 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Volvo Cars / April 20072007 S80 - turning off daylight running lights
Hi there, does anyone know how to turn off the daylight running lights in a 2007 S80? My old S40 had instructions in the manual - the S80 only says to have it done by a dealer.... Thanks, Wolfgang. In an earlier contribution to this discussion, > Hi there, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks, > Wolfgang. On my 1999 V70, there is a little screw in the corner of the light switch housing - but more recent models don't have this - and it requires some of the data in an on-board computer to be changed which, unfortunately, is a dealer job. I suspect that some dealers may be reluctant to help - even though they have the technology - in case you subsequently have an accident, and the dealer gets sued for removing a 'safety' feature. So you may need to insist. But, unless you live in a country where *all* cars have to have daylight running lights by law, you have a perfect right to have the bl**dy things switched off. Apart from anything else, it will save you a fortune in replacement light bulbs.  SignatureCheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP! > you have a perfect right to have the bl**dy things switched > off. Apart from anything else, it will save you a fortune in replacement > light bulbs. Any data to back up this claim? The reason I ask is that we have a 2001 V70 in which we leave our light switch in the on position all the time. We got about 70,000 miles out of our first headlamp capsule, and about 60,000 miles for a turn signal lamp, at which point in each case we replaced the pair. That's all the lamps we've replaced... In the grand scheme of Volvo maintenance about $10-$20 for a pair of lamps really isn't too much in trade for never having to think if it's appropriate to turn on the lights. In my opinion... In an earlier contribution to this discussion, >> you have a perfect right to have the bl**dy things switched >> off. Apart from anything else, it will save you a fortune in >> replacement light bulbs. > > Any data to back up this claim? Which part - the right to switch them off, or the money saved? The first part is fairly obvious. In any country where the majority of new cars are legally supplied *without* daytime running lights, it's a 'no brainer' that you can turn them off on cars which *are* supplied with them, without legal consequence. With regard to money saved, I have only anecdotal evidence from this NG, where people have complained about repeated bulb failures (possibly only relating to certain models but, IIRC, including the 850 -> 70 series, but maybe not S80) You will appreciate that I used a little poetic licence in referring to a "fortune". <g> What amazes me is the absence of the pro-running-light brigade who almost invariably get exercised whenever I advocate turning them off! SignatureCheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP! > In an earlier contribution to this discussion, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Which part - the right to switch them off, or the money saved? Well, the money saved was the part to which I replied... > With regard to money saved, I have only anecdotal evidence from this NG, > where people have complained about repeated bulb failures (possibly only > relating to certain models but, IIRC, including the 850 -> 70 series, but > maybe not S80) I've got, as noted, a 2001 V70. The lighting has been exemplary. I heard of an early run of V70s with lighting problems, it appears to have been fixed by June 2001. > You will appreciate that I used a little poetic licence in referring to a > "fortune". <g> Yeah, but my experience has been completely the opposite. I've spent more on car wash soap than I've spent on replacement lamps. That's why I'm curious about the need to turn off a safety feature to save money. > What amazes me is the absence of the pro-running-light brigade who almost > invariably get exercised whenever I advocate turning them off! Oh, no, I'm not offended - knock yourself out! I persoanlly don't get it - I can see no reason to make myself less visible, but I'm not you. Though I hope I don't run into you in a period of low visibility because you forgot to flip the switch... <g> In an earlier contribution to this discussion, > Yeah, but my experience has been completely the opposite. I've spent > more on car wash soap than I've spent on replacement lamps. That's > why I'm curious about the need to turn off a safety feature to save > money. The money saving bit was really a throw-away line. My real motivation for turning them off is that it looks stupid to be driving around with your lights on in broad daylight. I can understand the need in northern Scandinavia, where it never gets light for a great chunk of the year - but let's not impose that on the rest of the world. If it was *that* much of a safety feature, wouldn't it be mandatory *everywhere*? Turning them off also makes a contribution - albeit small - towards saving the planet. The electricity to power the lights has to be generated, causing the engine to work a bit harder, resulting in slightly greater fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. It's a small amount, but multiply it by the many millions of vehicle miles covered, and it begins to add up. SignatureCheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP! > In an earlier contribution to this discussion, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. It's a small amount, but multiply > it by the many millions of vehicle miles covered, and it begins to add up. Not to mention the global warming caused by the heat that is generated from all those millions of light bulbs. > In an earlier contribution to this discussion, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The money saving bit was really a throw-away line. My real motivation for > turning them off is that it looks stupid to be driving around with yourlightson in broad daylight. Stupid? How so? Given to the number of jokes about it posted on the Internet, is it any stupider than you look driving a Volvo in the first place? After all, we are all clueless tree-hugging liberals and Birkenstock-wearing soccer moms. I would posit that DRL detracts very little from the image. What looks stupid is the 50% or more GM vehicles with one DRL burnt out. At least my lights are symmetrical. > If it was *that* much of a safety feature, wouldn't it be mandatory > *everywhere*? Not everyone is as enlightened as Canadians... > Turning them off also makes a contribution - albeit small - towards saving > the planet. The electricity to power thelightshas to be generated, causing > the engine to work a bit harder, resulting in slightly greater fuel > consumption and exhaust emissions. It's a small amount, but multiply it by > the many millions of vehicle miles covered, and it begins to add up. Do you have any idea how small? Here's a quiz: While driving your reasonably modern Volvo (new enough to have DRL), which adds more to global warming - running your auto's air conditioner, or shutting it off and putting the windows down? In an earlier contribution to this discussion, >> In an earlier contribution to this discussion, > >> If it was *that* much of a safety feature, wouldn't it be mandatory >> *everywhere*? > > Not everyone is as enlightened as Canadians... Well we Brits are (with some justification) believed to be overly safety conscious and risk adverse - but *we* don't require vehicles to be fitted with daylight running lights. >> Turning them off also makes a contribution - albeit small - towards >> saving [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Do you have any idea how small? No - do you? But it's finite. > Here's a quiz: While driving your reasonably modern Volvo (new enough > to have DRL), which adds more to global warming - running your auto's > air conditioner, or shutting it off and putting the windows down? The answer may not be as obvious as you think. Driving with the windows open adds to the drag, and makes the engine work harder. I don't know which effect is larger. Shutting off the aircon when you don't need it *is* a good idea, though (but keeping the windows shut). SignatureCheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP! > > Do you have any idea how small? > > No - do you? Yep. > But it's finite. Indeed it is. But is it significant? In an earlier contribution to this discussion, >>> Do you have any idea how small? >> >> No - do you? > > Yep. Go on, then - tell us! >> But it's finite. > > Indeed it is. But is it significant? Quite possibly. Here in the UK, there's quite a lot of publicity aimed at getting people to turn off wallwart-type mobile phone chargers and the like when not needed on the basis that - taken collectively - they could account for a whole power station. A similar argument could be applied to DRLs. SignatureCheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP! > In an earlier contribution to this discussion, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Go on, then - tell us! That's my point - most people throw out all kind of arguments against these things, but cannot provide any evidence. But, geek that I am, I've done the work for you. The numbers aren't informative by themselves, but it's the equivalent of a tire underinflated by 2 psi, or maybe not washing your car for a year. > >> But it's finite. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > when not needed on the basis that - taken collectively - they could account > for a whole power station. A similar argument could be applied to DRLs. Yes, it could. Let me ask you, though - what are the safety issues involved in not keeping your wall wart plugged in? My route to work is through the countryside, where small lanes enter the roadway at inconvenient places. There are trees lining both sides for a good part of the trip. This morning, I was headed to work in the '91 245, which also has the lights on all the time. As I came around a curve, I noticed a car quickly stopping short of entering the roadway...it appeared that, had he not seen my headlights through the trees, he might very well have pulled out in front of me, as there was no line of sight for him around the curve. Now, how minscule an amount of CO2 emissions is worth me having to test my airbags? In an earlier contribution to this discussion, >> Here in the UK, there's quite a lot of publicity >> aimed at getting people to turn off wallwart-type mobile phone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, it could. Let me ask you, though - what are the safety issues > involved in not keeping your wall wart plugged in? Possibly the opposite of what you think - in extremis, they could constitute a fire risk if they *are* left on. My wife often leaves her mobile phone charger plugged in and switched on - with the phone not connected to it. How could it possibly be *unsafe* to switch it off? > My route to work is through the countryside, where small lanes enter > the roadway at inconvenient places. There are trees lining both sides [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Now, how minscule an amount of CO2 emissions is worth me having to > test my airbags? There are obviously occasions when poor visibility or difficult lighting conditions make it sensible to turn your lights on. But that doesn't mean that you need to have them on all the time. SignatureCheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP! > >> Here in the UK, there's quite a lot of publicity > >> aimed at getting people to turn off wallwart-type mobile phone [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > charger plugged in and switched on - with the phone not connected to it. How > could it possibly be *unsafe* to switch it off? Not my point - I am saying that in general your phone charger is not a safety feature. Certainly not like increased visibility. Of course, you will think of some obscure reason that has a one-in-a-million chance of being in that category. for that, I commend your ingenuity. > > Now, how minscule an amount of CO2 emissions is worth me having to > > test my airbags? > > There are obviously occasions when poor visibility or difficult lighting > conditions make it sensible to turn your lights on. But that doesn't mean > that you need to have them on all the time. How can I know for certain that I am visible? Why not take chance out of the equation? Roger, turn your lights off if you wish. Be as contrary as you like. I can think of a thousand reasons to keep my lights off -- none of them are worth my life. On my cars without DRL, I turn them on each and every time I start the car. It's just plain common sense - certainly where I live - to take every opportunity to make the mouth-breathers aware of my occupying the roadway. I expect that on your tiny island, where you drive the only car and spend most of your time high up in your ivory tower, the other guy does not merit consideration. So be it... Cheers, mate. In an earlier contribution to this discussion, >>>> Here in the UK, there's quite a lot of publicity >>>> aimed at getting people to turn off wallwart-type mobile phone [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you will think of some obscure reason that has a one-in-a-million > chance of being in that category. for that, I commend your ingenuity. But we were actually talking about the energy and emissions aspect of not using DRL's - it was you who introduced safety in relation to wall warts. > Roger, turn your lights off if you wish. I expect that on > your tiny island, where you drive the only car and spend most of your > time high up in your ivory tower, the other guy does not merit > consideration. So be it... I wish! Actually, you may have unwittingly hit the nail on the head. On my 'tiny' island - which has umpteen million vehicles on relatively little road, the roads are so crowded that you're never more than about 10 yards away from the nearest vehicle. That's probably why we don't need DRL's - 'cos you can't help but see nearby vehicles - with or without lights! SignatureCheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP! Oh no! Not only the endless DRL thread, but the endless A/C vs. windows thread. A double whammy. Mike In an earlier contribution to this discussion, > Oh no! Not only the endless DRL thread, but the endless A/C vs. > windows thread. A double whammy. > > Mike Well, you're getting two for the price of one. Beat that for value! <g> SignatureCheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP! > Hi there, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks, > Wolfgang. You have bring the car in to the dealer they have to change a setting in the CEM ( Central Electronic Module ) as for a charge it depends on the servicing dealer Glenn Volvo Certified Technician ASE Certified Technician Signature" Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new" -- Albert Einstein |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.