Was supposed to be an Impala rental report... Camry rental report

Page 2 of 3  
snipped-for-privacy@sonic.net (Timothy J. Lee) wrote in message


WRONG! GM uses either the parking lights or the low-beam lights with reduced intensity. At least that's how it was with my Alero and is with my Bonneville and my Intrigue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mailandnews.com says...

And my Grand Am.
--

Drum-

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | > | > During low light daytime conditions, high beam DRLs (as used by GM, BMW, | > and Toyota) can be annoying. | | WRONG! GM uses either the parking lights or the low-beam lights with | reduced intensity. At least that's how it was with my Alero and is | with my Bonneville and my Intrigue.
Earlier Saturn's and today's Monte's, Impala's, LeSabres (I could go on) use high beam DRL implementations. There was a time when GM used high beam implementation on it's mid-sized SUV's which was really a problem since the highbeam lamps are much higher off the ground in the 1st place in those cases.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ever see a 1996+ Saturn SL/SW? Or similar year S-10 pickup or Blazer?
Parking lamp DRLs aren't very good either, since they can give false signals. A quick glance (not as long as the blinking time) at the front of a GM car shows the left turn signal on. Is it (a) signaling left (no DRL), (b) not signaling (right DRL burned out), or (c) signaling right (has DRL).
The best DRL setup would be separate white lights in front like in the newest generation GM large pickups and associated SUVs. Although they seem to have chosen a bulb type that burns out quickly (perhaps good for those who don't want DRLs, but those people can just remove the bulbs if they don't want DRLs in the first place).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Most of the newer 2000+ GM vehicles utilize the high beams (electrically placed in series for reduced brightness) as the DRL's. -- markwb 2001 Bonneville SLE

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"James C. Reeves" wrote in message news:

I find this figure a bit suspect, but I'd imagine it pales next to the amount of fuel consumed by people who run their AC when it's 72 degrees outside. Or the zillions of unnecessary trips taken (shuttling kids to every imaginable activity, trips to the store for 1 or 2 items, etc).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| "James C. Reeves" wrote in message news: | | | > 600,000,000 gallons of gas used per year unnecessarily in the USA alone to | > produce the required energy to light them = unnecessary pollutants. | | I find this figure a bit suspect, but I'd imagine it pales next to the | amount of fuel consumed by people who run their AC when it's 72 | degrees outside. Or the zillions of unnecessary trips taken | (shuttling kids to every imaginable activity, trips to the store for 1 | or 2 items, etc).
One item something can easily be done about it. The other...not so easy. And they'd use less fuel on those "zillions" of trips if they could run with the lights off (when appropriate). Marketing and sales gimmicks are never good reasons to be wasteful.
BTW, cars typically run more efficiently _at highway speeds_ with the A/C on (if needed) vs. open windows. The added wind drag caused by open windows/sunroofs, etc. typically causes greater fuel consumption compared to running with the A/C on and the windows closed (in most cases).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just doing some math here... According to http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html US gasoline consumption was 371.6 Million Gallons / Day in 2002. * 365 days works out to 137,276,500,000 gallons / year. (137.2 * 10^9).
600,000,000 gallons is 00.437% of that total.
Figure 100 Watts for a pair of DRLs 1 Horsepower = 746 Watts
A motor running at about 50 - 100 HP (not near full throttle) would be between 37300 - 74600 W. So 100 W lamps would be using 00.268% to 00.536% of that HP (and thus gasoline).
The numbers check out, at least within an order of magnitude.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hmmmm. how much gas to charge the CELL PHONE?
wrote in

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Just doing some math here... | According to http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html | US gasoline consumption was 371.6 Million Gallons / Day in 2002. * 365 | days works out to 137,276,500,000 gallons / year. (137.2 * 10^9). | | 600,000,000 gallons is 00.437% of that total. | | Figure 100 Watts for a pair of DRLs | 1 Horsepower = 746 Watts | | A motor running at about 50 - 100 HP (not near full throttle) | would be between 37300 - 74600 W. | So 100 W lamps would be using 00.268% to 00.536% of that HP (and thus | gasoline). | | The numbers check out, at least within an order of magnitude. |
I've not seen it "proved" this way, interesting...thanks.
DRLs require on average about 1/3 horsepower to light then. Not terribly significant when driving on the highway. However when driving in the city where the engine would normally only be idling most of the time normally consuming 1-2 HP to do so without DRLs, it must use 1-1/3 to 2-1/3 HP to "idle" with DRLs which, percentage wise, is a fairly significant additional drain. This may explain why Consumer Reports seems to get such poor city mileage (way below EPA ratings) on GM vehicles compared to other non-DRL cars that tend to test closer to the EPA city ratings. Highway mileage doesn't _seem_ to be impacted much by DRLs in the CR tests where GM cars do well there comparing more closely to the EPA ratings. Perhaps the DRLs should be designed to go off if travel speed has averaged under 15MPH for longer than 10 minutes. ;-) We can debate the benefit of DRLs, but surely no one sees a benefit when the car is essentially standing still, do they? ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
100W / (746W/HP) is closer to 1/7 or 1/8 HP for a pair of 50W DRLs.
Where are you getting 1 or 2 HP for a car to idle? I would think 10-20 HP would be more realistic. But that is just a wild guess. Aren't you turning the water pump, oil pump, fuel pump, alternator, maybe a fan? I'm just talking out loud - I really don't know the answer.
Side note: I like it when other cars facing me have DRLs when on shady tree lined streets in the daytime. It lets me differentiate them from parked cars.

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

The low beam bulbs are rated at 55W, not DRL. Typically, DRL uses either 18 or 27W bulbs.
According to the IIHS (http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm#5 ), DRLs should cost each car about $3 per year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | > 100W / (746W/HP) is closer to 1/7 or 1/8 HP for a pair of 50W DRLs. | | The low beam bulbs are rated at 55W, not DRL. Typically, DRL uses | either 18 or 27W bulbs.
Many DRL's ARE the low beam bulbs operating at 80%-100% power...few are actualy separate lamps.
| According to the IIHS | (http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm#5 ), DRLs should | cost each car about $3 per year.
Sure, 3$. I have a bridge to sell you....
I would be interested then to have explained to us then that, IF the additional consumption is this insignificant, why prey tell, did GM go to all the trouble and expense to petition the EPA (and will approval) for the EPA to test their vehicles for the purpose of establishing the EPA mileage ratings with the DRLs disconnected. Hint: They wouldn't have done that if they didn't already know that they have at best a "measurable" impact and at worse (and most likely) a_significant_ one that would have cause them to not meet CAFE requirements. Wake up people!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've never had a car with DRL like that. How MANY do you mean?

I see. How about some Math then?
My cars use 18W bulbs, that's 36W or 0.05HP. A car usually uses about 20HP to go at a constant speed of 60MPH. Taking only this situation as an example, DRL would then account for about 0.25% of the fuel consumption. Now, I don't drive at 60MPH all the time, urban driving lowers my mileage even more, but out of my annual gas cost of $1500, $3.67 would be due to DRL.
QED

You and your crusade against DRL reminds me of Nader: sure the Corvair had a oversterring characteristic, but so did the Porsche 911, VW Bug, etc. All in a while forgetting about the horrible VW Bus, which had a not only oversteering, but also an overturning behavior and no protection in frontal crashes. But VW isn't American, so what was Nader's point going after it?
Your quest in vain. Just stop buying GM and period. Your dollars are your best speech, not all this nuisance in this newsgroup.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | I've never had a car with DRL like that. How MANY do you mean?
Nearly all but the large trucks/SUV's OR the ones with the turn signal DRLs. The rest (which is probably over 90%) have DRLs that are using either the low beam bulbs (at 80% to 100% voltage) or high beam bulbs (at 60% to 70% voltage).
It would be nice it it were true if DRLs were typically separate lamps designed for it's unique purpose...but it ain't so.
| Your quest in vain.
I disagree.
| Just stop buying GM and period. Your dollars are | your best speech, not all this nuisance in this newsgroup.
I have...and I sold my positions in GM stock as well.
As with the last 8-9 times now in this NG...I didn't bring up this topic. ;-) But, I will sure support others that do bring it up though. I've heard rumor that some of the newly designed GM vehicles are starting to show up with DRL disable capabilities, although I haven't checked it out for myself. If GM's competitors have been providing a DRL off switch, GM may be listening since chasing customers away over something that has as simple of a "cure" as this (give the customer the choice...radical concept...huh?) sure isn't good business and sure isn't a good way to make money for the stockholders.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. My Bonneville uses the parking lights for DRL. They look like the low-beams, but they're not. The low and the high beams are in the reflector beside the parking lights.
I'd dare say that being DRL your pet peeve you think that they're all at 100% high-beams! :-)

Well, they were so in the last 3 GM cars I've had over the past 5 years: from the Alero '99 I bought in '98 to the Bonneville '02 in '01...

Just stop asking that to the mirror and look around for a change. :-D

Good. Now just go...

The arm-chair CEO spoke. :-)
Lighten up...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | Nope. My Bonneville uses the parking lights for DRL. They look like | the low-beams, but they're not. The low and the high beams are in the | reflector beside the parking lights.
The amber turn signal DRLs are becoming more common on the GMs, I've noticed.
| I'd dare say that being DRL your pet peeve you think that they're all | at 100% high-beams! :-)
It's funny, for the last 15+ years I've driven high profile vehicles exclusively (minivans and trucks) all with dark tinted rear windows. With the dark tint coupled with sitting up higher, I didn't even notice DRLs, to be honest. It was when I started driving a sedan where my eyeballs are now right at the level to be in the "hot spot" of the high beam DRLs did I find them a irritant. I may have to go back to driving a high profile vehicle again for relief...even though I no longer need such a vehicle otherwise.
| > | Your quest in vain. | > | > I disagree. | | Just stop asking that to the mirror and look around for a change. :-D
That isn't how change happens.
| | > | Just stop buying GM and period. Your dollars are | > | your best speech, not all this nuisance in this newsgroup. | > | > I have...and I sold my positions in GM stock as well. | | Good. Now just go...
Not to worry...if no one else brings up the topic, you'll hear no more of it from me. Although I'd bet that there isn't a chance of that happening. :-). Just killfile me and you won't see my posts...your irritant solved. (Which is what I wish I could do to some DRLs!)
| > As with the last 8-9 times now in this NG...I didn't bring up this topic. ;-) | > But, I will sure support others that do bring it up though. I've heard rumor | > that some of the newly designed GM vehicles are starting to show up with DRL | > disable capabilities, although I haven't checked it out for myself. If GM's | > competitors have been providing a DRL off switch, GM may be listening since | > chasing customers away over something that has as simple of a "cure" as this | > (give the customer the choice...radical concept...huh?) sure isn't good | > business and sure isn't a good way to make money for the stockholders. | | The arm-chair CEO spoke. :-)
I'd prefer to refer to it as a former customer and a former stockholder (a.k.a. owner) spoke. :-)
| Lighten up...
All in good fun...but dumb is as dumb does.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Believe me, looking into the mirror you'll only notice yourself aging...

Fine, just keep it to $0.02, not 50% of the posts!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | Fine, just keep it to $0.02, not 50% of the posts!!!
I didn't realize that there was a rule like that. Is this NG hosted in a communist country without free speech? You must work for GM...sounds like about the right anti-customer culture I've found to be quite pervasive there.
Well, I'll tell you what. If GM sends me a check for the $6,500, the amount I lost dumping there POS 2003 Malibu LS about a year ago that had improperly designed lighting controls, (state law says the driver is solely responsible for the operation of the lights...but the car didn't have a way for the driver to completely control them). Then I'll go away....promise. Wanna bet that doesn't happen either?
You can solve your own problem...killfile me (or ignore me). Simple solution...hey?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, you definetely hasn't shown any knowledge about the rules of etiquette...
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.