NHTSA (the DOT) says "Automakers prefer to have the choice of color. Show us a pile of dead bodies from red signals, heh heh heh, and we'll consider mandating them, heh heh heh."
Ford and GM say "There's no proof amber signals are better" (despite GM having specifically illustrated the amber signals on the new-for-'01 Chev truck in the promotional brochure and expounded on their "clearer signal").
American Honda says "Americans prefer red signals."
CR are idiots. Always have been, show no signs of changing.
Doubtful, roller cams in general are made of different materials with different hardening processes than were used on slider cams. They probably made a New and Better mistake (tm). After all, Honda would HAVE to make a BETTER mistake than GM! :-p
I know not all Honda buyers are jerks, but I sure seem to find the ones that are and it serves them right. I had one accost me in my daughter's school parking lot a couple of years ago because I had a "Built when cars were made to LAST!" window sticker in my '66 Dodge (Kanter auto products used to send them out in their parts orders). He started blathering about how he had 150,000 miles on his Accord and how cars now last SOOOO much longer than they used to, so I just said "congratulations! Thats really great you got so much out of that car! You're almost HALFWAY to the mileage on this one!" I didn't bother to tell him that he was less than a third of the way to the mileage on my '73 Plymouth and 3/4 of the way to the mileage on my wife's 93 LH car :-p
Oh, but a solid axle is OLD tech! Yuck! :-p
Can't think of a single bad one prior to the mid 90s when the 2.0 head gasket fiasco happened. Not counting the Mitsubishi junk they sold, Chrysler hand't had a flawed engine in the whole history of the company until then.
This is actually a VAST improvement over dual-bulb red signals! Dual-bulb separate-function red (aka "duelling red" signals) have a high confusion factor because of the fact that the brake light remains on when the turn signal flashes and tends to MASK the turn signal. With a single-bulb combined function (you can add multible bulbs for redundancy), the brake light assumes the role of turn-signal on one side, so at least there's no confusion factor and you still have at least two brake indicators (the other side and the CHMSL). That's how all 60s and 70s cars worked, the duelling-red crap came about after wiring harnesses were converted to support amber-turn, red-brake separate functions but people disliked the look of amber turn signals and the carmakers took the cheap way of going back to all red.
And I'd argue that the advantage of amber over red was very VERY small, UNTIL the duelling-red implementations came out. Then it became huge.
I agree, not all are jerks, but I've found quite a few that are. Not just Hondas, but import drivers in general. Even those driving VW / Kia trash.
Funny thing, I've also noticed that in a crowded parking lot, people that are most likely to illegally park in "in the way" places tend to drive import cars.
Agree.
Agree.
Well...much *less* confusion factor.
Which is fine when traffic density and speeds are low enough that you can see more than one rear lamp assembly. Let traffic density and/or speeds increase to points they often reach, let the CHMSL burn out, you only get to see the left or the right, and then it's "Um...red light just came on...is it a brake light? Is it a turn signal?". This is a bigger problem up here where the roads get slick than down there where it's not, 'cause people tend to get on and off the brake rapidly (whether or not they're deliberately pumping the pedal).
Not the Checker.
Naw, I don't think this is really what happened. Many of the cars that use duelling reds are not sold in any variant form anywhere amber is required. I think in many cases it's just a styling gimmick.
I still don't buy this. I think most people don't care.
*cough*VW 1.7 in early OmniRizon*cough*
A lot of people do, look a the proliferation of "M3" style aftermarket taillights (look stock but with clear lens turn signal segments) for a wide variety of cars. I would count myself among the group that thinks they look better. Too many colors on the rear of a car makes it look too busy IMHO.
Of course, there's also the proliferation of "Altezza" style taillights which proves another point, that a good number of people have no sense of style whatsoever.
nate
Getting back to the topic of this thread, I blame CR, JD Power et. al. for this mentality. Too much focus on initial quality and not enough on long term durability. Really the Germans are the only ones that I trust for a "drive virtually forever" car (not counting older MoPar and other well-engineered American cars) but even they have lately succumbed to the disease of over-gatgetizing their vehicles to the point that they'd be an absolute nightmare to troubleshoot 10-15 years down the road.
It's hard to actually blame the Asian mfgrs. for not producing cars that work indefinitely, however; the way the laws are set up in Japan there's no incentive to produce a car that lasts more than, say, 10 years as virtually no vehicles older than that will still be in service anyway.
nate
I doubt the car manufactures worry so much about the lighting demands of ricers. Hell half the time their aftermarket lights are wired incorrectly.
aftermarket
taillights
incorrectly.
Are you kidding? Look at all the ricey-looking taillight designs that are coming straight from the factory. Of course most of those are from Asian mfgrs. They are listening to what people want; unfortunately not tempering it with good taste in some cases.
nate
Nonresponsive.
The claim is that the color of the light was objectionable to Americans (maybe that's how you can tell a real patriot?). Amber turn signals can look amber, red, pink, colorless/clear, colorless/chrome or yellow when not emitting light. "They make the car look unattractive" is therefore a bogus excuse.
DS
I agree, but I imagine it's cheaper to make a red lens that transmits red light than a red lens that transmits amber light. In the absence of regulations mandating amber, the choice is obvious.
Now why the mfgrs. don't use clear lenses and "NA" type bulbs, that I can't explain.
nate
Ah, but "cheaper" is a different question entirely.
And the 64 thousand dollar question: In 2005 did Chrysler switch to a one bulb tail light system because it was safer or because it was cheaper?
Richard.
Never had a lick of trouble with that engine in the one my Dad had. Yes, it was a buzzing gutless POS, but it ran longer than the rest of the car did... which isn't saying too much, come to think of it. :-p
Indeed.
What's wrong with a VW 4-cylinder? that block is still in production today and pumping 180 (conservative) HP with a turbohuffer. Also has been used as a basis for turbodiesels, but I don't know if the current TDI is still based on that block or not. Certainly strong enough for just about anything you'd be able to legally do to it.
nate
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required