I tried to turn off the DRL's on this wagon, but the little screw on the headlight switch plate doesn't seem to turn them off in any position.

The car is Canadian, so I wonder if the screw was disabled when it was shipped to Canada.

Does anyone know which one of the ten or so wires coming out of the back will disable the DRL's if I cut it ?

Thanks !


'98 V70 / '95 964 / '80 242 GT
gone - '89 744 / '94 854 / '80 242 GT

At least on Canadian 850's, the DRL switch/screw has a simple mechanical
interlock which prevents it from moving (and as pointed out, the externally
accessible screw is a dummy). With disassembly, the small plastic interlock
can be removed, and this allows the slider inside the headlight switch to be
moved to a disable setting. No wire cutting is needed.

BTW, one motivation for being able to disable DRL is when using the DTC
interface (on pre '96 850's): If you are in a marathon trouble-code
diagnosis session, having the ignition in position II for long periods
can drain the battery with DRL mode (ask me how I know this).

Stop by a junk yard and pick up a used light switch. Do not cut wires.

Klaus
--
Please answer, we need to know if the advice is good or bad. The 164 has a new home, all I am left with are 2 turbos :)

I too am curious why you'd resort to clipping a wire off the headlight switch to accomplish (in my opinion) a result of dubious benefit, but with real road safety implications. By the way, if you do clip that lead, you'd better get the right one the first time, else you might well be back with questions regarding headlight switch replacement.
gus_boy

You have aswered your question with your question. The car was sold in Canada, the screw is a dummy that is only functional on the US version. Replacing the headlight switch with US part number would enable the defeat function. But why would you want to make you car less visible to other drivers?

The more DRL cars on the road, the less visible are the dark ones.

I don't know whats going on in Canada here. DRLs have been legislated since 1990 I think and lately I have seen more and more late models (much later than 90) with them defeated.

This must be intentional with programming or otherwise but I fail to understand the logic why drivers want to see them defeated - especially in jursidictions where they are expected.

We went through a phase where we almost had every car on the road with DRLs and are now going backward. Agree that these cars without DRLs are harder to see - especially when you are expecting cars with DRLs.

I like DRLs, but I have mine shut off. Most of my driving is on multilane roads where headlights do no good to warn others of my presence, and I dislike using my low beam headlights AND tail lights during daylight hours.

Now, if the "fog" lamps were used as DRLs instead of the main lighting system, I would be very happy.

Volvo does not have DRLs! Just a switch to turn off the instrument panel during daylight hours. I am tired of replacing bulbs which are needed when it is dark outside.

Of course, when traveling through PA, the signs mandate the "headlights" must be turned on in construction areas. That is most of the state!! So cars with separate DRLs can be ticketed for not having their headlights turned on. Sounds like a money maker to me.

Klaus
--
Please answer, we need to know if the advice is good or bad. The 164 has a new home, all I am left with are 2 turbos :)

Yes, I guess I have no DRLs on my 99. But the lights switch allows auto on/off with the car. I haven't used the switch in 7 yrs - 100,000 miles. My 06 Ford is the same. I have replaced 1 taillight and less than half a dozen headlights in 7 yrs (4 - I think including the one the deer totalled). I don't think that is too bad considering the light usage.

I am starting to see fog or 'driving' lights being used here as DRLs - don't know if that is the intent or programmed that way.