 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Malibu / October 2005How can i turn off the auto-starting lights???
I have a 2003 malibu ... Is there any methode to turn off the lights after they are automatically started ? (the light sensor is located inside the front air opening ). Any suggestions ? If you are stationary - then put the emergency brakes on and start the car - no lights. There is no way to disable them while you are driving - that's why they are called daytime running lights they are a safety device. Don't fool with them. > If you are stationary - then put the emergency brakes on and start the > car - no lights. There is no way to disable them while you are driving - > that's why they are called daytime running lights they are a safety > device. Don't fool with them. You bought that lie hook line and sinker I see! >I have a 2003 malibu ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Any suggestions ? None. Been there done that. Call/write GM and tell them you don't need a nanny wiping your a** for you any longer. You can remove the DRL relay DRL stands for driving lights > You can remove the DRL relay > DRL stands for driving lights That trick will work, but it will set the "DRL Failure" code in the BCM and the "Check Vehicle Soon" light will come on. I've found with most GM vehicles, if you put the emergency brake on, but just step on it lightly (one click) this will put out the daytime running lights without touching the relay. but you'll have to live with the brake light on the dash staying on. I'd rather the light on the dash on than the headlights. > I've found with most GM vehicles, if you put the emergency brake on, but > just step on it lightly (one click) this will put out the daytime running > lights without touching the relay. but you'll have to live with the brake > light on the dash staying on. I'd rather the light on the dash on than the > headlights. Except two problems exist with this suggestion: 1. The light serves the dual purpose of notifying you of a main brake system failure. 2. This will disable the ABS systems. Not a good idea to use this trick either. >> I've found with most GM vehicles, if you put the emergency brake on, but >> just step on it lightly (one click) this will put out the daytime running [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not a good idea to use this trick either. What if you don't have ABS? >>> I've found with most GM vehicles, if you put the emergency brake on, but >>> just step on it lightly (one click) this will put out the daytime [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What if you don't have ABS? I just found out the E-Brake trick won't work with my 2004 Classic. >>>> I've found with most GM vehicles, if you put the emergency brake on, >>>> but [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> What if you don't have ABS? Then the point in item #2 is a moot one. > I just found out the E-Brake trick won't work with my 2004 Classic. That trick didn't work either on the 2003 LS I had owned for a very short time. All of the idiotic automatic stuff on that car drove me crazy too. One frequently will see posts from people that complain about this topic. But, GM isn't listening to their customers these days, apparently. I will say I'm glad I'm rid of the car. I replaced it with a wonderful 2004 Sebring with manual controls (2 years now and perfect). Never another GM product until they get rid of the ridiculous useless gimmicky stuff! Obviously, I'm missing something Mr. Reeves. What exactly bothers you about DRLs? Being more visible doesn't strike me as BAD, and even if you doubt the visibility angle, what harm is done by having your front lights on? I have had 5 cars now with DRLs, (GM, Toyota and Chrysler) and 3 with Auto Headlights. I appreciate that my visibility to others isn't purely my decision anymore, cause sometimes we all get it wrong (like light fog, or at dusk) If I want to be sure, I turn them on the "old fashioned" way, so what's the beef? Maybe we should demand a return to manual spark advance as well..... lol > >>>> I've found with most GM vehicles, if you put the emergency brake on, > >>>> but [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Sebring with manual controls (2 years now and perfect). Never another GM > product until they get rid of the ridiculous useless gimmicky stuff! I feel that the lights on a vehicle should be on at all times when the car is running. In some states now if its raining or bad weather, the lights must be on or you get a large fine. I find it some what strange that the Auto manufacturers build safety features into a vehicle to protect drivers and there are morons out there who want to revert back to the good old days! Obviously, I'm missing something Mr. Reeves. What exactly bothers you about DRLs? Being more visible doesn't strike me as BAD, and even if you doubt the visibility angle, what harm is done by having your front lights on? I have had 5 cars now with DRLs, (GM, Toyota and Chrysler) and 3 with Auto Headlights. I appreciate that my visibility to others isn't purely my decision anymore, cause sometimes we all get it wrong (like light fog, or at dusk) If I want to be sure, I turn them on the "old fashioned" way, so what's the beef? Maybe we should demand a return to manual spark advance as well..... lol > > "Scotty" <Scottp@wowNOSPAMway.com> wrote in message > > news:CLKdnZrUToZjBt3eRVn-rA@wideopenwest.com... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >>>> brake > >>>> light on the dash staying on. I'd rather the light on the dash on than > >>>> the > >>>> headlights. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Sebring with manual controls (2 years now and perfect). Never another GM > product until they get rid of the ridiculous useless gimmicky stuff! >I feel that the lights on a vehicle should be on at all times when the car > is running. Why, do you like the US to waste an additional 1-2 million gallons of gas a day to power them for no reason? (more if you count the rest of the world) > In some states now if its raining or bad weather, the lights > must be on or you get a large fine. As it should be. No arguement there. And the law refers to *all* lights, not just DRLs. The fines will go to the driver for the infraction, not GM. > I find it some what strange that the Auto manufacturers > build safety features into a vehicle to protect drivers Boy you got suckerd into that marketing angle, did you? > and there are morons out there who want to revert > back to the good old days! Exept auto light control systems are not reliable control devices under the weather/atmospheric conditions you mention. So, they aren't really "safer". In those cases, one still often needs to use the manual control (assuming, as is typically the case with human nature, one hasen't been conditioned by the auto system to completely forget that they even have a manual control). >>I feel that the lights on a vehicle should be on at all times when the car >> is running. > > Why, do you like the US to waste an additional 1-2 million gallons of gas > a day to power them for no reason? (more if you count the rest of the > world) The alternator always makes the same amount of voltage regardless of speed, using the lights all day will not waste even a drop of fuel. >> In some states now if its raining or bad weather, the lights >> must be on or you get a large fine. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Boy you got suckerd into that marketing angle, did you? What angle? If my lights are on I'm more likley to be seen by other cars and less likely to get pulled out in front of. >> and there are morons out there who want to revert >> back to the good old days! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > conditioned by the auto system to completely forget that they even have a > manual control). > The alternator always makes the same amount of voltage regardless of > speed, using the lights all day will not waste even a drop of fuel. Incorrect. The laws of physics apply. The power being used needs to be generated. The more power (AMPS not VOLTS) that is drawn from the alternator, the more energy that is required to turn the alternator. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm If you know someone with a portable generator, fire that puppy up and let it run for a minute or so. Then add a load. When you do add the load, you will hear a noticeable change in the sound of the engine as it throttles up to maintain proper RPM (to maintain proper voltage, which needs to be constant). The generator becomes harder and harder to "spin" as electrical load on it inceases. The larger the load added, the more pronounced the change in engine sound will be. You may also be interested to know that GM petitioned the EPA years ago to exempt them from the requirement for "all normally operating loads" to be active for their EPA mileage rating tests. So, in effect, the milege ratings on GM cars is without the DRLs being lit, even though one can't actually drive the cars that way. GM wouldn't have done that if the added load of the DRLs didn't have enought impact on fuel consumption to make any difference. >> Boy you got suckerd into that marketing angle, did you? > > What angle? If my lights are on I'm more likley to be seen by other cars > and less likely to get pulled out in front of. If true, it would show up in insurance loss data. > Obviously, I'm missing something Mr. Reeves. No arguement there. Visit NHTSA on this subject and read 97% of the open public comments posted there on the subject. That will help in this regard. > What exactly bothers you about > DRLs? Being more visible doesn't strike me as BAD, and even if you doubt > the visibility angle, what harm is done by having your front lights on? o Insurance data over 10+ years says otherwise. o 1-2 million gallons of gasoline consumed per day needleslly to power them (added consumption we don't need at this moment in particular). > I have had 5 cars now with DRLs, (GM, Toyota and Chrysler) and 3 with Auto > Headlights. I appreciate that my visibility to others isn't purely my > decision anymore, cause sometimes we all get it wrong (like light fog, or > at > dusk) Uhm, the automatic light control system frequently gets it wrong in the fog and DRLs don't illuminate the tail and marker lights (which the law says are required when sight distance is diminished to below 1000 feet). The technology simply can't sense fog/smoke or "sight-distance" issues. It can only sense abmient light levels that can be all over the place in those conditions. Auto systems are simply unreliable under those circumstances. In addition, the law specifically identifies the driver as the one responsible for said control, not GM. Unless GM want's to assume the liability (which they won't, and shouldn't), they should stay the heck stay out it unless the person specifically says they want GM to control the lights for them. It's the driver's legal decision on how they want their lights controlled...by them or by the car. The sad part is that, in the case of GM, ones only choice is to buy someone elses car if the decision is the former. Most (not all) competitors let the customer choose. > If I want to be sure, I turn them on the "old fashioned" way, so > what's the beef? It's all been said before by dozens of people here and by thousands on file as public comments at the NHTSA. I personally don't see a problem if one actually likes idiot devices to have them and use them. But I would argue that if you say you still sometimes use "the old fashoned way to be sure" (as you put it), then by definition the "newfangled" way is useless gimmickery. > Maybe we should demand a return to manual spark advance as well..... lol Apples and oranges. One has benefits, the other is useless except for the lemmings of the world to follow along with aimlessly. Interesting reply, thanks. I'm had pressed to think that DRLs are THAT hard on fuel consumption, but if so, perhaps we should outlaw night-driving altogether. As for "Insurance data", we all know that THEY never misrepresent ..... "Getting it wrong" would suggest that such advances as ABS and Traction Control are "useless gimmickry" as well -- just can't agree, sorry Just because you don't like something is hardly reason to label it "idiot device" and those who don't have a problem with it as "lemmings". Blunts the rest of your arguments into a rant, I'm afraid. Cheers, > > Obviously, I'm missing something Mr. Reeves. > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Apples and oranges. One has benefits, the other is useless except for the > lemmings of the world to follow along with aimlessly. http://www.highwaysafety.com/research/qanda/antilock.html#4 Will provide the other links later, gotta get to work. Some from the Highway Loss Data Institute, their 1997 study that actually shows an increase in accidents with DRL equipped cars. There are other studies that show a benefit and yet others that show no difference. Others show a trade off from one type of accident for another. Etc. Bottom line, inconclusive. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.