I’m at a loss and can’t find anything about this online? Super simple question I have a 2005gt fully loaded fog lights etc with a stick shift, I just noticed tonight when I take my parking break off the headlights come on slightly dimmer than if I flip the switch (no tails) is this a feature or am I now going to have to face a dreaded electrical issue? Thanks so much in advance!
Electrical daytime running lights? (solved)
- Thread starter Crowdhuntings197
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Not sure If that makes sense to me? maybe I was not clear enough my bad.
I noticed yesterday that when the car is on if I take the parking brake off, the headlights turn on.
if I turn the switch the headlights will get brighter. if I pull the parking brake enough to turn on the "parking brake"light then the head lights turn off.
my question was are they supposed to be on when the brake is off? i never noticed this in the more than a year I have owned the car.
Thanks so much man, that’s what was weird is that’s what they seemed like but I’ve owned the car for so long and NEVER noticed it
This is correct. It became law here in Canada for new cars and trucks to have them starting in 1990 (my Foxbody GT has them). Usually they are the high beam headlights at half power. Engaging the parking brake will turn them off.
Some vehicles with them if you install aftermarket HID ballast/bulbs will flicker in DRL (daytime running light) mode because usually half power is achieved by rapidly pulsing the power to the light bulb. Easiest way to fix is disconnect DRL system.
Thanks so much! I don’t have an issue with it, it’s just amazing I never noticed it lol I really appreciate it tho guys!
yea, I wouldn't bother trying to remove it personally, it doesn't bother me at all rather just leave it alone.
however to me, it would seem this is kinda dangerous if you forgot to turn on your lights (I have forgotten to turn them on only to promptly hit the switch the second you drive away from a street light) that DRL will provide enough light you wouldn't notice thus drive around without tail lights arguably an equally important thing at night, more so than headlights in a well-lit area.
Btw I really appreciate the help I suspected it was a feature I never noticed but none the less wasn't sure.
True. It is very helpful when people don't turn on lights at dusk or in the rain. Its the fault of bad drivers. If everyone did what they were supposed to the designers and engineers wouldn't try to solve the problem for people (or protect them).
Air bags because people would not wear seat belts
ABS because people didn't learn to threshold brake properly
Lane departure warning system/ self driving because people are too stupid to pay attention when they are driving. This one will only get worse as systems get more sophisticated.
Add the clutch safety switch to the list for those who are too lazy to check that the stick shift is in neutral before starting the engine.
ABS is actually a good thing because it prevents the wheels from locking up and causing a dangerous skid if the driver has to brake hard in an emergency.
ABS is actually a good thing because it prevents the wheels from locking up and causing a dangerous skid if the driver has to brake hard in an emergency.
We also have to acknowkedge the reverse. We now have cars that are much more powerful, get great gas mileage and handle incredibly well as a trade-off. The improvements we sometimes complain about haven't hampered performance at all and likely make having powerful cars much more viable (i.e. less government restriction) and less risky.
I'll counter your counter. How many people on public roads have the skill set of a professional race car driver? I would much rather the person getting ready to make a panic stop have ABS than not. I have no doubt that ABS has saved countless lives and even more accidents. The same goes for collision avoidance systems and lane correction. My biggest gripe is that as cars age with this technology onboard it will make them be "repair totaled" in that the price of repairing the systems costs more than the car is worth. We see this happening already on many cars that are just ten years old.
I opted for a 2010 V8 Mountaineer over a 5th gen Explorer because of the fatal flaw in the design of the front wheel drive versions of the 3.5L engines. They have an internal water pump that has a habit of failing and taking out the entire engine in the process. This engine is in numerous cars and SUVs. I don't expect to see many vehicles with this engine on the road as their mileage racks up. Heck, the cost of replacing the water pump in these engines is $1,500-$2,000 or more depending on the repair shop used. The thing that makes me scratch my head is Ford uses an external pump design for these engines in the F150 and Mustangs. IMO, they could have done the same for the FWD versions. Ford is not alone in this. There are reasons one can buy any number of European luxury models with 80k-100k miles on them for next to nothing. It is because they are just one repair away from being scrapped. Lincoln has several models with electrical gremlins that will nickel and dime an owner to death. This, and the engine issue, is why one can buy a 7-10 year old Lincoln for $5k-$7k with around 100k miles.
Similar threads
- Sticky