fdl

Now that we know the changes for '05 ... what is not on the list that you were hoping for and expecting. Not what you wish would be included, but what you honestly though would be there.

EDIT: For those that missed it, here are the '05 changes, courtesy of Colin

XM Radio, Power Passenger Seat, Heated Mirrors, Illuminated Steering
Wheel Switches, Remote Control Beep (Like TL).

RWalker2

I really couldn't forsee anything drastic... I would just like to know a bit more about the colors offered for 2005... other than that I'm happy in that it really isn't a big factor to get an 04 or 05 (my mother is in the market right now for one)

tsxhondatuner

you forgot daytime running lightsssss

GregHic

I didn't expect much, but starting to wish I had waited a couple months to get these extra features

daniel1113

Just got mine 2 weeks ago... I guess I should have waited an extra month to get the Power Passenger Seat, Heated Mirrors, and Illuminated Steering Wheel Switches. Oh well... whacha gonna do?

savage

I am glad they didnt add those, i think they look so stupid during the day...i have an 04 but if the TSX came with them i would have rewired them off...

Ken1997TL

Sorry but most repeat Honda buyers in the US, HATE those. I do especially.

dom

Did anyone really expect 10 more HP?

Ken1997TL

Would be nice, that way it ties with the RSX-S.

savage

save a lot of money, the new 05's will sell for almost sticker until they can get rid of the 04's...you prob won't see many 500 over invoice / killer deals on the 05's til some time next year...

also congrats on the new ride, i took delivery on mine 2 weeks ago too and i can't complain about the cash i saved by getting a 04...

savage

even if they added the 10 hp...buy an 04 and get an intake and exhaust with the money you would save versus an 05 in the first few months...

that is my suggestion to anyone in the market in the next month or so...

iamhomin

I would love to have DRLs.

majin ssj eric

I would hate to have DRL's......

escamar

same here... i hate those! i never understood why u need the headlights on when the sun is out...

savage

dom

From what I understand General Motors has done extensive studies on the need of DRL and have now decided to make them standard on every vehicle they sell. Not sure how long thats been the case. What I do know is that they've come standard on every vehicle sold in Canada for several years now. I'm not sure exactly how, but they have been proven to increase safety. Just because its sunny out when you leave, doesn't mean it will be when you arrive at your destination.

escamar

thas why u flip the little lever on the left of ur steering wheel...they are called HEADLIGHTS...


o and GM

biker

:captainobvious: I can do the job myself thank you.

dom

I definently see your point and I won't try amd explain why I think they're needed. I'll just say that studies have shown them to be effective, for whatever reason.

fdl

DRL are definately safer. WHen its bright daylight outside you can't even notice them anyways. But when its dusk, or dawn. Or when its become very overcast they make a significant difference in being able to see other cars. That hour around sunset is when IMO they are most useful. Lots of people forget to turn their lights on during this time.

GregHic

I just think the DRLs make you a little more visible, if that keeps someone from hitting you it's great... if not, no harm done. I actually usually leave my lights on during the day just because I like the look of them, and you never know when a little extra visibility will keep someone from hitting you.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

DRLs are a safety feature. They make you more visible during the day to other drivers because human brains react to moving light. GM has them on all cars now. So does Toyota and Volvo. In fact, all motorcycles have them now to make them more visible in traffic.

I really wouldn't mind DRLs. I don't see why people are so against it.

STL

But when you do that you are lighting up your HIDs (in the TSX). Like everything else I'm sure they have a finite lifetime, and as expensive as they are I'd rather not burn them out too soon. Honda does DRLs on cars with HIDs by running the high beams at a lower voltage -- that way the HIDs get saved. Can anyone in Canada confirm that is how it's currently done on the TSX?

dzuy

shucks. i want power passenger seats. and heated mirrors. i hate driving in the morning when my mirrors are fogged up.

this stinks.

boo. but car makers always do that. so i'm used to it by now.

we need a k20a!!!

tsxhondatuner

i bet its going to be like BMW. as you said, they'll probly light on the tsx where the high beams are are a lower voltage so its not blinding. which is ugly cause i luv h.i.d's but you can fix that with a lil wire cutting

Belzebutt

I believe DRLs were first done in Sweden, and after they were introduced the accident rates dropped quite a lot. I'm actually surprised it's not standard in the US nowadays.

The change I would have expected to see in 2005 is LED tail lights, but power passenger seat seems just as expensive... Is the sticker price higher for 2005?

STL

No one knows yet, but I would be a little surprised if the raise it at all. Now I do expect the destination charges to inch up. I also agree the street price will be more at least initially, but by the time I buy mine later this year I only expect to have to pay a few hundred more than I could have for a 2004 -- and I'll make all that back (and maybe more) when it comes time to sell the 2005 model.

bob shiftright

Have you heard of something called the "Hawthorne Effect"?

There is actually some debate if DRLs make a lot of sense. I remain unconvinced, but take the middle ground, they are possibly useful if parts of your country extend beyond the Arctic Circle or if you drive a motorcycle.

http://www.lightsout.org/story.html#ourcase

** Hawthorne Effect: Initial improvement in a process of production caused by the obtrusive observation of that process. The effect was first noticed in the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric. Production increased not as a consequence of actual changes in working conditions introduced by the plant's management but because management demonstrated interest in such improvements.

DEVO

the same reason the motorcycle are required to have there lights on... it just makes you more visible to others. especially if you are travelling with the sun setting in front of you.

fdl

I dont see how the Hawthorne effect would apply to this. Accident rates are checked all the time.

Belzebutt

I noticed several flaws in the arguments presented there:

- First, they have a good point in that it is more useful in places like Canada or Sweden because of the climate.

1. The original concept for DRLs was to compensate for a lighting deficiency. We don't have such a deficiency in the United States!
- Not entirely true, depends on WHERE in the US and what time of day/year. Some places could use it just as much as Sweden.

2. Since we have greater natural light, the auto manufacturers have increased the intensity of their DRLs. Just what we need: Bright lights hitting your eyes while you're trying to drive a car on a busy highway!
- You could fix that by reducing the intensity, not eliminating them altogether. They already claim below that the DRLs are too bright for comfort!

3. Safety features need not create hazards and, more to the point, should not be so very, very annoying to so many people. Humans, by our very nature, tend to avoid disturbing stimuli, thus taking our eyes off the road! Some people respond to DRLs by avoiding looking directly at other cars on the road. Some avoid using their rear- or side-view mirrors. Some are even using devices which are already on the market to reduce the glare from oncoming DRLs. These actions by people will result in them being less observant, therefore, worse drivers and more accident prone.
- From my experience, I have never been inconvenienced by DRLs, and I actually find them useful. For example can immediately tell which vehicles are in motion and which ones are off. During the day lights don't appear very bright, especially low-intensity DRLs.

4. Current data on the safety benefits of DRLs has been misinterpreted by proponents of DRLs. They have absolutely no positive effect on bright sunny days. The data should be interpreted thusly: People are not turning on their lights in conditions requiring illumination -- e.g. rain, snow, fog, dusk, dawn, etc. -- and therefore the problem is driver error. The solution, logically, should be driver improvement.
- Many people forget to turn their lights on in poor conditions. And in a few cases, they can help even in poor conditions. But they have a point, if all drivers drove safely in the first place, we would never have accidents. We we wouldn't need seat belts, air bags, etc. In a perfect world.

5. Of all the myriad categories of motor vehicle crashes, DRL use is arguably associated with improving one, maybe two types. The better solution to highway safety is driver improvement; this would substantially and dramatically decrease accidents of all types.
- That should be done regardless. So many people die on the road that I'm sure every bit has a real effect.

6. People will literally die because of DRL use. By failing to institute the correct solution to problems illustrated by DRL data -- driver error -- people will continue to die and be injured who might otherwise have been spared from such incidents. Furthermore, we believe the annoyance and distraction caused by DRL-equipped vehicles will be significant, but we also believe this will never be admitted or assigned to DRL use by their proponents.
- I think the distraction factor is outweighed by the extra visibility. I think people who get annoyed by them must not be used to them.

7. DRLs are an inefficient use of resources. Lights will have to be replaced more frequently, and it will have to be done by auto service personnel. Fuel consumption will increase and, although it's not much per car, it is an astronomical dollar figure when multiplied by the millions of vehicles in this country. Conservative estimates place the figure at 604 million gallons of fuel per year, resulting in 8 billion pounds of CO2 being exhausted into the atmosphere. What's even worse, in testing vehicles for fuel efficiency, GM has requested -- and received -- permission from the federal government to disconnect DRLs so as not to be penalized for poorer fuel efficiency. So consumers are not able to know how DRLs will affect their fuel efficiency when buying a car. See NHTSA's correspondence with the EPA regarding DRLs' CAFE exemption.
- That seems like a good argument, although it's probably a drop in the bucket. Using the "educate the driver" argument, you could save a LOT more gas by asking people to drive with their windows closed.

8. DRLs represent stone-age technology in the 21st century. Since cars do not need illumination at all hours, why not install sensors to activate headlights when ambient light is insufficient? The technology exists, and is already in use on several vehicle models.
- Again, sometimes they help even in good conditions. Also, adding more intelligent sensors would just add to the cost, which is what they deplore in the first place. Having low-intensity DRLs at all times is cheap and easy.

9. DRLs are insulting to our intelligence. DRL proponents assume that drivers are not intelligent enough to know when to turn on their lights. ...
- No. Even the smartest people have lapses and forget. And again, DRLs don't just help on dark days. And they should NOT be the same thing as turning on your night lights, they should be less bright precisely so that they don't inconvenience other drivers.

10. What is the industry's motivation? Safety? We think not. Again, follow the money trail.
- The auto industry is somehow going to make a lot more money by turning on the high-beam filament of your night lights during the day??? I never, EVER had to replace a DRL. If I did, it would have been the cost of a light bulb, and the auto manufacturers would have never seen a penny of that pocket change.


The best argument they have is that it may be based on old studies, but from personal experience I think DRLs seem useful and I just don't buy all these "drawbacks" they're talking about.

Edit: Also, DRLs provide a backup in case someone forgets to turn on their lights at night. Too often I still see people doing that.

sauceman

Wow. Good post Belzebutt. I have soo much to say about this, but I unfortunately am running out of time. I'll try and give out my opinions and experiences later.

Colin

I'm not a motorcycle rider BUT IF I WAS, I'd hate the fact that cars are using DRLs.*** The WHOLE idea (where it started) of running with the lights on was to make the bikes STAND out among the cars! Once everyone has it, the bikes are going to 'blend' in again and it will probably reduce safety for them.

Also, I noticed that Milano Red is listed as a new color, but it has been suggested to me that the change was the interior color. My friend who orders our cars thinks that exterior color now comes with the Ebony interior and this is the change for 2005.

***, I still haven't seen that DRLs are on the list for US cars....I could be wrong, but no mention was made to me about this so maybe we're getting all excited for nothing.

Newplay1

Guys whats ILL steering wheel switch? And Beep like the TL? no idea....

Colin

The steering wheels audio controls and cruse controls are illuminated at night. The car will beep with a pleasent chime sound if you lock the doors with the remote (press twice) and opposed to the oboxious "horn honk" sound now.

biker

I ride a European bike (see my avatar) which has the option to turn off the headlight all together. While most other pet peeves I can forgive, DRLs is one thing (along with lack of an MT) that would make me NOT buy a car. You could explain to me till you are blue in the face of the pros I will simply not buy a car on which I can't turn off the headlights myself. More than likely, a global model like the TSX will have some easy way to disable ther DRLs even if equiped with them for NA (with BMW it's a software change that the dealer will perform free).

Dan Martin

I'm pretty sure you could just add a switch to disable them.

biker

I am the anti-mod but to get rid of DRLs on an otherwise great car I would do just that.

sauceman

biker, I know we've been through this together, and I'm not gonna try and convert you, I know ... so I guess this post isn't directed at you.

But I will comment on that link

Let's just say they are pretty inconsistent with their speech:
and
I don't know where they fetch the idea that they have "greater natural light" and that they have increased the intensity, but let's just wonder: what is more blinding? DRLs during daytime where the DRLs blend in with the natural sun's light, thus no glare or very little, or low beams at night time with increased glare?

How then, can DRLs cause casualties? Because the people got blinded? Please... Give me just one case of an accident, not even a fatality where the DRLs are to blame. And even then, if it happenned, how many accidents, fatalities could occur because people aren't driving with their lights on, even during daytime? I can say I've been involved in near death situations quite a few times since I've been doing my job, and the fact that I'm still here to tell about it is just a testimony to my good reactions, but I know it is not the case of many others.

Then again, I beg to differ, but even then, is it sunny all the time? It may be bigger and better in Texas, but last I've heard, Texas isn't all over the US, and I seem to remember driving in pretty bad conditions in PA, NY and New England altogether. Last I heard, after a sunny day, there comes dusk, and no matter what the common sense is, many people don't think of lighting up their lights until it's almost completely dark outside, or until someone flashes them their high beam, which is a higher risk that driving around with DRLs.

Although I agree with the driver improvement, being a better driver won't help you see better. And here are examples of situations when DRLs come in handy.
-At a crossroad, not seeing the other car coming, you pass and get hit because of fog, rain, dusk, snow, etc.
-You want to pass slow traffic, but ahead of you surges a car without DRLs, and you end up in a full frontal collision, or in the ditch, because you didn't see them in the same conditions as above.
-Driving on snowy weather, you don't see the lines, and barely see the cars coming up because of the bad conditions, and end up on a collision course with a car that, if he had DRLs, you could have found your way around them.

And there are more situations. Also note the very high risk/gravity of these situations where the death toll could be enormous.

Now you're going to say there's better weather in the US than Canada? Name me just one State that doesn't have at least one of these conditions, let alone all of them.

Bring up the sources with their numbers. Anyways, that's just like refusing to pay for an insurance policy because it weighs too much on your budget. Look how you'll be on your ass when something happens to you.

Inconsistent again. In point #4, they say the solution is driver improvement. It's either one or another, not both.

Proof please!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All in all, let's just say it's a bunch of amateur, whiny, rant-for-the-sake-of-it kind of arguments. It's easy to do it, but there just isn't any credibility to it. Many points weren't even worthy of commenting on as well.

And to me, it's like running away from a fly while you have a bull on your ass; the advantages far outweigh the inconvenients bought by the DRLs.

Sorry for the long post. This issue just seems to get at me.

biker

Seems like the sauceman and I are at very differents ends of the DRL issue. For me it's a very simple issue - I hate DRLs like some people hate a certain color or hate spinach - you can't explain it, it's just the way it is and no amount of explaining will change it.