Car Forum / Honda Cars / March 2009
Chevrolet Malibu sales jump 51.5%; dealers pleased
|
|
Thread rating:  |
johngdole@hotmail.com - 08 Feb 2009 04:00 GMT "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, you actually end up making more money on the car 12 months out than you did in the first month, which is something we like to see."
BY TIM HIGGINS FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER
A little over a year after its launch, the redesigned Chevrolet Malibu is a bright spot for troubled General Motors Corp.
When industrywide U.S. sales are down 18%, the Malibu -- which competes in the hyper-competitive midsize car market -- finished 2008 with U.S. sales up 51.5% from the year before.
A new study by J.D. Power and Associates gives GM high marks for the Malibu launch, ranking it No. 3 among other launches in 2007. (The No. 1 vehicle is another GM product, the Buick Enclave, an important model for the automaker but one that does not see as high a sales volume as the Malibu, which is one of GM's best-selling cars.)
Launching a new model is important for an automaker. After a car has been on the market a year, a company has a good indication of how successful the vehicle will be over its lifetime.
"It's absolutely critical that you get that first year right because that's where you're actually going to make a lot of your money and set the standard for the years to come," said Dave Sargent, vice president of automotive research at J.D. Power. "Something like the Malibu -- which launches very well, has very strong quality, very strong appeal and the financial metrics look very good in the first year -- one can anticipate that as the vehicle continues into its second, third and fourth year those will tend to continue."
The redesigned Malibu launched in November 2007 but, as is normally the case, took several weeks to roll out to all of Chevrolet's dealerships across the country. The new Malibu didn't hit its full stride until January 2008, according to GM.
In 2008, GM's U.S. dealerships sold 177,088 Malibu sedans -- 60,209 more than in 2007.
GM saw its overall U.S. sales drop 22.7% in 2008.
The automaker is racing to complete a plan to present to the federal government showing how it can become viable long term as part of the $13.4-billion loan-rescue plan to keep the company afloat.
"I think we had a very well-coordinated effort," said Mike Weidman, Malibu's marketing manager. "We knew going into it that we had a big social-acceptability issue to overcome. We knew that a lot of import- type buyers wouldn't trust what we had to say as the manufacturer."
Because of that, GM made a big public relations push, along with a strong effort to train dealers on how to sell the new vehicle's features.
The vehicle won several industry awards, including 2008 North American Car of the Year. Last summer, the Malibu also won the award for best initial quality among midsize cars from J.D. Power, beating the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. (Last year, Camry sales were down 7.7% and Accord sales were down 5%.)
According to GM's numbers:
# The 2008 Malibu's retail share increased 3.9 percentage points over the 2007 model.
# Its residual value, which estimates the vehicle's future resale value, increased 9 percentage points.
# Customers' opinions of the vehicle improved by 13 percentage points.
Edmunds.com estimates that GM's average incentive spending on the Malibu dropped in 2008 by $278 to $1,438 per vehicle, another sign of the vehicle's strength.
Dealers rave about how the Malibu is doing so far.
"It was a well-orchestrated introduction," said Ken Thompson, fleet and commercial manager at Classic Chevrolet in Grapevine, Texas. "The whole thing was timed very nicely. We didn't run out of product."
Paul Stanford, president of Les Stanford Chevrolet in Dearborn, echoed those thoughts, praising the design and quality.
"It's a great, great value vehicle," he said.
Some, however, have questioned the timing of the vehicle, suggesting the car could have done even better in a more healthy economy.
The Malibu is built in Orion Township and Kansas City, Kan. A 17-day labor strike at the Kansas plant pinched supplies of the Malibu last spring.
The new J.D. Power study, called the Vehicle Launch Index, looks at a variety of factors and measures performances against industry and segment benchmarks.
"They didn't run up a high inventory on the vehicle. They managed to keep demand and production pretty well in line," Sargent said. "In fact they added a third shift at the Orion plant to satisfy demand."
GM also did a good job holding the price the manufacturer charges the dealer for the vehicle.
"In fact, it improved over the 12 months of the launch. They weren't having to discount the vehicles to the dealers, if anything they were actually charging more," Sargent said. "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, you actually end up making more money on the car 12 months out than you did in the first month, which is something we like to see."
http://www.freep.com/article/20090205/BUSINESS01/902050392/1014/Chevrolet+Malibu +sales+jump+51.5+++dealers+pleased
Mike Marlow - 08 Feb 2009 04:13 GMT > "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, > you actually end up making more money on the car 12 months out than > you did in the first month, which is something we like to see." <snip...>
Gee - no surprise that Higgins didn't re-post this news like he does everything he can find that derides GM.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
coachrose13@hotmail.com - 12 Feb 2009 07:45 GMT > On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 20:00:53 -0800 (PST), johngd...@hotmail.com cast forth > these pearls of wisdom...: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Gee - no surprise that Higgins didn't re-post this news like he does > everything he can find that derides GM. I just put this automoblie on my left shoulder.
C'Mon, Jimbo!!!!
Knock it off!!!!!!!!!!!!
I dare you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> -- > > -Mike- > mmarlowREM...@alltel.net SMS - 08 Feb 2009 11:57 GMT > "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, > you actually end up making more money on the car 12 months out than > you did in the first month, which is something we like to see." Never buy a car where you have to remove part of the bumper and the tire in order to change a headlight bulb. I thought changing a bulb on the Accord was hard when I had to remove the battery to get to the left bulb, then remove and replace three screws by feel.
ransley - 08 Feb 2009 20:29 GMT > johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: > > "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Accord was hard when I had to remove the battery to get to the left > bulb, then remove and replace three screws by feel. What car needs a bumper and tire removed, Removing a battery is they way they have been for years, as a matter of fact I have to do it and am pissed, I feel like using duct tape and turning on high beams.
SMS - 08 Feb 2009 22:05 GMT >> johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: >>> "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What car needs a bumper and tire removed, 2008 Chevy Malibu/Saturn Aura.
Remove the front tire and wheel assembly. Remove the front compartment sight shields. Remove the front bumper fascia upper bracket. Remove the headlamp assembly.
Replace the bulb.
Replace the headlamp assembly. Aim the headlights Replace the front bumper fascia upper bracket. Replace the front compartment sight shields. Replace the front tire and wheel assembly.
See "http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f53/removing-08-malibu-headlight-housing-62951/"
I go on long road trips into areas with no car dealers and no parts stores. I remember being in Yosemite, and someone telling me that a headlamp was out. I went into the back, go a replacement bulb, and replaced it in about three minutes with no tools. This was on a 4Runner. A decade or so earlier, I was driving up to the Sierra's and a headlight went out on my '85 Land Cruiser. I stopped at a supermarket, bought a sealed beam, and put it in the parking lot of the store in about five minutes with a #2 Phillips screwdriver.
Whoever designed this part of the Malibu/Aura should be disciplined.
gnu / linux - 08 Feb 2009 23:16 GMT > >> johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: > >>> "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Whoever designed this part of the Malibu/Aura should be disciplined. Wish everything GM did only had this problem ...
Vic Smith - 08 Feb 2009 23:53 GMT >> >> johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >>> "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Wish everything GM did only had this problem ... I doubt it's even a problem. Probably BS by non-mechanically inclined ricer kids putting HID bulbs in. Doesn't even make sense removing a tire unless you also remove the wheel well liner. The whole "removing the bumper" is pure BS, and the fascia bracket is removed by unscrewing 2 little bolts. But hardly any maintenance is as easy as it was 20 years ago. I'd want to see the shop manual procedure before I believed any of it. Even then there's sometimes a shortcut.
--Vic
SMS - 09 Feb 2009 01:38 GMT > I'd want to see the shop manual procedure before I believed any of it. That's why I provided the link that shows the procedure.
Vic Smith - 09 Feb 2009 01:41 GMT >> I'd want to see the shop manual procedure before I believed any of it. > >That's why I provided the link that shows the procedure. I said shop manual, not some internet bullshit with no reference to where it came from.
--Vic
80 Knight - 09 Feb 2009 02:36 GMT >>> johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: >>>> "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 2008 Chevy Malibu/Saturn Aura. <Snip bogus information>
This is from the owners manual of the 2008 Malibu: 1. Open the hood. See Hood Release on page 5-11 for more information. 2. Remove the two bolts attaching the headlamp assembly to the vehicle. 3. Remove the headlamp assembly from the vehicle by pulling it forward. Use care not to scratch either the vehicle or the lamp. 4. Remove the dust covers (A, B, or C) from the individual bulb sockets. 5. Disconnect the wiring harness, then turn the bulb socket counterclockwise to remove it. 6. Remove the bulb from the bulb socket. 7. Replace the old bulb with a new bulb. 8. Turn the bulb socket clockwise and reconnect the wiring harness to the bulb socket. 9. Return the headlamp assembly to its original position. Be sure to line up the holes in the lamp assembly to the round ends of the mounting pins. 10. Reinstall the two bolts attaching the headlamp assembly to the vehicle.
You can read it for yourself if you want: http://www.gm.com/gmownercenter/
> Whoever designed this part of the Malibu/Aura should be disciplined. No, whoever posts inaccurate information should be disciplined.
dsi1 - 20 Mar 2009 03:31 GMT >>> Never buy a car where you have to remove part of the bumper and the tire >>> in order to change a headlight bulb. I thought changing a bulb on the >>> Accord was hard when I had to remove the battery to get to the left >>> bulb, then remove and replace three screws by feel. One would think that the replaceable bulb non-sealed headlight housing would mean changing a burnt-out bulb easy as pie. Not in this crazy world. I just replaced my son's bulb in his Nissan and it involved removing the headlight housing secured by 3 nuts that required undoing the fender liner. What a drag.
OTOH, people don't buy or not buy cars based on headlights. Or do they? :-)
HLS - 20 Mar 2009 21:59 GMT "dsi1" <dsi1@spamworld.com> wrote in message
> OTOH, people don't buy or not buy cars based on headlights. Or do they? > :-) Some 50% of the people buy based on the cup holder ;>)
Gene Bleuler - 20 Mar 2009 22:52 GMT > "dsi1" <dsi1@spamworld.com> wrote in message >> >> OTOH, people don't buy or not buy cars based on headlights. Or do they? >> :-) > > Some 50% of the people buy based on the cup holder ;>) That's the way many guys pick their women--- holder size...
Mike Hunter - 20 Mar 2009 23:50 GMT The other 50% take the advice of Consumer Reports, like they do when they buy a TV or leaf blower ;)
> "dsi1" <dsi1@spamworld.com> wrote in message >> >> OTOH, people don't buy or not buy cars based on headlights. Or do they? >> :-) > > Some 50% of the people buy based on the cup holder ;>) AZ Nomad - 21 Mar 2009 00:04 GMT >The other 50% take the advice of Consumer Reports, like they do when they >buy a TV or leaf blower ;) posters top by posted statistics up made about care don't 50% other the and
>> "dsi1" <dsi1@spamworld.com> wrote in message >>> >>> OTOH, people don't buy or not buy cars based on headlights. Or do they? >>> :-) >> >> Some 50% of the people buy based on the cup holder ;>) dsi1 - 21 Mar 2009 02:35 GMT > "dsi1" <dsi1@spamworld.com> wrote in message >> >> OTOH, people don't buy or not buy cars based on headlights. Or do >> they? :-) > > Some 50% of the people buy based on the cup holder ;>) That's nutty as hell but cup holders probably has swayed a few folks to buy one car over another. I'm not picky at all and any car is just fine with me - just as long as they have spring loaded change compartments under the dash on the driver's side...
SMS - 21 Mar 2009 04:20 GMT >> "dsi1" <dsi1@spamworld.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's nutty as hell but cup holders probably has swayed a few folks to > buy one car over another. I recall when cup holders first started to appear and the Camry lacked them and the Accord had them, or vice-versa. It apparently _was_ the deciding factor between two vehicles, very similar in other regards.
mikewestvale - 21 Mar 2009 12:15 GMT > >> "dsi1" <d...@spamworld.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > them and the Accord had them, or vice-versa. It apparently _was_ the > deciding factor between two vehicles, very similar in other regards. One has to wonder how many accidents have been caused because of the presence of cup holders. I don't recall having a bottle of water or coffee in the car all that often 20 years ago.
Nate Nagel - 21 Mar 2009 13:04 GMT >>>> "dsi1" <d...@spamworld.com> wrote in message >>>>> OTOH, people don't buy or not buy cars based on headlights. Or do [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > presence of cup holders. I don't recall having a bottle of water or > coffee in the car all that often 20 years ago. I must like to live dangerously; I've logged lots of miles in various German cars with a cup of coffee jammed between my legs.
nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Mike Hunter - 21 Mar 2009 21:04 GMT That says a LOT about the folks that buy Camrys and Accords LOL
>>> "dsi1" <dsi1@spamworld.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > them and the Accord had them, or vice-versa. It apparently _was_ the > deciding factor between two vehicles, very similar in other regards. Gordon McGrew - 22 Mar 2009 15:02 GMT >>>> "dsi1" <dsi1@spamworld.com> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >That says a LOT about the folks that buy Camrys and Accords LOL I don't recall this happening but, if it says anything, it says that there are a lot of car buyers who will switch between Honda and Toyota but don't trust anything from the American companies. We call them rational consumers.
SMS - 23 Mar 2009 04:15 GMT > I don't recall this happening but, if it says anything, it says that > there are a lot of car buyers who will switch between Honda and Toyota > but don't trust anything from the American companies. We call them > rational consumers. The problem is that most of those buyers were burned by the big 3 at some time in the past and simply don't trust them anymore. When you have a big 3 vehicle that fails catastrophically after five years, then have a Honda or Toyota that runs without any problems for ten years, it tends to create these trust issues.
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 23 Mar 2009 12:45 GMT > > I don't recall this happening but, if it says anything, it says that > > there are a lot of car buyers who will switch between Honda and Toyota [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a Honda or Toyota that runs without any problems for ten years, it tends > to create these trust issues. Witness my father's attempt, after being a foreign car owner for many years, to try GM. 1995 Olds 88. It was big and roomy, and had the typical American front seat area that extended all the way across, without a console in the middle. He liked it, and bought it.
3 years later, after many trips to the dealer for many things and after a bad run through the mountains (that never gave any of his other cars a problem before), where a third-time burned out coil pack almost stranded him, he dumped it and bought a (old style, small wagon) 98 Honda Odyssey.
10 years and 68,000 trouble free miles later (including many, many trips through those same mountains), the sole reason he sold the Odyssey was because mom died and he didn't need two cars, and he kept mom's much newer car and sold the Ody to a young couple with kids.
Funny thing--they were the first ones to respond to the ad, and after a test drive they came back and wrote dad a check on the spot. No haggling, nothing. See, they understood the value of what they were getting, too.
After 18 years of Jaanese cars, in 1988 he figured it had to be safe to try GM--but got burned badly. Neither he nor any of our family will ever "look back". Trust issues? Yep.
It's not just GM or American cars--with me, I had the same issue with VW, and witnessed a few people at work getting burned with the VW coil pack issue. Cars aren't something that I say "oh, well" to when the manufacturer burns me like that. I can't afford to, and nowadays most people realize they can't afford to, either--despite having acted differently in the past.
SMS - 23 Mar 2009 14:40 GMT > It's not just GM or American cars--with me, I had the same issue with > VW, and witnessed a few people at work getting burned with the VW coil > pack issue. Cars aren't something that I say "oh, well" to when the > manufacturer burns me like that. I can't afford to, and nowadays most > people realize they can't afford to, either--despite having acted > differently in the past. People now have higher expectations about not being stranded.
AZ Nomad - 23 Mar 2009 05:13 GMT >That says a LOT about the folks that buy Camrys and Accords LOL
>>>> "dsi1" <dsi1@spamworld.com> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> them and the Accord had them, or vice-versa. It apparently _was_ the >> deciding factor between two vehicles, very similar in other regards. More likely, the cup holder appeared as part of a complete redesign which brought customers away from the other's relatively aging design.
Nate Nagel - 20 Mar 2009 22:34 GMT >>>> Never buy a car where you have to remove part of the bumper and the >>>> tire [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > OTOH, people don't buy or not buy cars based on headlights. Or do they? :-) Well, there's a couple things that would be deal killers for me...
1) high beam DRLs (unfortunately, this excludes a LOT of GM cars) 2) headlights as simply awful as, say, those originally fitted to a US-market Corrado
Extra consideration would be given to vehicles with
1) "harmonized" ECE/DOT approved headlights 2) standard-sized sealed beams, which are easily replaced with E-codes
nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Nate Nagel - 20 Mar 2009 22:37 GMT >>>>> Never buy a car where you have to remove part of the bumper and the >>>>> tire [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > nate Forgot to mention, an acceptable alternative would be a vehicle that might not be factory equipped with particularly good headlights but is sold in identical form in European markets, so decent headlights could be somewhat readily obtained (e.g. aforementioned VW Corrado...) was reminded of this as I do have a set of Corrado E-codes and a friend just offered to buy them
nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
SMS - 20 Mar 2009 22:53 GMT >>>>> Never buy a car where you have to remove part of the bumper and the >>>>> tire [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 1) high beam DRLs (unfortunately, this excludes a LOT of GM cars) Yeah, those are horrible, though mostly for other drivers!
In any case, I'd disconnect DRLs on any car I bought, there are just way too many issues with them.
dsi1 - 21 Mar 2009 02:41 GMT >>>>> Never buy a car where you have to remove part of the bumper and the >>>>> tire [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 1) "harmonized" ECE/DOT approved headlights > 2) standard-sized sealed beams, which are easily replaced with E-codes OK, so some folks will not buy a car based on headlights. I'm feeling kind of dumb now cause the only thing I understand is that you don't like daytime running lights. This is ok - just as long as you know what you know what you're talking about.
> nate Nate Nagel - 21 Mar 2009 13:03 GMT >>>>>> Never buy a car where you have to remove part of the bumper and >>>>>> the tire [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > like daytime running lights. This is ok - just as long as you know what > you know what you're talking about. I used to commute at night on a completely unlit 2-lane road; the benefit of good headlights was immediately apparent. Fortunately my daily back then was a Porsche 944 so replacing the old non-halogen sealed beams with Cibie H4s was easy.
My objection to the high beam DRLs is based on having to share the road with vehicles so equipped. It's painful to have one coming at you when it's overcast or near sundown, unless the driver has manually turned his low beam headlights on. Old saturns are especially awful.
nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
dsi1 - 23 Mar 2009 22:56 GMT > I used to commute at night on a completely unlit 2-lane road; the > benefit of good headlights was immediately apparent. Fortunately my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it's overcast or near sundown, unless the driver has manually turned his > low beam headlights on. Old saturns are especially awful. When I visited the Seattle area in 1987, I did notice that folks would drive with their headlights on in the area where my brother-in-law lived. I thought it was strange but evidently,this was considered a safety measure for travel on those 2 lane roads.
> nate SMS - 24 Mar 2009 02:38 GMT >> I used to commute at night on a completely unlit 2-lane road; the >> benefit of good headlights was immediately apparent. Fortunately my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > lived. I thought it was strange but evidently,this was considered a > safety measure for travel on those 2 lane roads. There's other problems with DRLs, besides the particularly poor implementation GM has done on vehicles by using the high beams at reduced brightness.
Drivers with DRLs often forget to turn on their low beam headlights in rain or fog and at dusk or dawn. This is especially dangerous because the taillights do not come on until the low beams are turned on. Many drivers believe that in rain or fog the DRLs are sufficient and fail to turn on their low beams to activate their tail lights. When it is dark, the lack of dashboard lights is an indicator that the low beams and tail lights are not on, but in daytime conditions where the low beams should be used there is no indication that the DRLs, not the lowbeams, are on.
In 1998, after receiving hundreds of complaints, NHTSA acknowledged that the intensity limits were too high and proposed reductions in DRL intensity. NHTSA cited a study by Kirkpatrick, et. al. (1989), that said that at 2000cd, the glare from DRLs was rated at no worse than "just unacceptable" in 80% of the responses. At 4000cd, the glare was rated no worse than "disturbing" in 80% of the responses. These subjective ratings are based on the DeBoer scale. Corresponding to these ratings, they found that at 4000cd the probability that the rearview mirror would be dimmed was about 70%. At 2000cd the dimming probability was 40%. At 1000cd, the dimming probability dropped to 10%.” The NHTSA has now proposed that the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted. Expect the automakers to oppose this since it would add cost to do DRLs properly.
What’s good about DRLs is that they are proven to reduce head-on collisions on two lane roads, especially at dawn and dusk. This is what they were designed to do, and if they were implemented just to do this then you wouldn't see much opposition to them. You often see signs on roads in California proclaiming "Daylight Safety Test Section -- Turn on Headlights." These are the places where DRLs would be useful. Sadly, instead of coming up with a way to use DRLs only when appropriate, certain parties would like them to be on all the time. Why? Money. It's cheaper to implement a lame system than a well-designed system.
80 Knight - 24 Mar 2009 06:40 GMT >>> I used to commute at night on a completely unlit 2-lane road; the >>> benefit of good headlights was immediately apparent. Fortunately my [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > not on, but in daytime conditions where the low beams should be used there > is no indication that the DRLs, not the lowbeams, are on. That sounds like a problem with the driver's, not the vehicle, or the DRL system. Hell, I still see people on vehicles without auto lights driving around in the pitch black with no headlights on. Should the auto makers have to put a sign on the steering wheel to remind people to turn there lights on? Of course not. Regardless of what systems the vehicle has, the *driver* still needs to be in control, and needs to be intelligent enough to operate it. DRL's, ABS, Traction Control, etc., are all great things, but in the hands of a know-nothing driver, they are all useless.
> In 1998, after receiving hundreds of complaints, NHTSA acknowledged that > the intensity limits were too high and proposed reductions in DRL [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > parties would like them to be on all the time. Why? Money. It's cheaper to > implement a lame system than a well-designed system. A very heated DRL argument went on in the GM newsgroup last year, and it ended up being some agreed with DRL's and there function, and others didn't. Just like everything else in the world.
SMS - 24 Mar 2009 14:59 GMT > That sounds like a problem with the driver's, not the vehicle, or the DRL > system. It's aggravated by the DRL system. These drivers often mistakenly believe that their lights are on because of the DRLs, where if there were no DRLs they'd actually be turning on their lights.
> A very heated DRL argument went on in the GM newsgroup last year, and it > ended up being some agreed with DRL's and there function, and others didn't. > Just like everything else in the world. Actually the opinions don't really matter, it's the facts. The facts are that DRLs do serve to increase visibility and reduce accidents in certain situations, but according to statistical data, the only place where there was a net reduction in fatalities was for pedestrians.
Mike Marlow - 24 Mar 2009 15:18 GMT >> That sounds like a problem with the driver's, not the vehicle, or the DRL >> system. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > certain situations, but according to statistical data, the only place > where there was a net reduction in fatalities was for pedestrians. It would be worth looking into the archives of this group. The discussion that took place on this topic previously, reveal a lot more "facts" about what the statistics really show, than most people thought would be the case.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
Hairy - 25 Mar 2009 04:39 GMT >> That sounds like a problem with the driver's, not the vehicle, or the DRL >> system. > > It's aggravated by the DRL system. These drivers often mistakenly believe > that their lights are on because of the DRLs, where if there were no DRLs > they'd actually be turning on their lights. Some people don't know how to use DRL's properly, so let's just get rid of them. Some people still haven't figured out that you're not supposed to pump the brakes, when you have anti-locks. Let's get rid of them, too.
Some people oversteer after dropping one wheel off the roadway, and collide with oncoming traffic. Let's get rid of that pesky power steering and save people from themselves. Some people leave their small children in cars with the windows up, till they die. Damn windows, let's get rid of them.
>> A very heated DRL argument went on in the GM newsgroup last year, and it >> ended up being some agreed with DRL's and there function, and others [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > situations, but according to statistical data, the only place where there > was a net reduction in fatalities was for pedestrians. Hell, we don't need no reduction in pedestrian fatalities. Down with DLR's!!
80 Knight - 25 Mar 2009 05:46 GMT >> That sounds like a problem with the driver's, not the vehicle, or the DRL >> system. > > It's aggravated by the DRL system. These drivers often mistakenly believe > that their lights are on because of the DRLs, where if there were no DRLs > they'd actually be turning on their lights. The DRL's have nothing to do with it. If you own and operate a vehicle, you should know when to turn your lights on, and when they can be off. Do we get rid of every safety feature because some are too lazy to know how to use them?
>> A very heated DRL argument went on in the GM newsgroup last year, and it >> ended up being some agreed with DRL's and there function, and others [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > situations, but according to statistical data, the only place where there > was a net reduction in fatalities was for pedestrians. Facts scmaks. Back when the original argument went on in this group, there were thousand's of "facts" presented. The only true "fact" is that most automobiles are equipped with DRL's, and every driver should know what they are, and when to actually use there true headlights.
SMS - 25 Mar 2009 16:03 GMT > The DRL's have nothing to do with it. If you own and operate a vehicle, you > should know when to turn your lights on, and when they can be off. Do we > get rid of every safety feature because some are too lazy to know how to use > them? You've hit on the problem, the safety features should be passive and not make the vehicle actually more dangerous to operate for the owner, as well as more dangerous to others on the road.
It's not only their problem that they're too lazy or dim-witted to understand that DRLs do not equal headlights+tail lights, it's a problem for everyone that's on the road with them.
80 Knight - 25 Mar 2009 19:23 GMT >> The DRL's have nothing to do with it. If you own and operate a vehicle, >> you should know when to turn your lights on, and when they can be off. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > understand that DRLs do not equal headlights+tail lights, it's a problem > for everyone that's on the road with them. Well, you said yourself that DRL's do increase visibility and reduce accidents in certain situations. You also said that, according to statistical data, the only place where there was a net reduction in fatalities was for pedestrians. So what do we do? Cancel the DRL's, and have innocent pedestrians (who aren't even driving a vehicle, by the way) get killed, or force people to learn about there vehicles? Like I already said, car's are full of safety features that, when used incorrectly, can pose a huge safety risk. Some people still pump ABS equipped vehicles, so do we get rid of ABS, just because some people don't know how it works? That would be akin to getting rid of books, because some people can't read. It's also like blaming the gun for the homicide, instead of the person pulling the trigger. If DRL's are that much of a problem (which, they aren't in Ontario), then people need to be taught how to use them correctly.
SMS - 25 Mar 2009 19:54 GMT > Well, you said yourself that DRL's do increase visibility and reduce > accidents in certain situations. You also said that, according to > statistical data, the only place where there was a net reduction in > fatalities was for pedestrians. So what do we do? What you do is to implement a safety system that doesn't actually make things worse. It would not be hard to have a warning light or sound that warned when a driver only had their DRLs on at night or in low visibility conditions.
You also mandate standards for DRLs so that especially bad implementations of them, like GM has done on vehicles where they use the high beam headlights, are illegal.
You keep saying that it's the driver of the vehicle with DRLs that doesn't use them properly that's the problem, but you're not going to fix that behavior problem, and meanwhile their cluelessness makes things more dangerous for everyone.
The reason that the only statistical benefit of DRLs is pedestrians is not because DRLs don't work, it's because their benefits in the reduction of head-on collisions is being offset by how they contribute to other accidents.
It really isn't asking too much for the manufacturers to implement them properly, since this is already being done on many imports, such as Volvos, Saabs, etc. There needs to be a way to over-ride them and there needs to be a warning when the driver has _only_ their DRLs on at night (or the warning can be simply when the driver doesn't have their headlights on at night, regardless of the state of the DRLs).
80 Knight - 25 Mar 2009 22:06 GMT >> Well, you said yourself that DRL's do increase visibility and reduce >> accidents in certain situations. You also said that, according to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > (or the warning can be simply when the driver doesn't have their > headlights on at night, regardless of the state of the DRLs). You basically want the vehicle to have a warning system telling the driver the DRL's are on, but it's nighttime, and the full headlights should be on? GM's vehicles already have auto lights. When it gets dark, the headlights come on by themselves. As for the high beam DRL's, they don't bother me in the slightest, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
SMS - 26 Mar 2009 01:27 GMT > You basically want the vehicle to have a warning system telling the driver > the DRL's are on, but it's nighttime, and the full headlights should be on? Yes, because that's the most common problem with DRL equipped vehicles. The driver thinks that their lights are on because the DRLs (which are usually brighter than European DRLs) are providing road illumination. But they don't realize that their tail lights aren't on.
> GM's vehicles already have auto lights. When it gets dark, the headlights > come on by themselves. As for the high beam DRL's, they don't bother me in > the slightest, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Nah, we don't have to disagree, anyone that doubts that high beam DRLs annoy other drivers can simply read the NHTSA report, including the NHTSA proposal that the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted in the U.S..
80 Knight - 26 Mar 2009 12:48 GMT >> You basically want the vehicle to have a warning system telling the >> driver the DRL's are on, but it's nighttime, and the full headlights [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > usually brighter than European DRLs) are providing road illumination. But > they don't realize that their tail lights aren't on. That is called "driver error". Has nothing to do with the DRL system.
>> GM's vehicles already have auto lights. When it gets dark, the >> headlights come on by themselves. As for the high beam DRL's, they don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > proposal that the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted in the > U.S.. Oh boy the NHTSA did a report! Seriously, neither you nor the NHTSA can tell me what bothers my eyes at night, or anytime. DRL's have been standard in Canada for years, and no one here complains about them. If you live in a US state where DRL's are not required by law, and wish to disable them, that is what you need to do. Like I said, agree to disagree.
SMS - 26 Mar 2009 21:16 GMT > Oh boy the NHTSA did a report! Seriously, neither you nor the NHTSA can > tell me what bothers my eyes at night, or anytime. Not you specifically, but 80% of the population.
Mike Hunter - 27 Mar 2009 00:08 GMT you got that right! One will see Pennsylvania State Police stopping Canadian drivers, on I-81 most any evening, for not turning on their headlamps. A $132 'donation' to the states road system LOL
>> You basically want the vehicle to have a warning system telling the >> driver the DRL's are on, but it's nighttime, and the full headlights [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > usually brighter than European DRLs) are providing road illumination. But > they don't realize that their tail lights aren't on. Vic Smith - 26 Mar 2009 00:31 GMT >> Well, you said yourself that DRL's do increase visibility and reduce >> accidents in certain situations. You also said that, according to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >implementations of them, like GM has done on vehicles where they use the >high beam headlights, are illegal. There's nothing wrong with DRLs'. Any I've seen. The only problem is the anti-GM crowd that jumped on them because GM was the first to make them standard in the U.S./Canada. Did you know that GM plastic is "plastic" and Honda plastic is "leather-like"? They're seeing problems nobody else sees. Prowlers and burglars have to disable them, in order to furtively skulk around. Might be a real problem for them. If you want to stare at DRL's, go ahead. Your eyes. OTOH, there's those intense Euro headlights blinding everybody at night. BTW, the only time I touch the headlight switch in my DRL-equipped '97 Lumina is to turn on the interior lights. There's a sensor that turns on all the normal night time lights when it darkens. And they do go on in heavy rain. Personally, I could do without that automation, but so far it has been trouble-free.
--Vic
Mike Hunter - 26 Mar 2009 00:55 GMT Can we assume you do not ride a motorcycle?
DRLs are NOT standard in the US, the Congress conclude years ago that they caused more problems than the prevented.
> There's nothing wrong with DRLs'. Any I've seen. > The only problem is the anti-GM crowd that jumped on them because GM > was the first to make them standard in the U.S./Canada. Vic Smith - 26 Mar 2009 03:51 GMT >Can we assume you do not ride a motorcycle? Good assumption, but nothing to do with it. Daytime lights on bikes have only proven good. Makes them more visible so you don't pull out in front of them and cause an accident. I've seen it work. Same for cars, especially the ones colored the same as the pavement, including bumpers. Seen that too.
>DRLs are NOT standard in the US, the Congress conclude years ago that they >caused more problems than the prevented. As I said, they are standard on U.S./Canada GM vehicles - as far as I know. DRL's are the law in Canada. Easier to standardize production. Congress should give Canada the "facts" about DRL's. Include that crap free with the "Waterboarding Manual." Congress conclude? Might be a good idea. Probably got paid by some anti-DRL greenie wackos via lobbyists. DRL's burning use some gas, adding to global warming. Are you part of that crowd? Don't worry about it. You can bypass DRL's in the U.S. and do your part to reduce global warming. Turn down the heat in the house just to be sure. I don't care much about DRL's one way or another, except for arguing More concerned that my toaster doesn't zap me when I stick a fork in there. So I don't.
--Vic
>> There's nothing wrong with DRLs'. Any I've seen. >> The only problem is the anti-GM crowd that jumped on them because GM >> was the first to make them standard in the U.S./Canada. SMS - 26 Mar 2009 04:31 GMT > DRL's burning use some gas, adding to global warming. GM is part of that crowd. They got permission to disconnect DRLs when conducting their EPA mileage tests. Considering that the amount of extra fuel that DRLs use is extremely small, you have to wonder why they felt compelled to disconnect them.
Mike Hunter - 26 Mar 2009 00:25 GMT When the US Congress was considering making DRLs standard in the US, several studies showed DRLs caused more accidents then the prevented. Particularly at times of limited vision and increases in motorcycle accidents. Do a search of the Congressional Record for the facts.
> Well, you said yourself that DRL's do increase visibility and reduce > accidents in certain situations. Vic Smith - 26 Mar 2009 00:43 GMT >When the US Congress was considering making DRLs standard in the US, several >studies showed DRLs caused more accidents then the prevented. Particularly >at times of limited vision and increases in motorcycle accidents. Do a >search of the Congressional Record for the facts. Wacko bullshit. Even you could put something in the Congressional Record. Might as well read the Old Farmer's Almanac.
--Vic
Mike Hunter - 26 Mar 2009 00:57 GMT Go to Committee reports, not member remarks and see for yourself why DRLs were not made standard.
>>When the US Congress was considering making DRLs standard in the US, >>several [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > --Vic SMS - 26 Mar 2009 01:29 GMT > When the US Congress was considering making DRLs standard in the US, several > studies showed DRLs caused more accidents then the prevented. Particularly > at times of limited vision and increases in motorcycle accidents. Do a > search of the Congressional Record for the facts. The NHTSA study showed no increase or decrease from DRLs. DRLs increased rates for some types of accidents and decreased them for others. The only clear benefit of DRLs that was found was that pedestrians were more likely to see vehicles with DRLs at dawn and dusk, and hence there was a reduction in pedestrian fatalities.
Art - 09 Feb 2009 01:12 GMT I replaced 3 out of 4 2005 Accord hybrid bulbs without looking at the manual (upgraded them to HIR). Got stuck on the 4th one and looked at the manual and found that all were easier than what I did.
>> "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, >> you actually end up making more money on the car 12 months out than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Accord was hard when I had to remove the battery to get to the left bulb, > then remove and replace three screws by feel. who - 11 Mar 2009 08:50 GMT > > "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, > > you actually end up making more money on the car 12 months out than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Accord was hard when I had to remove the battery to get to the left > bulb, then remove and replace three screws by feel. Nor when the trunk opening is so small you have to fold your suitcases to fit them into the nice sized trunk.
Father Guido - 19 Mar 2009 00:59 GMT >> > "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, >> > you actually end up making more money on the car 12 months out than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Nor when the trunk opening is so small you have to fold your suitcases >to fit them into the nice sized trunk. On my fathers 2000 Malibu you have to remove the exterior brake lamp assembly to change the bulb! And there's no drain hole for water to exit which means more burnt out bulbs in rainy season.
SMS - 19 Mar 2009 04:06 GMT >>>> "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, >>>> you actually end up making more money on the car 12 months out than [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > assembly to change the bulb! And there's no drain hole for water to > exit which means more burnt out bulbs in rainy season. I just had to change a brake light bulb on my wife's 1996 Camry. First time I had to change a rear bulb of any kind in 13 years! I was surprised to have to use a wrench rather than just a screwdriver, but it was still pretty easy to change.
I need to complain to Toyota that a bulb burned out after only 13 years. That's the first problem we've had with that vehicle.
PerfectReign - 19 Mar 2009 04:48 GMT >> On my fathers 2000 Malibu you have to remove the exterior brake lamp >> assembly to change the bulb! And there's no drain hole for water to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I need to complain to Toyota that a bulb burned out after only 13 years. > That's the first problem we've had with that vehicle. Yeah, the mid-90s Camry cars were pretty good. They had no guts but decent legroom. I have a buddy with a '95 model. Another buddy has an '05, which has no legroom whatsoever.
 Signature www.perfectreign.com Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee Hock
Art - 09 Feb 2009 01:08 GMT I've rented one twice on trips. Nice car but not perfect. Interior a bit cramped and gaudy. Seemed that they copied the Accord but made it smaller. Would have been better off copying the Camry.
> "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, > you actually end up making more money on the car 12 months out than [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > http://www.freep.com/article/20090205/BUSINESS01/902050392/1014/Chevrolet+Malibu +sales+jump+51.5+++dealers+pleased Daniel - 09 Feb 2009 17:21 GMT johngd...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "A sign of a good launch ========= Perhaps GM is now improving quality to be competitive and getting away from the old idea of planned obsolescence. From a simple point of observation, the paint work on the new Buicks seems to indicate a marked improvement.
ransley - 13 Feb 2009 13:24 GMT On Feb 7, 10:00 pm, johngd...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "A sign of a good launch is where you go through the first 12 months, > you actually end up making more money on the car 12 months out than [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > http://www.freep.com/article/20090205/BUSINESS01/902050392/1014/Chevr... The car looks good.
|
|
|