One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

And those cost how much to replace?

A significant drain?! This just keeps getting better and better. Whether you love or hate em DRL's are not a significant energy waster, this is a stupid argument. And some people are too stupid or just don't care to turn their lights on in low visibility conditions, so there is a need for them. I seem to recall people criticizing the addition of a 3rd brake light as needless. I used to think so too. But, look at how many people seldom check to see if their brake lights are working. At least now there is a 1 in 3 chance that you'll see a brake light!

Power steering: Significant engine power is drawn only intermittently and at low vehicular speeds.

Power brakes: No.

Power windows: Minimal power, very intermittently.

HID headlamps: use less power than halogen headlamps.

Air conditioning: Uses engine power, but consumes less of it than driving with one or more windows open above approximately 45 mph.

Stereos: Obviously.

Thing is, there are currently-available ways of implementing DRLs so that their power consumption -- and therefore their fuel consumption -- is a tiny fraction of what most DRLs consume. It's not an either/or issue.

Yep.

Please repost; you obviously accidentally hit "send" before including the support for your implication that the extra fuel consumption and resultant pollution from DRLs is consequence-free.

DRL's don't turn on the lights in low visibility conditions. Infact, I'd argue the percentage of idiots driving in the rain/snow/fog without proper lighting has gone UP since DRL's were introduced.

Ray

New Audi A8.

They already have. Luxeon Star, etc.

LED headlamp prototypes are well along. half-decent performance potential, power consumption about the same as current HIDs, much more compact physically.

DS

A significant drain.

Go back and read the first post in the thread, which has the power consumption worked out mathematically -- in actual gallons of gasoline. You can convert to litres if you wish, but the facts trump your opinion.

Nope. DRLs are not designed or intended to compensate for improper use of lights in low-visibility conditions. That is why they are called DAYTIME running lights. Bad weather and darkness still call for appropriate use of the vehicles main headlamps. DRLs not combined with complete automatic control of all vehicular lights aggravate the tendency for some people to misuse their vehicle's lights. ("Oh, my lights come on by themselves, so I don't have to do anything now that it's raining/foggy/dark").

Some people did that. But it's not relevant to this discussion, which is about the fuel consumption of DRLs.

I far prefer top posts as well. I'm fully capable of scrolling down if I need to get additional context from an earlier post. I often see long threads with an inane bottom posted "Yup, me too, har har har" or the equivlent...

Sorry, but he's right. Manual transmission cars HAVE to be operated with those sudden throttle changes, automatic cars only see them occasionally (and never during the certification testing procedures). Plus, with the PCM in control of spark, fuel, AND shifting, the during-shift emissions are virtually eliminated with an automatic. It is a simple fact that this is why manual transmissions are getting so rare.

That's actually been true for over 10 years now... another reason that automatics are so heavily favored that many car lines aren't even made with a manual option anymore. They go a long way toward helping the manufacturers meet CAFE requirements.

Then you SHOULD be able to produce some non-stupid math that disproves the article.... I'm still waiting.

Intuition: 0 Mathematics: 1

Bob, you're absolutely right. There are situations in which bottom-posting is appropriate, situations in which top-posting is appropriate, and situations in which interspersed posting is appropriate. These types who bitch about top-posting as though it's equivalent to standing up at a fancy restaurant and taking a s*it on the table remind me of those annoying little yappy dogs -- except the dogs' arguments are usually more cogent.

As well as the percentage of idiots driving with their high-beams on in traffic, and the percentage of idiots driving with nothing but DRLs on in the middle of the night.

Oh save it already. The proper way to post is to STICK TO THE SUBJECT and make an intelligent contribution, and where you put your text is irrelevant.

I do agree with trimming, though.

Which begs the question: "WHY???"

How do DRLs improve GM's profits? I know it only costs them a fraction of a cent per car, given the asinine way they implement DRLs, but where do they recoup that half cent anyway???

Then just delete everything and post only text that you type. If you're not responding to a specific point, there's no need to include the quoted text.

By giving Federal regulators an issue to chew on for 15 years and counting, thus taking regulators' attention off other aspects of GM's behavior. Equipping all their cars with DRLs also gives them a platform on which to stand and crow about how progressive and safety-minded they are.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesn't it? Of course it does. Dig through the correspondence between GM and NHTSA over the last 15 years and see for yourself.

DS