The dangers of DRLs 4643

C.H.

No, ESPECIALLY when there's unequal friction.

Depends on the ABS system. Quite a few of them make tradeoffs that I personally don't like (stopping distance for stability.)

Unless the ABS is fighting you.

Some of them were, and people who cared demanded them.

No, actually, lots of C3, C4, C5 owners on various NG's and fora. I'm about the only person who ends up defending the design of the C6 in various discussions, because I do like it even if it is a niche market car. My own opinion of the C6 was "first effort at a real sports car since the C2" which got me ALL sorts of howls of protest from the 'vette lovers.

You must live in a special area then. I can't remember ever seeing one.

For a slightly expanded definition of "affordable" there's the G35 and S2000...

I'd rather have a Camry than most GM products, frankly. Yes, it's boring, but it's at least not offensive.

Difference is that even if what you say is true, the Japanese have a history of solving problems and getting things right eventually. GM really doesn't.

Already mentioned several previously in this thread. (gee, that sounds familiar. I might have responded similarly to any number of things that you've asked for.)

But I don't particularly want a car with those execrable automatic belts (that your beloved NHTSA forced on us)

Yes, mom. Guess what, most people stopped letting other people take care of them whenever they graduated from school and moved out.

Who elected you grand high arbiter of what's good for me? I ought to be able to do whatever the heck I want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, up to and including smoking crack in an alley.

Bullpoo.

Did they do any tests with truck-based SUVs with non-advantageous scrub radii? it's fairly common, or at least was a couple years ago, to dump pressure to the high-mu wheels rather than to allow the vehicle to rotate, requiring steering input to correct. It's cake easy for a reasonably aware driver to beat such systems.

Just because you can't recover from a brake-induced skid doesn't mean that nobody can.

I see that you missed the point, which was that interspersed among all the usual "I don't like DRL's, they are bad" letters there were several letters from people who had the qualifications to comment appropriately, all anti-DRL, and several citing research.

One link to one study.

So why don't they?

For that money, you can get a couple-year-old Porsche. No comparison.

I can't remember ever seeing one. Actually new Caddys seem to be decidedly unpopular; their crased, angular styling really stands out in traffic and yet they are rare as hen's teeth. Now SUV's... those are selling. Sadly.

There really is not compebreastion; they're an answer to a question nobody asked. Most people looking for 400HP+ cars really don't care for back seats etc.

Never said anything about a Fox body. But actually it would be pretty neat to build a hot rod Fairmont, just to build the ugliest "hot" car possible, no? :)

I am referring to the references posted not only by myself but by others as well.

And that right there, folks, is why this discussion is pointless. That's all you've offered to bolster your position, so then why is it valid?

Um-hm. Probably because their references didn't support your agenda.

right.

Clunker? LOL. I like old cars because I have an appreciation for good design, for a machine that is fundamentally good without relying on electronic band-aids to make it all work together. If someone made a modern iteration of the old Porsche 944 (preferably with a little more power this time though) I would be sorely tempted to drop large wads of cash. As it is, there's very few new cars that make me want them as seriously as the best designs do from years past.

What makes you think that anyone else has more free time than you do? You're the one making the comments that DRLs, auto. headlights et. al. are good ideas, against popular opinion and consensus.

Already been posted. One of the studies referenced showed an 8% increase in incidents with DRLs. But of course you probably have all sorts of reasons why the Holy NHTSA numbers are better.

Actually both are spiffed up everyday cars. The GTO is based on a generic Australian sedan platform (not that that's bad, the original was based on a generic American sedan platform.)

Difference is more like $10K, really, and when that's on the order of 1-3 the price of the car in question, that's a lot of scratch.

Most people don't make in a year what the GTO costs. You know that, right?

You realize that even if what you say is true, that GM is only shooting itself in the foot? And basically admitting that their overseas products are better than what they design here?

Nothing, but it's not a viable long-term plan.

nate