 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / February 2006disabling drls
Has anyone in US disabled DRLs before on an 06 Accord Sedan? I've read that fuse #3 from the interior box (10 amp fuse) can just be pulled to disable DRLs. However, this does apparently cause a DRL circuit warning light to display but the warning light goes off when headlights are on. Another way I've read is that there's a molex connector that can be unplugged from a wiring harness that will disable DRLs. However, the poster didn't give any specific info on where the harness was or what connector it was. Anyone have any ideas on this? I don't know if the second method would also cause the warning light to light up or not? Anyone know? Thanks Drew > Has anyone in US disabled DRLs before on an 06 Accord Sedan? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Thanks > Drew ----------------------------------- Look at tegger.com, or just google it. 'Curly' > Has anyone in US disabled DRLs before on an 06 Accord Sedan? You may wish to ask your dealer if there is a TSB for DRL disablement. Toyota has such a TSB, which was issued to address the considerable unpopularity of DRLs in the US. Many Canadians dislike them as well, but somehow have got the idea that they are mandated by law, which in at least some provinces thay are not. Unfortunately tegger.com has nothing on DRL disable. If you end up with a copy of any relevant TSB, it would be nice to get a copy of it... For much older Hondas (early '90s), DRL disable may be effected by simply pulling the DRL fuse, or by disconnecting the DRL resistor. This will also have the benefit of making your clock normal daytime brightness again.  SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> Has anyone in US disabled DRLs before on an 06 Accord Sedan? What's a DRL? >>>Has anyone in US disabled DRLs before on an 06 Accord Sedan? > > What's a DRL? Headlights on when engine on. Bozo <spam@spamme.com> wrote in news:JvMIf.45885$Rw6.5293@newsfe7- gui.ntli.net: >> What's a DRL? > Headlights on when engine on. Ah, thanks. I actually like that feature. Wish my car did it. Motorcycles have been required for years to have the headlights on when the engine is running. Studies show that people are far less likely to pull out in front of them than when the lights were off. I supposed I could wire it up... > Ah, thanks. I actually like that feature. Wish my car did it. Motorcycles > have been required for years to have the headlights on when the engine is > running. Studies show that people are far less likely to pull out in front > of them than when the lights were off. > > I supposed I could wire it up... ============================ Take a google at HAMSAR relay Daytime Running Light kits. There's a few excellent web sites that feature installations on Honda S2000, etc. 'Curly' >> I supposed I could wire it up... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 'Curly' Thanks. I'll look it up. >>> I supposed I could wire it up... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. I'll look it up. HAMSAR is probably the most common aftermarket DRL solution. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>> Has anyone in US disabled DRLs before on an 06 Accord Sedan? > > What's a DRL? http://www.lightsout.org/ http://www.motorists.org/stealthis/drls.html Just curious, why the dislike of DRL's? I can see disliking the back lit display when the lights are off, but I don't know why anyone would care one way or another about the DRL's. >Has anyone in US disabled DRLs before on an 06 Accord Sedan? > >I've read that fuse #3 from the interior box (10 amp fuse) can just be >pulled to disable DRLs. However, this does apparently cause a DRL >circuit warning light to display but the warning light goes off when >headlights are on. Why disable them? Do you know more that all the safety studies? If so, please report your statistics. I'm sure then that the insurance industry will beat a path to your door to hire you. And if it's an attempt to look "cool"...give it up. But then again, you can disable your DRLs, don't fasten the seatbelt, and light up a cigarette to celebrate the fact that you're right! > And if it's an attempt to look "cool"...give it up. how bout "normal"? that count? i dont like the fact its a power drain. if i want the lights on, ill turn em on myself. >> And if it's an attempt to look "cool"...give it up. > > how bout "normal"? that count? i dont like the fact its a power drain. > if i want the lights on, ill turn em on myself. Oh, boy, a do it yourselfer - spare us the rugged individualism, okay? <vbg> >> And if it's an attempt to look "cool"...give it up. > > how bout "normal"? that count? i dont like the fact its a power drain. > if i want the lights on, ill turn em on myself. I can think of a couple reasons to disable it along with reasons to keep it. 1) Works the alternator harder, headlight are what, 50 watts each? so with 2 on you have nearly 10 amps that the alternator has to supply constantly. 2) Reduces fuel economy. The more current you draw from the alternator, the harder it is to turn. You know for years, honda ECU's in the US have had control of the alternator charging circuit. You notice it at night where the head lights will dim and brighten (like a flicker) as you're driving down the road. I just cut the control wire so, now I have a normal alternator. Lights don't flicker any more. So, I'm sympathetic to people who want to change their cars to suit them. <snip> What say we kill this thread right now? The original question's been answered in both directions. Descents into political OT are what killed alt.autos.toyota, which used to be an excellent group. Let's not let this group die that way. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > What say we kill this thread right now? The original question's been > answered in both directions. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ > www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ ------------------------- Staying COMPLETELY away from the political / moral debate, it should be noted that DRL (on many makes / models) use a tiny bit of power compared to just 'turning on your lights'. In Canada, many DRL's just run the HIGH BEAMS on about 40% power, leaving everything else OFF. Cheap. Turning on your headlights runs the low beams at full power and you you also get your dash lights, front and rear park lights, license plate lights, and side marker lights. In Canada, the DRL's on GM, Dodge, and Ford trucks draw NO POWER because the bulbs burn out or the controllers fail within 6 months. :-) The farmers don't bother to replace them and the hot shots disconnect them intentionally, right after they install the dark tinted tail lights and the BLUE front turn signals. :-( 'Curly' On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:20:06 GMT, Dufus Systems >1) Works the alternator harder, headlight are what, 50 watts each? so with >2 on you have nearly 10 amps that the alternator has to supply constantly. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >flicker any more. So, I'm sympathetic to people who want to change their >cars to suit them. Unfortunately, I'm not sympathetic and neither is my company. I'm an insurance investigator. Whenever I'm called in to investigate an "accident", I ALWAYS look for evidence of tampering or disabling of any safety equipment. If the accident is judged to be your fault and there is evidence of tampering, it no longer is a simple insurance claim, but rather becomes a case for our legal department. Those folks do NOT like the outcome. >>alternator. Lights don't flicker any more. So, I'm sympathetic to >>people who want to change their cars to suit them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > claim, but rather becomes a case for our legal department. Those > folks do NOT like the outcome. Well, you know what, if they screw the car up and hurt themselves or someone else then I'm all for blaming them. When I was in Germany back in '81 they'd passed a law that pretty much stated, you're not required to wear a seat belt but, your insurance doesn't have to cover you if wreck your car without one on. I'd like to see non-nanny laws like that here. > I can think of a couple reasons to disable it along with reasons to keep > it. > > 1) Works the alternator harder, headlight are what, 50 watts each? so with > 2 on you have nearly 10 amps that the alternator has to supply constantly. Do you know how much this might shorten alternator life? > 2) Reduces fuel economy. The more current you draw from the alternator, the > harder it is to turn. Again, do you have a quantitative measure of this impact? I'm pretty sure driving around with a high performance sound system blaring causes a greater draw from the alternator than DRLs and keeping a window open has a greater impact on mpg as does driving around on underinflated tires. In short, 1) and 2) aren't compelling reasons to disable DRLs. From a styling standpoint GM's use of separate colored DRL lamps is a superior implementation IMHO, but I don't hear anyone claiming that DRLs aren't a valuable safety feature. I can point to several two-lane roads in my State that require headlight use in order to reduce crashes. > Again, do you have a quantitative measure of this impact? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I can point to several two-lane roads in my State that require > headlight use in order to reduce crashes. Just to be clear, I wouldn't disable DRLS. I like that feature (if I had it that is). I was just suggesting reasons someone might want to disable it to defend the original poster who was being attacked as some kind of ludite. Do I need quantitive measurements? If you're using 100 more watts of power from the alternator (and the engine) with the lights on versus off then the power has to come from somewhere. It's coming from the engine so, while you may not be able to measure the fuel economy change in a tank or two, there's some affect. It's not magic or anything. More load on the engine requires more fuel. So, I'm not saying anything about how much it affects fuel economy just that there has to be some affect even if it's so little it's only measurable over 1000's of miles. >>>And if it's an attempt to look "cool"...give it up. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 1) Works the alternator harder, headlight are what, 50 watts each? so with > 2 on you have nearly 10 amps that the alternator has to supply constantly. Most operate at reduced brightness. On our '96 Grand Voyager, the front signal lights are turned on for DRLs, at a whopping 10W or so each. It's REALLY not that big a draw. > 2) Reduces fuel economy. The more current you draw from the alternator, the > harder it is to turn. Yeah, might cost you 0.01mpg. Oooo. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0607-2, 02/16/2006 Tested on: 2/18/2006 6:25:21 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com >> And if it's an attempt to look "cool"...give it up. > > how bout "normal"? that count? If you want to look "normal", leave them alone - in Canada, all new cars since the early 90s have been required to have DRLs. I believe the US has similar laws. With them, your car is about as "normal" as any other '06. Accord or otherwise. > i dont like the fact its a power drain. On what? They're only on when the engine is running, so they're not draining the battery. At worst you're losing a fraction of one horsepower. Adjusting your power seats is a bigger drain. > if i want the lights on, ill turn em on myself. You should check local vehicle regs. In some jurisdictions, disabling them may be illegal, and may result in fines and/or inspection notices. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0607-2, 02/16/2006 Tested on: 2/18/2006 6:23:17 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > If you want to look "normal", leave them alone - in Canada, all new cars > since the early 90s have been required to have DRLs. I believe the US has > similar laws. Nope, GM just manufacturers all wiring harnesses for North America in Canada. >>If you want to look "normal", leave them alone - in Canada, all new cars >>since the early 90s have been required to have DRLs. I believe the US has >>similar laws. > > Nope, GM just manufacturers all wiring harnesses for North America in > Canada. The point remains: if your new Accord came with DRLs, then so did everyone else's, so if looking "normal" is a concern, leave them alone. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0607-2, 02/16/2006 Tested on: 2/19/2006 6:11:11 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com >> And if it's an attempt to look "cool"...give it up. > >how bout "normal"? that count? i dont like the fact its a power drain. >if i want the lights on, ill turn em on myself. You mean you want to be allowed to think for yourself? Many idiots in positions of power can't understand that. --------------- Alex |
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
|
©2009 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.