The dangers of DRLs

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:59:55 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:

>> I do, but regardless, your tone is unwarranted.
>>
>> If my opinion was really as far off as you claim it is you would not
>> have to get nasty at every opportunity. The fact that you do points to
>> either lack of proper upbringing or lack of arguments.
>>
> Or perhaps exasperation at seeing you disagree with literally everyone
> else, presenting no logical or factual basis for your arguments?

Everyone else being three or four people with extreme bias.

Apparently the NHTSA agrees with me:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...mentofDRLs.pdf
Page 23

Now it's your turn: Show that DRLs are dangerous and do so with proper
referencing of relevant documents.

> The only explanation I can come up with is that you've invested heavily
> in GM stock (and if I were in that position, I might be resorting to
> desperate measures myself.)

I suggest you lay off the unfounded insults.

Chris

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:12:40 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:

>> Which is about the worst owner I could wish for a car company. Renault
>> makes truly horrible automobiles. Zero reliability, horrible suspensions
>> and brakes, terrible ergonomics and short life expectancy paired with
>> ugly design and total lack of driving enjoyment.
>
>
> Really. I like the looks of Renault cars.

My condolences...

> My very first car was a 4cyl, MT, rear wheel drive, rear engine Renault
> car. No power anything. It was a great little car.

You must be truly ancient, because Renault stopped making these in the
60s (Dauphine/Floride/4CV).

> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Renault has won numerous F1 and
> rally races.

Renault F1 and Renault Rally have nothing whatsoever to do with the street
cars Renault builds other than that a significant amount of money from
every Renault built goes to financing Formula 1.

Racing shows RWD is superior. Renault builds FWD cars exclusively. Racing
shows that handling precision is necessary. Renault builds soft wallowy
street cars. Racing mandates reliability. Renault has a subscription to
last places in the German TUEV reliability and longevity reports. The list
goes on and on.

>> By the way, there are some japanese cars I respect, even a Nissan
>> design from the pre-Renault era. You may guess which model I mean.
>
> Yes. THe new version is pretty cool too, and I'm sure they've fixed
> whatever problems it had

You are quite mistaken, but given your taste in design that's excusable.
The car I respect is the Nissan Skyline R34, not any of the Z models,
though I will admit that the 240Z was a nice looking little thing.

The current Z, apart from being bone ugly, suffered and still suffers from
extreme tire wear, alignment problems and associated handling issues.
Nissan so far is stuck between claiming there is no problem and not being
able to pinpoint it. A solution for the current buyers is not in sight.

Chris

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:06:58 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:

>> Which is about the worst owner I could wish for a car company. Renault
>> makes truly horrible automobiles. Zero reliability, horrible suspensions
>> and brakes, terrible ergonomics and short life expectancy paired with
>> ugly design and total lack of driving enjoyment.
>
> And yet you defend GM. You have just summed up my opinion of 95% of GM
> products right there.

I find my car very enjoyable to drive, the Corvette too. Reliability and
longevity don't seem to be a problem either. Many of my friends own
F-Bodies with somewhere north of 200k miles on them. And if you look at
the current quality assessment you will find GM is always one of the front
runners.

Yes, they built truly horrible cars for a while, just like Chrysler and
Ford. The K-car era was not fun. But things change and after enough years
have passed most people can see that.

Chris

C.H. wrote:

>
> You must be truly ancient, because Renault stopped making these in the
> 60s (Dauphine/Floride/4CV).

Very good. Actually, Renault 8 Gordini.
And no, it wasnt even remotely new when I bought it
I also owned a 2CV (Citroen). Very nice car too!

>
>
> Renault F1 and Renault Rally have nothing whatsoever to do with the street
> cars Renault builds other than that a significant amount of money from
> every Renault built goes to financing Formula 1.

Goes to show that Renault has the technology to build great engines
and cars. But the Gordini was my first (and last) Renault. I liked
it a lot.


>
> The current Z, apart from being bone ugly, suffered and still suffers from
> extreme tire wear, alignment problems and associated handling issues.
> Nissan so far is stuck between claiming there is no problem and not being
> able to pinpoint it. A solution for the current buyers is not in sight.

I'd go for an Infinity G35 instead.

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:24:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:05:27 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And your source for the demographic information? Last I read, the
>>>>demographics were similar for both models. But, I'll defer to your
>>>>source, please provide it.
>>>
>>>Observation. I don't have any positive or negative feelings for either
>>>car, so the observation should be pretty unbiased.
>>
>>Hmm, most of the Sebring owners I know are young, just-out-of-college
>>people who picked them up cheap and used. But of course the whole idea of
>>relying on personal observation for demographic data is silly -
>>demographics can vary wildly from one area to another.
>
>
> I see a lot of old people in the car. I suppose the reason is the same as
> for Reeves to buy it, namely fear of modern features, specifically ABS.
> The Sebring is one of the few midsize cars that still is available without.

You say modern features, I say unnecessary complexity.

I'd rather spend my $$$ on a car that had good basic systems without
electronic band-aids covering up its shortcomings.

>
>
>>>>Apparently gunpoint will soon be the only way they will sell the cars,
>>>>if the trend continues.
>>>
>>>Weird, the sales numbers for GM don't seem so bad right now.
>>
>>At this exact moment, no, but that's mostly due to their new "employee
>>discount" sales gimmick. Their numbers looked downright terrifying
>>prior to that.
>
>
> The employee discount is just a consolidation of the rebates they were
> giving before. Uppricing cars and then giving large rebates has been a way
> of life for quite a few car makers lately.

That doesn't negate the fact that it seems on the face of it to be the
sole reason for GM's recent increase in sales.

>
>>>Quality is up
>>>according to a whole number of sources, and the lineup that is coming
>>>out now (looks quite appealing to me. And as you yourself stated so
>>>loudly, people don't dislike cars just because they dislike a feature.
>>>
>>>GM's past problems stem from the cars being designed by bean counters,
>>>not car enthusiasts. And this seems to be about to change.
>>
>>I respectfully disagree, the number of obviously bean-counter-designed
>>cars in GM's lineup vastly outnumbers the obviously enthusiast-designed
>>ones.
>
>
> Currently: Yes, which is exactly what I said. The new models that are
> coming out are not. See Saturn Sky, Pontiac Solstice, even the already
> available Goat and CTS-V. More cars are going to be switched to RWD
> platforms and made for driving fun again, which will improve sales numbers
> even more than any discount scheme could.
>

We can only hope that they don't continue their longstanding tradition
of promising new and exciting cars and delivering the same old blah.
How many cars have we had high hopes for in the past only to be sadly
disappointed by the mediocre execution? (anyone remember the Fiero?
And to rub salt in it, they killed it off almost immediately after
finally turning it into an almost respectable car)
>
>>>In other words, you didn't test drive the car or were so inattentive
>>>during the test drive that you didn't see that the light switch has no
>>>off position.
>>
>>I think it's reasonable to assume that a light switch would have an off
>>position.
>
>
> Assuming something when buying a big-ticket item is simply stupid.
>

Omitting a universal functionality to save a few pennies is stupid. If
that's GM's position on light switches, one can only imagine the corners
they've cut elsewhere.

>
>>The fact that he didn't notice it was because it's really fairly
>>surprising that any mfgr. would be so stupid as to not include it.
>
>
> You may see it as stupid, I see it as smart. Stops total idiots from
> switching off their lights at night.
>

Sometimes you *WANT* to. A company that assumes that I'm dumb enough to
turn my lights off when they're actually needed is insulting to my
intelligence, and by extension, their entire customer base. I see GM
saying "hey, all you people who buy our cars, we think that you're total
morons."

>
>>Yes, there are very good reasons for wanting to kill all your lights,
>>or switch to only parking lights - as repeatedly stated in this
>>newsgroup.
>
>
> Reasons that mostly entail keeping your engine running where you should
> not beause of environmental reasons.
>

Bzzt. try again (see below.)

>
>>Military installation security checkpoints, restaurant> parking lots, Xmas light displays, to name the first three that come to
>>mind.
>
>
> Given the number of GM cars driven by military personnel (including cars
> the military owns) I rather doubt that auto headlights are a problem at a
> security checkpoint.
>

The military owned vehicles don't have DRL's; or at least GM is willing
to sell them vehicles without DRLs (along with law enforcement) You and
I, however, can't order vehicles without them.

>
>>>You had a very good reason to do your homework. If you don't it's your
>>>fault and yours alone.
>>>
>>
>>GM is still taking a very consumer-unfriendly position.
>
>
> I don't see it that way. And if you don't like GM, buy a competitor's car.
>

Believe me, unless things change, I will always shop elsewhere first.

>
>>>If you really didn't know a feature you feel strongly about, you are at
>>>fault.
>>>
>>
>>Are you quite finished telling James what an idiot he is yet?
>
>
> I don't think he is an idiot, neither do I think you are one. If you
> thought you were idiots I would not debate with you.
>
> I merely pointed out that James did something stupid (and if you think
> only idiots do stupid things you are less sophisticated than I thought)
> and that like any good middle-class American he needs to find someone to
> blame for his mistake. And a large company like GM is always a welcome
> victim.
>

Is it not acceptable then to criticize GM even after one has bought one
of their products? Or is it a sign of weakness to have bought something
and then admit that it is flawed?

>
>>>GM is not at fault here. The cars work as advertised and there is any
>>>number of sources telling you exactly what the car does and doesn't do.
>>>You are alone to blame for lack of research and buying a car without
>>>even properly test driving it.
>>>
>>
>>Blah, blah, blah...
>
>
> If you have something productive to say, do so, otherwise I advise not
> commenting at all.
>

Indeed.

>
>>>>You're just so good at figuring things out, aren't you. Perhaps that
>>>>particular customer base that buys high end cars had a high request for
>>>>ABS? But, I don't know why (and neither do you).
>>>
>>>Ferrari has ABS stock on all models. Porsche has ABS stock on all
>>>models. Ferrari even fitted it on their formula one racers until it got
>>>outlawed. Mercedes, BMW, all mitsize to luxury cars from Japan and the
>>>US. Everyone has ABS except for a bunch of cheapo base models for
>>>clueless penny pinchers.
>>
>>The ABS fitted to high end sports cars and F1 racers is very different
>>from the ABS fitted to consumer-grade sedans,
>
>
> The differences have been big 20 years ago. Today the differences are
> quite small and ABS does a better job than just about any consumer grade
> sedan driver in every situation.
>
>

Your definition of "quite small" is very different from mine. Even if
the hardware is similar, the software is radically different, and
deliberately so. I can tell you for a fact that the ABS on many "mass
market" vehicles is tuned for maximum stability at the expense of
ultimate stopping performance.

>>and often has
>>driver-selectable programs ranging from "normal" to "don't intervene
>>until you detect that I'm about to commit vehicular suicide" and
>>sometimes even "off."
>
>
> Ferrari had that when they first introduced ABS. The new models do not
> have an ABS off switch. Neither does Porsche or Mercedes-Benz, simply
> because ABS does work. It works even on the track, reducing tire wear,
> improving control and even making it possible to brake hard into the turn,
> which is a driving style that has become very fashionable.
>

I don't really feel like doing the research right now, but I'm certain
there are current vehicles that do indeed have different,
driver-selectable levels of ABS/DSC intervention.

> No racer would seriously claim (like James does) that he induces a
> controlled skid with a 4-wheel non-ABS system.

I must have missed whatever post prompted your comment, but inducing a
controlled skid in a non-ABS vehicle is really no great feat. Either
I'm missing some context, or your comment makes no sense.


>>>Btw, I am still waiting for your explanation, how you induce a
>>>controlled skid on your FWD box without ABS.
>>
>>Huh? Surely there's a typo in that sentence 'cause it doesn't make
>>sense.
>
>
> No, it doesn't but that's exactly what James claims as the reason he
> doesn't want ABS on his car.
>

See above.

>>>For safety. Fatal accidents down 5-20%
>>
>>Due to DRL's? I call bull**** until I see a cite.
>
>
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...mentofDRLs.pdf
>
> Look at page 23.
>

I have absolutely no respect for NHTSA and their supposed objectivity
and concern for safety. Likewise for the IIHS. In my mind both are
corrupt, incredibly biased organizations that have their own agendas
that they push at great cost, both in dollars and in safety.

>
>>Even most insurance companies admit that there's no benefit to DRL's,
>>or at least don't give a discount for DRL's which is pretty much the
>>same thing.
>
>
> Insurance companies give a benefit where they think it will increase sales
> and not cost too much. Most drivers would be royally ****ed if their
> insurance company gave discounts for DRLs, because they don't have them.

Most drivers do have DRLs, it seems. And since when were insurance
companies concerned about sales? I'm not aware of too many places where
insurance isn't compulsory, unless you're filthy stinkin' rich.

>
>>>>Uhm, GM would be helped if they gave the customer base what they want.
>>>
>>>... which is fun to drive cars.
>>
>>It would be nice if they made those, yes.
>
>
> They are. Corvette. GTO. CTS-V.

All overpriced for what they are.

> And upcoming models like Saturn Sky,
> Pontiac Solstice and more.
>

We'll see...

As it is, they keep churning out plastic-clad Pontiacs and trying to
pretend they're "exciting" with a straight corporate face. As usual,
the public is not fooled.

>
>>>No one cares about DRLs except for a few 'back to the 50s' crusaders.
>>>
>>
>>And most of the readers of this newsgroup, and most people who take an
>>active interest in road safety. Yourself included, apparently. Granted,
>>you're wrong, but you apparently have a strong opinion on the subject.
>
>
> The readers of this small newsgroup are a very small minority and
> certainly not a feasible market for car makers.
>

But if a company wants to build a reputation for making good cars, they
have to impress the car guys first.

> And concerning my opinion, it is well founded unlike yours.

Bull****.

> I still want
> to see your references to sources that deem DRLs and automatic headlights
> dangerous.

People more knowledgeable than I have already posted info that you have
refused to look at.

> So far I have supported my opinion by an NHTSA study.

Oooh, I'm so impressed. You posted one link to a study funded by a
corrupt and deeply flawed organization.

> You have
> not. And until you do so you certainly have no basis to call my opinion
> wrong.

You are wrong. There's plenty of evidence out there that says so, some
of it posted in this thread. Some of it actually on the NHTSA web site,
amusingly enough (I'm thinking of the docket on DRLs and glare in
particular. Now that's not a condemnation of the concept of DRLs, true,
but it does condemn the vast majority of implementations on the road
today - allowed by NHTSA even though a study of the history of the
regulations will show that THEY KNEW BETTER from the beginning.)

>
>>>Yesterday you were howling about the GTO not being as cheap as the
>>>Vette, today they are giving them away. You are really an amusing
>>>in-duh-viduum, James.
>
>
>>Who said anything about the GTO?
>
>
> Reeves did. He said that he wants GM to price the Goat down to the
> Mustang's level.

That would be a good marketing move on GM's part, I think. Otherwise
the Mustang is going to be a runaway success and the GTO is going to be
yet another "could have been."

>
>
>>His statement was that GM was practically giving away cars *in
>>general,* which may or may not be true (I'm not privy to their
>>cost-per-unit compared to their current pricing) but it's an undeniable
>>fact that they're relying on discounts and sales gimmicks to move the
>>metal, which is not a viable long term business strategy.
>
>
> If they are giving away cars I want to see where. I could use a new
> Duramax Diesel Silverado. Last time I looked the Silverado I want is
> somewhere north of $40k which is nowhere near 'given away' or 'free.
>
> GM is not giving anything away, they just price cars up and then give
> discounts. Apparently this works, because the less informed think they are
> giving something away.
>
> Chris

Yes, and it's fairly clear that that perception is why they're selling
as many vehicles as they are.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:48:42 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:57:22 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>> A lot of the ECE regulations are just as stupid, they just look smart
>> because most good US boys adore Mercedes-Benz and BMW. I have quite some
>> experience with rules and regs in Germany, specifically concerning
>> having a car certified roadworthy and I can tell you that the number of
>> stupid rules is just about the same as it is over here. By the way, the
>> ECE does not mandate rear fog lights. That's a national law in Germany.
>
> You mean like the TUeV inspections? I'm sure they're a royal PITA but
> personally given the US climate of "get away with whatever you can, and do
> the bare minimum necessary to keep it legal enough that I won't get
> hassled" I can certainly respect where they're coming from.

They are coming from the desire of the private company TUEV (and recently
DEKRA) trying to boost their revenue. The percentage of accidents due to
technical defects is about the same over there and here and they both are
negligible. Also the TUEV does NOT test many of the real security
problems. Shocks are not tested at all, just checked for fluid leakage,
which is just stupid. And the list goes on and on.

> I'm aware that the ECE codes don't mandate rear fogs, but I believe that
> several other European countries do, and that the rear fogs must conform
> to ECE spec (starting to bisect lagomorphs here, but WTF...)

The only things about rear foglights that must conform to ECE specs is the
glass/plastic lens and the wattage of the bulb. The glass/plastic lens
gets smashed by a child's head dummy and if it produces splinters larger
than x mm it gets rejected.

>> With the headlights you are totally right. But you don't know the
>> majority of ECE regulations (even going so far to think the ECE
>> determines what has to be on a car and what doesn't).
>
> I have actually read more of them than most people likely have, due to
> having access to them at a previous job and just a natural curiosity
> about such things. Likewise with NHTSA regs.

Apparently not too many of them, or you would know that they on the whole
make about as much sense than the regs over here.

>>>Chris against the world. Good luck with that.
>>
>> Chris and most other drivers in Germany. Ask the average German driver
>> about rear foglights and prepare to be on the receiving end of a stream
>> of profanity.
>>
> Because people use them incorrectly over there?

Partly. Also because they blind drivers following even in foggy conditions
(in spite of being oh so ECE certified). And because they don't make a
difference.

> Not a uniquely German trait. There's actually an easy fix for that
> however, make the switch a momentary one activating a latching relay
> that resets whenever the car is turned off.

That would be at least a small improvement. I suggested this years ago.
Still doesn't help. People turn them on because they think it's cool,
because they think 2 miles visibility in haze is the mandatory 50m maximum
visibility in dense fog. People drive on the autobahn at 120mph with their
rear foglights on although the law clearly states that they can only be
used in less than 50m visibility and that the speed limit in these
conditions is 50km/h (31mph).

> Costs a little more, but it takes a DETERMINED idiot to leave his rear
> fog on 24/7 then.

There are too many determined idiots out there, which is why I think
automatic headlights _without_an_off_switch_ are such a good idea.

> There's no need to lambast a useful safety feature just because people
> don't know how to use it correctly (i.e. rarely.)

The feature is not lambasted because it is used improperly, but because it
doesn't have a beneficial effect even when used properly. On the contrary.
The blinding and associated desensitizing of the eyes in murky or
nighttime conditions are a significant disadvantage.

> Personally I like the rear fog, at least 2-3x a year I seem to end up
> getting caught in a true pea soup fog, and always feel better having
> that little extra light back there.

I never felt safer with that light back there in pea soup fog and stopped
using it after almost getting rear ended several times in these conditions
by people, who thought due to the fog light that visibility was
significantly better than it actually was.

> Which reminds me, I have a rear fog switch that I got from the YooKay,
> I'd better get that wired up before it cools off again.

Good luck.

Chris

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:05:45 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>
>> You must be truly ancient, because Renault stopped making these in the
>> 60s (Dauphine/Floride/4CV).
>
> Very good. Actually, Renault 8 Gordini. And no, it wasnt even remotely new
> when I bought it I also owned a 2CV (Citroen). Very nice car too!

Sorry, forgot the R8. By the way, the Gordini was not really a Renault,
the suspension was very significantly different, so were the brakes. It's
about like saying a Simca 1000 Rally 3 was the average Simca sedan or like
saying the Renault 5 turbo 2 had anything to do with the R5 (other than
using its doors, IIRC).

>> Renault F1 and Renault Rally have nothing whatsoever to do with the
>> street cars Renault builds other than that a significant amount of money
>> from every Renault built goes to financing Formula 1.
>
> Goes to show that Renault has the technology to build great engines and
> cars. But the Gordini was my first (and last) Renault. I liked it a lot.

No, goes to show that Renault F1 (that has nothing whatsoever to do with
Renault itself, just like 'Mercedes' in McLaren Mercedes merely states
that Mercedes-Benz is paying Mario Ilien a lot of money to stick their
name on his engines) has the technology.

With some companies I can understand their F1 activities. Ferrari. BMW in
a way. Even Honda. But what Renault are doing in F1 is beyond me, it
certainly doesn't show in their products.

>> The current Z, apart from being bone ugly, suffered and still suffers
>> from extreme tire wear, alignment problems and associated handling
>> issues. Nissan so far is stuck between claiming there is no problem and
>> not being able to pinpoint it. A solution for the current buyers is not
>> in sight.
>
> I'd go for an Infinity G35 instead.

Suffers from the same problem as far as I heard. Which would not be
surprising given that the G35 shares most of its technical components with
the Z.

If I wanted to spend that much money on a Coupe I'd get a Goat.

Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:06:58 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> Which is about the worst owner I could wish for a car company. Renault
> >> makes truly horrible automobiles. Zero reliability, horrible suspensions
> >> and brakes, terrible ergonomics and short life expectancy paired with
> >> ugly design and total lack of driving enjoyment.
> >
> > And yet you defend GM. You have just summed up my opinion of 95% of GM
> > products right there.
>
> I find my car very enjoyable to drive, the Corvette too. Reliability and
> longevity don't seem to be a problem either. Many of my friends own
> F-Bodies with somewhere north of 200k miles on them.

You mean that car that isn't made anymore? I'm not knocking the
F-body, either, it was one of the few decent cars then in GM's lineup,
even if the styling was a bit study-hall.

> And if you look at
> the current quality assessment you will find GM is always one of the front
> runners.

Right. Maybe JD Power or some other "initial quality" bullcrap but in
the long haul they don't hold up, with a few exceptions - usually
boring sedans with the 3800 motor. Not compared to a VW or Toyota for
example. Put 3 or 4 hundred kilomiles on a GM product and then get
back to us.

>
> Yes, they built truly horrible cars for a while, just like Chrysler and
> Ford. The K-car era was not fun. But things change and after enough years
> have passed most people can see that.

I don't see the change. If nothing else, they seem to be making the
same cheap-looking, plasticky interiors that they always did, they just
LOOK like they're going to self-destruct after a few years. Plus how
many cars did they build with those execrable engines from the 2.8/3.1
family? I don't care how long they lasted, they sounded like they were
about to throw a rod right off the showroom floor.

nate

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:14:25 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:

>> I see a lot of old people in the car. I suppose the reason is the same
>> as for Reeves to buy it, namely fear of modern features, specifically
>> ABS. The Sebring is one of the few midsize cars that still is available
>> without.
>
> You say modern features, I say unnecessary complexity.

And I say that keeping a car maneuverable even under heavy braking is not
unnecessary in the least. Maybe you can come close to ABS performance in
some emergency conditions, which would put you in the top 5% of drivers.
Very probably you couldn't.

> I'd rather spend my $$$ on a car that had good basic systems without
> electronic band-aids covering up its shortcomings.

ABS is not an electronic band aid. ABS covers up a shortcoming all cars
share, i.e. that the normal brake system is unable to cope with different
friction at the tires during heavy breaking and with keeping the car
maneuverable during emergency breaking.

Even the best cars profit from ABS and mediocre cars even more.

>> The employee discount is just a consolidation of the rebates they were
>> giving before. Uppricing cars and then giving large rebates has been a
>> way of life for quite a few car makers lately.
>
> That doesn't negate the fact that it seems on the face of it to be the
> sole reason for GM's recent increase in sales.

I think one of the reasons is that GM is way up in customer satisfaction
and independent quality assessments. Another factor is that they are
starting to make more interesting cars.

>> Currently: Yes, which is exactly what I said. The new models that are
>> coming out are not. See Saturn Sky, Pontiac Solstice, even the already
>> available Goat and CTS-V. More cars are going to be switched to RWD
>> platforms and made for driving fun again, which will improve sales
>> numbers even more than any discount scheme could.
>>
> We can only hope that they don't continue their longstanding tradition
> of promising new and exciting cars and delivering the same old blah.

Goat. C6. C6 Z06. CTS-V. Even the Cobalt SS is a fun little critter. And
the lineup that already is fixed for production adds to that. Sky.
Solstice. STS-V.

> How many cars have we had high hopes for in the past only to be sadly
> disappointed by the mediocre execution? (anyone remember the Fiero?

.... that only suffered from GM's utter lack of experience with midship
engine cars. Fieros still are quite capable at autocrossing.

> And to rub salt in it, they killed it off almost immediately after
> finally turning it into an almost respectable car)

They are aware of one fact. If the first version didn't work, kill it off
before you suffer even more damage. Itanic (Intel Itanium) anyone?

>>>I think it's reasonable to assume that a light switch would have an off
>>>position.
>>
>> Assuming something when buying a big-ticket item is simply stupid.
>>
> Omitting a universal functionality to save a few pennies is stupid. If
> that's GM's position on light switches, one can only imagine the corners
> they've cut elsewhere.

An auto light switch with an off position is a contradiction in terms. The
whole point of having an automated system is reducing the number of
unlighted cars at night and giving a driver the opportunity to switch off
the system increases this number. And there is no traffic safety relevant
reason to have an off switch.

>>>The fact that he didn't notice it was because it's really fairly
>>>surprising that any mfgr. would be so stupid as to not include it.
>>
>> You may see it as stupid, I see it as smart. Stops total idiots from
>> switching off their lights at night.
>>
> Sometimes you *WANT* to.
> A company that assumes that I'm dumb enough to turn my lights off when
> they're actually needed is insulting to my intelligence, and by
> extension, their entire customer base. I see GM saying "hey, all you
> people who buy our cars, we think that you're total morons."

No, they are merely saying 'most people are forgetful'. If your self image
really is so weak that you are feeling like a moron just because of a
safety feature, that's a problem between you and your shrink.

>> Given the number of GM cars driven by military personnel (including
>> cars the military owns) I rather doubt that auto headlights are a
>> problem at a security checkpoint.
>>
> The military owned vehicles don't have DRL's; or at least GM is willing
> to sell them vehicles without DRLs (along with law enforcement) You and
> I, however, can't order vehicles without them.

You and I can disable DRLs if we so choose.

>> I merely pointed out that James did something stupid (and if you think
>> only idiots do stupid things you are less sophisticated than I thought)
>> and that like any good middle-class American he needs to find someone
>> to blame for his mistake. And a large company like GM is always a
>> welcome victim.
>>
> Is it not acceptable then to criticize GM even after one has bought one
> of their products?

Not if the criticism is based on something he should have known before
buying the car. If GM had hidden something (like put an off position on
the switch that in reality only was 'auto' I would understand his anger,
but he simply didn't a good job researching a car and GM is not to blame
for that.

>> The differences have been big 20 years ago. Today the differences are
>> quite small and ABS does a better job than just about any consumer
>> grade sedan driver in every situation.
>>
> Your definition of "quite small" is very different from mine. Even if
> the hardware is similar, the software is radically different, and
> deliberately so. I can tell you for a fact that the ABS on many "mass
> market" vehicles is tuned for maximum stability at the expense of
> ultimate stopping performance.

The software in the average car works better than almost all drivers could
do by themselves on the road. What I was talking about was the abdominable
mechanical ABS Ford used in the Fiesta and Escort in Germany.

ABS does a better job than all but a select few and I am sure neither you
nor I can claim to consistently outdo ABS. In my little sportscar (not the
Camaro) I can under good conditions because I can hear a certain sound
shortly before the tires are at the lockup level so I can brake very close
to locking them up. I daresay, though, that under pressure and adverse
conditions I don't think I could do a job to match ABs. And neither could
you.

>> Ferrari had that when they first introduced ABS. The new models do not
>> have an ABS off switch. Neither does Porsche or Mercedes-Benz, simply
>> because ABS does work. It works even on the track, reducing tire wear,
>> improving control and even making it possible to brake hard into the
>> turn, which is a driving style that has become very fashionable.
>>
> I don't really feel like doing the research right now, but I'm certain
> there are current vehicles that do indeed have different,
> driver-selectable levels of ABS/DSC intervention.

They do, but they neither do have the off switch you postulate nor is this
setting meant for street use.

>> No racer would seriously claim (like James does) that he induces a
>> controlled skid with a 4-wheel non-ABS system.
>
> I must have missed whatever post prompted your comment, but inducing a
> controlled skid in a non-ABS vehicle is really no great feat. Either
> I'm missing some context, or your comment makes no sense.

Then pray tell how you induce a controlled skid in a non-ABS FWD vehicle
without using external help (i.e. parking brake). Keyword here is
controlled. Making a car skid with only non-ABS brakes is easy.

>> No, it doesn't but that's exactly what James claims as the reason he
>> doesn't want ABS on his car.
>>
> See above.

I can't wait for your explanation.

>>>Due to DRL's? I call bull**** until I see a cite.
>>
>> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...mentofDRLs.pdf
>>
>> Look at page 23.
>>
> I have absolutely no respect for NHTSA and their supposed objectivity
> and concern for safety. Likewise for the IIHS. In my mind both are
> corrupt, incredibly biased organizations that have their own agendas
> that they push at great cost, both in dollars and in safety.

ROTFL. James claims the NHTSA as _the_ source for safety info and claims
somewhere within the vaults of their document management system is the
proof he so desperately desires. And you support him every step on the
way.

I suggest you find a better source instead of just complaining about mine.

>> Insurance companies give a benefit where they think it will increase
>> sales and not cost too much. Most drivers would be royally ****ed if
>> their insurance company gave discounts for DRLs, because they don't
>> have them.
>
> Most drivers do have DRLs, it seems.

All of sudden? James claims they don't. According to him not even 10% of
the non-GM cars have DRLs.

> And since when were insurance companies concerned about sales?
> I'm not aware of too many places where insurance isn't compulsory,
> unless you're filthy stinkin' rich.

Still there are many competitors, so the question is not, whether someone
has insurance, but what company gets to fleece him. And companies go to
extreme length to pull customers into their fold.

>>>>... which is fun to drive cars.
>>>
>>>It would be nice if they made those, yes.
>>
>> They are. Corvette. GTO. CTS-V.
>
> All overpriced for what they are.

Bruahahahah!

Show me a sports car that comes even close to the Vette within the price
range. Even more so with the Z06 and the upcoming supercar dubbed the
'blue devil'.

The GTO kicks the butt of every sub-40k coupe.

The CTS-V offers six-speed and a 400hp V8 in a price range that has
lackluster V6 sedans from other manufacturers.

I can't wait to see what models you offer as a support for your claims.

>> The readers of this small newsgroup are a very small minority and
>> certainly not a feasible market for car makers.
>>
> But if a company wants to build a reputation for making good cars, they
> have to impress the car guys first.

I wouldn't call the majority in here car guys.

>> And concerning my opinion, it is well founded unlike yours.
>
> Bull****.

Calling it bull**** doesn't change the fact. Support your opinion with
studies and we will see...

>> I still want
>> to see your references to sources that deem DRLs and automatic
>> headlights dangerous.
>
> People more knowledgeable than I have already posted info that you have
> refused to look at.

I looked at all information that was directly referenced. Claiming the
info is somewhere inside some website is _not_ info but just Bull**** (to
borrow from your vocabulary).

>> So far I have supported my opinion by an NHTSA study.
>
> Oooh, I'm so impressed. You posted one link to a study funded by a
> corrupt and deeply flawed organization.

Then post something better.

>> You have not. And until you do so you certainly have no basis to call
>> my opinion wrong.
>
> You are wrong.

No, you are wrong. If you were right, you would post references yourself.
Unfortunately you can't, which is why you think that simply calling me
wrong will automatically sway people in your direction.

> There's plenty of evidence out there that says so, some of it posted in
> this thread. Some of it actually on the NHTSA web site, amusingly
> enough (I'm thinking of the docket on DRLs and glare in particular.

The dockets are political junk. Post a serious study insead.

>>>Who said anything about the GTO?
>>
>> Reeves did. He said that he wants GM to price the Goat down to the
>> Mustang's level.
>
> That would be a good marketing move on GM's part, I think.

The Goat sells very well and is priced far below its competitors. The
Mustang GT doesn't even come close with its lackluster modular engine.

> Otherwise the Mustang is going to be a runaway success and the GTO is
> going to be yet another "could have been."

One, the Stang and the GTO are not direct competitors. The performance of
the cars is not even close to comparable. Two, as long as GM sells every
GTO they get from Australia they won't have to worry about pricing.

>> If they are giving away cars I want to see where. I could use a new
>> Duramax Diesel Silverado. Last time I looked the Silverado I want is
>> somewhere north of $40k which is nowhere near 'given away' or 'free.
>>
>> GM is not giving anything away, they just price cars up and then give
>> discounts. Apparently this works, because the less informed think they
>> are giving something away.
>
> Yes, and it's fairly clear that that perception is why they're selling
> as many vehicles as they are.

Clever marketing.

Chris

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:56:49 -0700, N8N wrote:

> C.H. wrote:

>> I find my car very enjoyable to drive, the Corvette too. Reliability
>> and longevity don't seem to be a problem either. Many of my friends own
>> F-Bodies with somewhere north of 200k miles on them.
>
> You mean that car that isn't made anymore? I'm not knocking the F-body,
> either, it was one of the few decent cars then in GM's lineup, even if
> the styling was a bit study-hall.

The Y-Body is still available and stronger and more competitively priced
than ever.

>> And if you look at the current quality assessment you will find GM is
>> always one of the front runners.
>
> Right. Maybe JD Power or some other "initial quality" bullcrap but in
> the long haul they don't hold up, with a few exceptions - usually boring
> sedans with the 3800 motor. Not compared to a VW or Toyota for example.
> Put 3 or 4 hundred kilomiles on a GM product and then get back to us.

VW and reliable? TDIs dying an early death, airflow sensors that don't
even last the time between inspections and cost more than 100 euros each,
transmission and drivetrain problems, the list is endless. I am much more
confident of driving my car 300 or 400 kmiles than I would be with a new
Golf or Jetta.

>> Yes, they built truly horrible cars for a while, just like Chrysler and
>> Ford. The K-car era was not fun. But things change and after enough
>> years have passed most people can see that.
>
> I don't see the change. If nothing else, they seem to be making the
> same cheap-looking, plasticky interiors that they always did, they just
> LOOK like they're going to self-destruct after a few years. Plus how
> many cars did they build with those execrable engines from the 2.8/3.1
> family? I don't care how long they lasted, they sounded like they were
> about to throw a rod right off the showroom floor.

In other words, you are judging reliability by the way the engine sounds
and the dash looks. Wanna see a truly ugly and badly made dash? Try the VW
Millennium Bug aka New Beetle. A design disaster without match and even
after 50000 miles it looks like it has been through hell and back.

Chris