I think with that year S-10 you need a unique code (that only GM will
provide upon receipt of the proper "military or law enforcement DR
exception" paperwork...and is unique to the VIN) to "deprogram" the DRLs.
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:30:45 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
On my 2001 S10 I can push the dome lamp disable button 4 times in a
row and it will then turn off the DRL.. It's been a while since I
used that "feature" though. I don't remember if it turns them off
until the next 4 presses or until you start the truck again....
Not Dead Yet
It is no posible way to disable DRL on a civilian auto or truck. Only Police
and Fire vehicles have that option. It is a program already preloaded on the
factory when the vehicle it is order. The other way will be trhough a dealer
but the Vin# , Ro# and last 4 of the Social security # of Tech working on
vehicle that calls Tech assist to get a software issue to that particular
vehicle. Thats GM rules. Now if you don't mind the warning light in youre
ipc you could remove the relay and fuse but remember depending on the
vehicle for example cavalier a check engine light will come on. so it is up
to you. GM Certified Technician.
That is a fact. Since you're close to the action as a GM tech...any idea
why GM imposes these things and alienates their customers with them when US
law doesn't require them? It makes no business sense whatsoever to not have
the customer decide if they want them or not. Why would a company just
completely write off that segment of the customer base (that doesn't want
them)? It's just stupid, stupid, stupid!
Other than the miniscule fuel consumption they incur (that other
people CLAIM and it's not even an issue to me), I see NO issues with
the DRLs on my truck. I'm not looking at the front of MY truck while
I'm driving it.
The other side of it is that GM doesn't have to make 2 wiring
harnesses, one for Canada with DRLs and one for the US without. All
it is now is a slight software change since the US version allows the
disable trick I've explained, Canada wouldn't allow that.
Now, the AHLs, I really couldn't care either way, but I also can
disable those with the same trick as the DRLs. I DO see where some
people have a valid complaint about that feature.
Ah, read the public comment dockets over the past 8-9 years at the NHTSA.
The ratio is 96%+ of comments submitted in opposition to DRLs. That seems
to tell a different story from your assumption. But even is it was only 10%
of the public instead of 90%...why even write off 10% of the public from
buying your product when it's totally/completely unnecessary to do so?
Regarding you question. Beats me. I would guess most don't, actually.
Those that do simply put up with them. But ask Harryface why he bought a
car recently with them after stating many times he doesn't like them. He's
already planning some way to black them out with some sort of shield when on
camping trips (separate thread here). It would be easier on the customer if
GM simply provided a switch...don't ya think?! ;-) There is a real "DUH"
factor here on GM's part.
Maybe I can get those headlight decals NASCAR Monte's have that look
like headlight asseblies and stick um over mine.. LOL
Building the Red Oak center console is the first project. I need storage
space & no tip cup holders.
05 Park Avenue
91 Bonneville LE, 303,149 miles
I've had it a week and haven't done anything except rotate the tires
today. I didn't even wash it yet. Dealer cleaned it good. I wiped some
protectant on all the weatherstrips. Its going to Tennessee on
Thursday. I've only put like 400 miles on it so far.
05 Park Avenue
91 Bonneville LE, 303,149 miles
I'm pretty sure the code isn't VIN-specific, but GM does require the VIN
for their records, and yeah, you have to be municipal, military or law
enforcement, and sign all kinds of disclaimers and promises to reconnect
them, blah blah blah.
Why is that? They're not REQUIRED by law, although GM would seem to like
to require them. Seems to me that GM doesn't have any right whatsoever
to restrict anyone from disabling DRLs. Or was the OP in Canada and I
It is a laughable (more like idiotic) position GM management has put
themselves in regarding this topic. But they don't see it...and will keep
loosing sales because if right into bankruptcy (or so it seems at the
There was an early morning commentary about GM and Ford this past week. It
is a bit hard to understand.
The 'expert' said that both companies had suffered from
failure to advance technologically as they should have done, and this caused
part of their problems. Secondarily, they have so many legacy obligations
that they almost have to stay in business, even running at breakeven or a
slight loss, to avoid the consequences of these contracts, agreements, etc.
He said they have no alternative but to run at a loss or near loss. Dvs,
they are in such bad shape they cant afford to go out of business.
Employee health care costs of approaching $2000 per car
is a big problem. But I guess we all know that the USA has the best health
care in the world that few can afford.
Can't afford to go out of business? Never heard that one before! My guess
is that they can't afford not to seek bankruptcy protection (at some point),
which bankruptcy *may* give them their only relief from these contracts you
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.