Hummer Forums by Elcova  
Forums - Home
Source Decals

Source Motors
Custom. Accessories.

H2 Accessories
H3 Accessories
Other Vehicles

H2 Source

H2 Member Photos
H2 Owners Map
H2 Classifieds
H2 Photo Gallery
SUT Photo Gallery
H2 Details

H2 Club

Chapters
Application

H3 Source

H3 Member Photos
H3 Classifieds
H3 Photo Gallery
H3 Owners Map
H3 Details
H3T Concept

H1 Source

H1 Member Photos
H1 Classifieds
H1 Photo Gallery
H1 Details

General Info

Hummer Dealers
Contact
Advertise

Sponsored Ads
















 


Source Motors - custom. accessories.


Go Back   Hummer Forums by Elcova > Hummer H3 Discussion Forums > Technical Discussion and Customizing your H3

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 06-19-2006, 07:06 AM
Michael1 Michael1 is offline
Hummer Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northwest of Los Angeles, just outside all the traffic
Posts: 120
Michael1 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by f5fstop
To run only the two front signals bulbs, or the two front headlamp bulbs at a lower level, wastes about as much fossil fuel as running the radio and monsoon amp.
So, if you are really concerned about fossil fuel, I have to assume you are running with the A/C disconnected to make sure you don't turn it on when the defrosters are running, and your radio has been removed. Then again, I have to beg the question, why are you driving a Hummer...get a Honda Insight, if you are really that concerned about fossil fuel.

Now multiply those two bulbs by the millions of vehicles on the roads daily and see how much fossil fuel is involved. Its in the megawatts. It's amazing that so few people can see beyond just their own vehicle. Alternators are notoriously inefficient, too. Combine that with the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine, and you have nothing but waste.

Quote:
Want to know how much it costs to run your A/C, even with the defrosters on?U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995).
DRL costs are low, so even very modest crash reduction capabilities would be cost effective. For example, according to General Motors, there is a minimal wiring cost in converting to DRLs, and a fraction of a mile fuel penalty (about $ 3 per year for the average driver).

I love this..."according to General Motors". Don't you think GM has a marketing angle on this? GM couldn't care less if they worked or didn't work as long as it sold more cars.

Quote:
As for studies:

You can quote all these studies, but so far the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found them to be flawed or incomplete. They have found no study of STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, with controls, and of long enough duration which prove DRLs work. People said the same thing about the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp, and after they were made law, guess what? After a period of time, people were crashing into the back of each other just as much as when they didn't exist. What may sound logical doesn't always work, because we are dealing with people, not machines.

By the way, my study shows that DRLs have backfired for GM. Ever since they have been putting DRLs on their cars, their industry market share has just kept dropping and dropping. Reason: People see DRLs as a public nuisance.

Michael

Last edited by Michael1 : 06-19-2006 at 07:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.