Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Dangers of DRL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Da-Sarge
    replied
    to save fuel and run a DRL kill the OE DRLs and stick on a set of hella dayline DRLs (I run them on my superduty instead of running the headlights i just have a cupple of running lights mounted at the back hooked up to the DRL kit solves all and i still keep the way my truck turns on all the running/position/park lights when i open a door definetly a smart idea

    Leave a comment:


  • maven
    replied
    Originally posted by wireless View Post
    Eh. There are a lot of features I like that newer cars have. ABS, better radios (including Bluetooth Audio/AUX jacks).. Multifunction displays that show engine statistics.. auto up/down windows.. LED taillights/headlights.. LED turn mirrors.. lol. Good, adjustable fuel injection!! and the ability to have a lot of HP and still get 30+mpg lol. AFS is nice as well...

    I did mean efficiency though. Besides, I'm talking stock form - the 2.0L's from years past compared to current 2.0L engines are miles and miles apart.
    I with you 100% on efficiency of the newest engines, they are excellent. But its not gonna make me choose the new one over the old....Id take a 1996 Civic Si over a 2014, a MkII GTi over a Mk6, they were just a better driving experience, a car that felt more engaging, nimble....less coddling.


    I don't care about adding aftermarket stereo stuff anymore for the most part. While having a sub is nice... having storage space is as well. So is taking a turn and not having to worry about stuff flying around lol
    Same here...I never mentioned subs, just quality speakers and sound processing. And the aftermarket beats OEM in 94 and 14 so its moot to me.

    Originally posted by phantom240 View Post
    I disagree. Not a single Honda on the planet that came with ABS in 1994, still has a functional ABS system. Chevrolet had a good bit of problems with that as well. Other brands, I have too little experience to speak for.


    Yeah, if you had a brand new BMW 7-series...
    Everyone had problems back in the day, and they still do...but that said ABS was available and functional on reasonably priced cars. Id have no problem driving a new 94-96 vehicle and feeling that the ABS was worth having. As far as technologies of the day not working properly or being durable........All you need to do is look at todays crop of gasoline direct injected vehicles. This technology is responsible alot of the power and efficiency gains in the last 5 years, its also very unreliable compared to good old "inefficient" port injection. Widespread, persistant drivability issues and outright engine failure are commonplace among all manufacturers using this technology. (GM, BMW, MB, Porsche all have well known problems with it across multiple engine platforms)

    Yes, BMW 7 series or a MkVIII Lincoln....it was here and available though. And still isnt even widespread use across the top10 bestsellers. Yet another area where I have used aftermarket options for many years.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tony the Tiger
    replied
    Originally posted by phantom240 View Post
    I disagree. Not a single Honda on the planet that came with ABS in 1994, still has a functional ABS system. Chevrolet had a good bit of problems with that as well. Other brands, I have too little experience to speak for.
    That's a very crappy generalization... lol

    My Camry is a 1994, ABS still works. I do love the system so I don't lock up my brakes after a hard pull when the suspension is the most upset and on uneven pavement. This isn't even a performance car to start with, and the ABS system is very decent and doesn't interfere with my way of spirited driving.

    Besides that, my Supra TT is also a 1994 and the system works well and I still can't live without it.

    My Integra GSR is a '95, and ABS still works. All the parts are identical to a '94. I recently sold the car and changed over to a Type-R, but worked on the day I sold the car.

    Leave a comment:


  • phantom240
    replied
    Originally posted by maven View Post
    Though I truly prefer a "drivers" car with minimal disttractions and no drivers aids of any kind for my fun cars, I agree 100% for a daily beater....that said.....

    ABS was perfectly functional in 1994, especially in performance oriented cars.
    I disagree. Not a single Honda on the planet that came with ABS in 1994, still has a functional ABS system. Chevrolet had a good bit of problems with that as well. Other brands, I have too little experience to speak for.

    Originally posted by maven View Post
    HIDs, well you got me...this ones obvious. Ive never owned a vehicle with OEM HIDs and I dont see me getting one in the next 5 yrs either. But I am very willing to carry the extra couple pounds a retrofit adds...I consider this a performance mod HIDs were available back in 94-95 though
    Yeah, if you had a brand new BMW 7-series...

    Leave a comment:


  • phantom240
    replied
    Originally posted by wireless View Post
    I don't care about adding aftermarket stereo stuff anymore for the most part. While having a sub is nice... having storage space is as well. So is taking a turn and not having to worry about stuff flying around lol
    I can't deal with stock, paper cone, coax "whizzer cone" speakers. Can't do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • wireless
    replied
    Originally posted by maven View Post
    More features....adding crap for the sake of adding crap...Im not into this. Theres nothing that a 2014 car has that a 1994 doesnt that I want, save for maybe navigation which I would use from my phone anyway

    "Better" engines is purely subjective.
    Eh. There are a lot of features I like that newer cars have. ABS, better radios (including Bluetooth Audio/AUX jacks).. Multifunction displays that show engine statistics.. auto up/down windows.. LED taillights/headlights.. LED turn mirrors.. lol. Good, adjustable fuel injection!! and the ability to have a lot of HP and still get 30+mpg lol. AFS is nice as well...

    I did mean efficiency though. Besides, I'm talking stock form - the 2.0L's from years past compared to current 2.0L engines are miles and miles apart.


    Originally posted by BOO5TED View Post
    Instead of better I'm sure he meant more effeicent. No want you can say that a carbureted 427ci from a 70s corvette is more effeicent than the 427ci from a Z06.
    +1

    Originally posted by phantom240 View Post
    Here's a short list that I can come up with:
    - An ABS system that isn't finicky and generally crap.
    - Decent audio systems. Though I like to build my own stuff, I wouldn't have to if there was a good foundation from the start.
    - HIDs
    +1

    Originally posted by maven View Post
    Though I truly prefer a "drivers" car with minimal disttractions and no drivers aids of any kind for my fun cars, I agree 100% for a daily beater....that said.....


    Audio system we are on same exact page. I build much of my own stuff or just deal with whats there, cars that have anything remotely worthwhile are well out of my price range. My McIntosh and Pioneer PRS stuff was within my budget and was/is far superior to standard automotive audio

    HIDs, well you got me...this ones obvious. Ive never owned a vehicle with OEM HIDs and I dont see me getting one in the next 5 yrs either. But I am very willing to carry the extra couple pounds a retrofit adds...I consider this a performance mod HIDs were available back in 94-95 though
    I don't care about adding aftermarket stereo stuff anymore for the most part. While having a sub is nice... having storage space is as well. So is taking a turn and not having to worry about stuff flying around lol

    Leave a comment:


  • maven
    replied
    Originally posted by phantom240 View Post
    Here's a short list that I can come up with:
    - An ABS system that isn't finicky and generally crap.
    - Decent audio systems. Though I like to build my own stuff, I wouldn't have to if there was a good foundation from the start.
    - HIDs
    Though I truly prefer a "drivers" car with minimal disttractions and no drivers aids of any kind for my fun cars, I agree 100% for a daily beater....that said.....

    ABS was perfectly functional in 1994, especially in performance oriented cars.

    Audio system we are on same exact page. I build much of my own stuff or just deal with whats there, cars that have anything remotely worthwhile are well out of my price range. My McIntosh and Pioneer PRS stuff was within my budget and was/is far superior to standard automotive audio

    HIDs, well you got me...this ones obvious. Ive never owned a vehicle with OEM HIDs and I dont see me getting one in the next 5 yrs either. But I am very willing to carry the extra couple pounds a retrofit adds...I consider this a performance mod HIDs were available back in 94-95 though

    Leave a comment:


  • phantom240
    replied
    Originally posted by maven View Post
    More features....adding crap for the sake of adding crap...Im not into this. Theres nothing that a 2014 car has that a 1994 doesnt that I want, save for maybe navigation which I would use from my phone anyway =
    Here's a short list that I can come up with:
    - An ABS system that isn't finicky and generally crap.
    - Decent audio systems. Though I like to build my own stuff, I wouldn't have to if there was a good foundation from the start.
    - HIDs

    Leave a comment:


  • Ro7orKopf
    replied
    Originally posted by maven View Post
    $300 of fuel at $3.40/gallon is 88 gallons of fuel. Talking annual mileage of 15,000 miles, we are talking a fuel economy diiference of 1.25-4.5mpg (assuming ranges of 15-30mpg). This is MASSIVE fuel usage. There is in no way I can fathom these numbers were even remotely accurate. That kind of fuel consumption is greater than that of even 4wd systems.


    Non ferrous alloys and plastic composites are very much indeed now widely used throughtout
    vehicle construction, Along with multiplex networks to reduce wiring mass, and forced induction aspirated engines producing equivalent power from significsntly less dense power trains. But these are still merely "band aids" IMO as I don't know of a single current top selling model that isnt heavier than its 10-20 year older version. Corolla,Civic,Camry,Accord,Malibu,Impala,Silverado ,F150,Explorer,Suburban,Altima,etc..... All notably heavier than they used to be.
    This is true. But you also have to take into account the size difference between modern vehicles and their predecessors. Compacts today, are the same size as mid-size cars only 15 years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • BOO5TED
    replied
    Originally posted by maven View Post
    I am very scared for us.
    9a20637ee739ca3054de4532ce2281a9df3c3b92984963605e46f833a5af028d.jpg


    Originally posted by maven View Post
    "Better" engines is purely subjective.
    Instead of better I'm sure he meant more effeicent. No want you can say that a carbureted 427ci from a 70s corvette is more effeicent than the 427ci from a Z06.

    Leave a comment:


  • maven
    replied
    Originally posted by wireless View Post
    heavier... but with more features, safer, and better engines lol
    More features....adding crap for the sake of adding crap...Im not into this. Theres nothing that a 2014 car has that a 1994 doesnt that I want, save for maybe navigation which I would use from my phone anyway

    "Better" engines is purely subjective.


    Originally posted by michael.kozera View Post
    i agree no way 88gallons, i actually did the math and with 20,000km annual mileage @ 0.016L/100km used to power a 5A (2x30w) DRL you would get 3.2L so at current prices that's $ 3.68 of fuel used per year to run your DRL, again nothing. <-----now that's a much better estimate no?
    And even your calculations(and mine earlier) I feel are still being very conservative. I feel this is because they are based on the assumption that the power this maybe 30w load is requiring is being supplied "in a vacuum".....that is that this 30w draw has to be supplied ADDITIONAL power that the vehicle charging system isnt already producing. IE: We need to believe that when the vehicles generator is engaged that it isnt creating a surplus of power. In modern vehicles there is rarely a time when the charging systm isnt activated, a typical non PWM controlled 100amp modern alternator outputs as much as 30amps at around 900-1000rpm. Obviously there are many operating conditons where there is a "surplus" of electrical production, even further reducing the potential impact of DRLs.

    Leave a comment:


  • michael.kozera
    replied
    Originally posted by maven View Post
    $300 of fuel at $3.40/gallon is 88 gallons of fuel. Talking annual mileage of 15,000 miles, we are talking a fuel economy diiference of 1.25-4.5mpg (assuming ranges of 15-30mpg). This is MASSIVE fuel usage. There is in no way I can fathom these numbers were even remotely accurate. That kind of fuel consumption is greater than that of even 4wd systems.
    i agree no way 88gallons, i actually did the math and with 20,000km annual mileage @ 0.016L/100km used to power a 5A (2x30w) DRL you would get 3.2L so at current prices that's $ 3.68 of fuel used per year to run your DRL, again nothing. <-----now that's a much better estimate no?

    Leave a comment:


  • phantom240
    replied
    Originally posted by Tony the Tiger View Post
    Driving in city traffic with plenty of street lighting, these drivers are unfit to realize that they do not have their lights on. But unfit drivers do not see past 30 ft either and that's why they smash people even in broad daylight.
    Agreed 100%

    Leave a comment:


  • wireless
    replied
    heavier... but with more features, safer, and better engines lol

    Leave a comment:


  • maven
    replied
    Originally posted by Markus View Post
    When DRLs were mandated in Canada for the 1991 model year it was estimated that running them would cost the typical driver $100 annually in additional fuel. This would translate to around $300 today. Obviously modern advancements sucha lowpower LED DRLs wouldn't cost as much to run.
    $300 of fuel at $3.40/gallon is 88 gallons of fuel. Talking annual mileage of 15,000 miles, we are talking a fuel economy diiference of 1.25-4.5mpg (assuming ranges of 15-30mpg). This is MASSIVE fuel usage. There is in no way I can fathom these numbers were even remotely accurate. That kind of fuel consumption is greater than that of even 4wd systems.

    In terms of mass, some modern cars are now using alumni bodies to help combat the rise in weight due to the safety systems. Seems like a fair trade off to me.
    Non ferrous alloys and plastic composites are very much indeed now widely used throughtout
    vehicle construction, Along with multiplex networks to reduce wiring mass, and forced induction aspirated engines producing equivalent power from significsntly less dense power trains. But these are still merely "band aids" IMO as I don't know of a single current top selling model that isnt heavier than its 10-20 year older version. Corolla,Civic,Camry,Accord,Malibu,Impala,Silverado ,F150,Explorer,Suburban,Altima,etc..... All notably heavier than they used to be.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X