Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Honda Cars / March 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Chevrolet Malibu sales jump 51.5%; dealers pleased

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
 
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.