the headlight housing secured by 3 nuts that required undoing the fender liner. What a drag.
OTOH, people don't buy or not buy cars based on headlights. Or do they? :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some 50% of the people buy based on the cup holder ;>)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

That's the way many guys pick their women--- holder size...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HLS wrote:

That's nutty as hell but cup holders probably has swayed a few folks to buy one car over another. I'm not picky at all and any car is just fine with me - just as long as they have spring loaded change compartments under the dash on the driver's side...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dsi1 wrote:

I recall when cup holders first started to appear and the Camry lacked them and the Accord had them, or vice-versa. It apparently _was_ the deciding factor between two vehicles, very similar in other regards.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One has to wonder how many accidents have been caused because of the presence of cup holders. I don't recall having a bottle of water or coffee in the car all that often 20 years ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mikewestvale wrote:

I must like to live dangerously; I've logged lots of miles in various German cars with a cup of coffee jammed between my legs.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dsi1 wrote:

Well, there's a couple things that would be deal killers for me...
1) high beam DRLs (unfortunately, this excludes a LOT of GM cars) 2) headlights as simply awful as, say, those originally fitted to a US-market Corrado
Extra consideration would be given to vehicles with
1) "harmonized" ECE/DOT approved headlights 2) standard-sized sealed beams, which are easily replaced with E-codes
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

Forgot to mention, an acceptable alternative would be a vehicle that might not be factory equipped with particularly good headlights but is sold in identical form in European markets, so decent headlights could be somewhat readily obtained (e.g. aforementioned VW Corrado...) was reminded of this as I do have a set of Corrado E-codes and a friend just offered to buy them
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

Yeah, those are horrible, though mostly for other drivers!
In any case, I'd disconnect DRLs on any car I bought, there are just way too many issues with them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

OK, so some folks will not buy a car based on headlights. I'm feeling kind of dumb now cause the only thing I understand is that you don't like daytime running lights. This is ok - just as long as you know what you know what you're talking about.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dsi1 wrote:

I used to commute at night on a completely unlit 2-lane road; the benefit of good headlights was immediately apparent. Fortunately my daily back then was a Porsche 944 so replacing the old non-halogen sealed beams with Cibie H4s was easy.
My objection to the high beam DRLs is based on having to share the road with vehicles so equipped. It's painful to have one coming at you when it's overcast or near sundown, unless the driver has manually turned his low beam headlights on. Old saturns are especially awful.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

When I visited the Seattle area in 1987, I did notice that folks would drive with their headlights on in the area where my brother-in-law lived. I thought it was strange but evidently,this was considered a safety measure for travel on those 2 lane roads.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dsi1 wrote:

There's other problems with DRLs, besides the particularly poor implementation GM has done on vehicles by using the high beams at reduced brightness.
Drivers with DRLs often forget to turn on their low beam headlights in rain or fog and at dusk or dawn. This is especially dangerous because the taillights do not come on until the low beams are turned on. Many drivers believe that in rain or fog the DRLs are sufficient and fail to turn on their low beams to activate their tail lights. When it is dark, the lack of dashboard lights is an indicator that the low beams and tail lights are not on, but in daytime conditions where the low beams should be used there is no indication that the DRLs, not the lowbeams, are on.
In 1998, after receiving hundreds of complaints, NHTSA acknowledged that the intensity limits were too high and proposed reductions in DRL intensity. NHTSA cited a study by Kirkpatrick, et. al. (1989), that said that at 2000cd, the glare from DRLs was rated at no worse than "just unacceptable" in 80% of the responses. At 4000cd, the glare was rated no worse than "disturbing" in 80% of the responses. These subjective ratings are based on the DeBoer scale. Corresponding to these ratings, they found that at 4000cd the probability that the rearview mirror would be dimmed was about 70%. At 2000cd the dimming probability was 40%. At 1000cd, the dimming probability dropped to 10%. The NHTSA has now proposed that the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted. Expect the automakers to oppose this since it would add cost to do DRLs properly.
Whats good about DRLs is that they are proven to reduce head-on collisions on two lane roads, especially at dawn and dusk. This is what they were designed to do, and if they were implemented just to do this then you wouldn't see much opposition to them. You often see signs on roads in California proclaiming "Daylight Safety Test Section -- Turn on Headlights." These are the places where DRLs would be useful. Sadly, instead of coming up with a way to use DRLs only when appropriate, certain parties would like them to be on all the time. Why? Money. It's cheaper to implement a lame system than a well-designed system.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That sounds like a problem with the driver's, not the vehicle, or the DRL system. Hell, I still see people on vehicles without auto lights driving around in the pitch black with no headlights on. Should the auto makers have to put a sign on the steering wheel to remind people to turn there lights on? Of course not. Regardless of what systems the vehicle has, the *driver* still needs to be in control, and needs to be intelligent enough to operate it. DRL's, ABS, Traction Control, etc., are all great things, but in the hands of a know-nothing driver, they are all useless.

A very heated DRL argument went on in the GM newsgroup last year, and it ended up being some agreed with DRL's and there function, and others didn't. Just like everything else in the world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
80 Knight wrote:

It's aggravated by the DRL system. These drivers often mistakenly believe that their lights are on because of the DRLs, where if there were no DRLs they'd actually be turning on their lights.

Actually the opinions don't really matter, it's the facts. The facts are that DRLs do serve to increase visibility and reduce accidents in certain situations, but according to statistical data, the only place where there was a net reduction in fatalities was for pedestrians.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:59:30 -0700, SMS cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

It would be worth looking into the archives of this group. The discussion that took place on this topic previously, reveal a lot more "facts" about what the statistics really show, than most people thought would be the case.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some people don't know how to use DRL's properly, so let's just get rid of them. Some people still haven't figured out that you're not supposed to pump the brakes, when you have anti-locks. Let's get rid of them, too.
Some people oversteer after dropping one wheel off the roadway, and collide with oncoming traffic. Let's get rid of that pesky power steering and save people from themselves. Some people leave their small children in cars with the windows up, till they die. Damn windows, let's get rid of them.

Hell, we don't need no reduction in pedestrian fatalities. Down with DLR's!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The DRL's have nothing to do with it. If you own and operate a vehicle, you should know when to turn your lights on, and when they can be off. Do we get rid of every safety feature because some are too lazy to know how to use them?

Facts scmaks. Back when the original argument went on in this group, there were thousand's of "facts" presented. The only true "fact" is that most automobiles are equipped with DRL's, and every driver should know what they are, and when to actually use there true headlights.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
80 Knight wrote:

You've hit on the problem, the safety features should be passive and not make the vehicle actually more dangerous to operate for the owner, as well as more dangerous to others on the road.
It's not only their problem that they're too lazy or dim-witted to understand that DRLs do not equal headlights+tail lights, it's a problem for everyone that's on the road with them.
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.