|
Should I have the car looked at????
I have a 1993 Honda civic EX 4 door sedan. I was in a minor accident on
Sunday, if you want to call it that. I rear ended a young man, but no damage to either car & neither of us was injured as well. I looked over the car well the next day & drove it & I did not see anything wrong with the inside or out, should I still have someone look at it?? |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
piperspost@webtv.net wrote:
> I have a 1993 Honda civic EX 4 door sedan. I was in a minor accident on > Sunday, if you want to call it that. I rear ended a young man, but no > damage to either car & neither of us was injured as well. I looked over > the car well the next day & drove it & I did not see anything wrong with > the inside or out, should I still have someone look at it?? > ----------------------------------- Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would never see. 'Curly' |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
piperspost@webtv.net wrote:
> I have a 1993 Honda civic EX 4 door sedan. I was in a minor accident on > Sunday, if you want to call it that. I rear ended a young man, but no > damage to either car & neither of us was injured as well. I looked over > the car well the next day & drove it & I did not see anything wrong with > the inside or out, should I still have someone look at it?? > ----------------------------------- Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would never see. 'Curly' |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
motsco_ <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in
news:13euhrqi6sqjp9a@corp.supernews.com: > piperspost@webtv.net wrote: >> I have a 1993 Honda civic EX 4 door sedan. I was in a minor accident on >> Sunday, if you want to call it that. I rear ended a young man, but no >> damage to either car & neither of us was injured as well. I looked over >> the car well the next day & drove it & I did not see anything wrong with >> the inside or out, should I still have someone look at it?? >> > > > ----------------------------------- > > Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it > checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would never > see. > > On flat, level pavement, at night, or in an underground parking garage... 1) Drive up to a wall, maybe ten feet away. If you can manage 25 feet, even better. 2) Make sure you're perpendicular to the wall. 3) Are both beams at the same level, or is one higher than the other? 4) Are both beams the same distance apart as the lamps are on the body? (As reference, use the center of the blob, or the point of "kickup" on the beam) If both beams are straight and line up together, then alignment was not materially affected. If there is no visible damage to the bumper's skin, then the impact disturbed nothing of note. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
motsco_ <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in
news:13euhrqi6sqjp9a@corp.supernews.com: > piperspost@webtv.net wrote: >> I have a 1993 Honda civic EX 4 door sedan. I was in a minor accident on >> Sunday, if you want to call it that. I rear ended a young man, but no >> damage to either car & neither of us was injured as well. I looked over >> the car well the next day & drove it & I did not see anything wrong with >> the inside or out, should I still have someone look at it?? >> > > > ----------------------------------- > > Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it > checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would never > see. > > On flat, level pavement, at night, or in an underground parking garage... 1) Drive up to a wall, maybe ten feet away. If you can manage 25 feet, even better. 2) Make sure you're perpendicular to the wall. 3) Are both beams at the same level, or is one higher than the other? 4) Are both beams the same distance apart as the lamps are on the body? (As reference, use the center of the blob, or the point of "kickup" on the beam) If both beams are straight and line up together, then alignment was not materially affected. If there is no visible damage to the bumper's skin, then the impact disturbed nothing of note. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
On Sep 18, 7:43 am, Tegger <teg...@tegger.c0m> wrote:
> motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote innews:13euhrqi6sqjp9a@corp.supernews.com: > > > > > pipersp...@webtv.net wrote: > >> I have a 1993 Honda civic EX 4 door sedan. I was in a minor accident on > >> Sunday, if you want to call it that. I rear ended a young man, but no > >> damage to either car & neither of us was injured as well. I looked over > >> the car well the next day & drove it & I did not see anything wrong with > >> the inside or out, should I still have someone look at it?? > > > ----------------------------------- > > > Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it > > checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would never > > see. > > On flat, level pavement, at night, or in an underground parking garage... > > 1) Drive up to a wall, maybe ten feet away. If you can manage 25 feet, even > better. > 2) Make sure you're perpendicular to the wall. > 3) Are both beams at the same level, or is one higher than the other? > 4) Are both beams the same distance apart as the lamps are on the body? (As > reference, use the center of the blob, or the point of "kickup" on the > beam) > > If both beams are straight and line up together, then alignment was not > materially affected. If there is no visible damage to the bumper's skin, > then the impact disturbed nothing of note. > > -- > Tegger > > The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQwww.tegger.com/hondafaq/ Isn't the driver's side headlight aimed slightly lower than passenger's side? Dan D '07 Ody EX Central NJ USA |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
On Sep 18, 7:43 am, Tegger <teg...@tegger.c0m> wrote:
> motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote innews:13euhrqi6sqjp9a@corp.supernews.com: > > > > > pipersp...@webtv.net wrote: > >> I have a 1993 Honda civic EX 4 door sedan. I was in a minor accident on > >> Sunday, if you want to call it that. I rear ended a young man, but no > >> damage to either car & neither of us was injured as well. I looked over > >> the car well the next day & drove it & I did not see anything wrong with > >> the inside or out, should I still have someone look at it?? > > > ----------------------------------- > > > Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it > > checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would never > > see. > > On flat, level pavement, at night, or in an underground parking garage... > > 1) Drive up to a wall, maybe ten feet away. If you can manage 25 feet, even > better. > 2) Make sure you're perpendicular to the wall. > 3) Are both beams at the same level, or is one higher than the other? > 4) Are both beams the same distance apart as the lamps are on the body? (As > reference, use the center of the blob, or the point of "kickup" on the > beam) > > If both beams are straight and line up together, then alignment was not > materially affected. If there is no visible damage to the bumper's skin, > then the impact disturbed nothing of note. > > -- > Tegger > > The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQwww.tegger.com/hondafaq/ Isn't the driver's side headlight aimed slightly lower than passenger's side? Dan D '07 Ody EX Central NJ USA |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
"motsco_" wrote
> Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it checked. > An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would never see. Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue. ;-) |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
"motsco_" wrote
> Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it checked. > An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would never see. Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue. ;-) |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
A 14 year old car will guarantee any mechanic you take it to will find
several thousand dollars worth of work that just has to be done. Do a check of the lights as mentioned and check for any fluid leaks and move on. "Dano58" <dan.dibiase@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1190117812.719936.171380@y42g2000hsy.googlegr oups.com... > On Sep 18, 7:43 am, Tegger <teg...@tegger.c0m> wrote: >> motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote >> innews:13euhrqi6sqjp9a@corp.supernews.com: >> >> >> >> > pipersp...@webtv.net wrote: >> >> I have a 1993 Honda civic EX 4 door sedan. I was in a minor accident >> >> on >> >> Sunday, if you want to call it that. I rear ended a young man, but no >> >> damage to either car & neither of us was injured as well. I looked >> >> over >> >> the car well the next day & drove it & I did not see anything wrong >> >> with >> >> the inside or out, should I still have someone look at it?? >> >> > ----------------------------------- >> >> > Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it >> > checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would >> > never >> > see. >> >> On flat, level pavement, at night, or in an underground parking garage... >> >> 1) Drive up to a wall, maybe ten feet away. If you can manage 25 feet, >> even >> better. >> 2) Make sure you're perpendicular to the wall. >> 3) Are both beams at the same level, or is one higher than the other? >> 4) Are both beams the same distance apart as the lamps are on the body? >> (As >> reference, use the center of the blob, or the point of "kickup" on the >> beam) >> >> If both beams are straight and line up together, then alignment was not >> materially affected. If there is no visible damage to the bumper's skin, >> then the impact disturbed nothing of note. >> >> -- >> Tegger >> >> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQwww.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > > Isn't the driver's side headlight aimed slightly lower than > passenger's side? > > Dan D > '07 Ody EX > Central NJ USA > |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
A 14 year old car will guarantee any mechanic you take it to will find
several thousand dollars worth of work that just has to be done. Do a check of the lights as mentioned and check for any fluid leaks and move on. "Dano58" <dan.dibiase@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1190117812.719936.171380@y42g2000hsy.googlegr oups.com... > On Sep 18, 7:43 am, Tegger <teg...@tegger.c0m> wrote: >> motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote >> innews:13euhrqi6sqjp9a@corp.supernews.com: >> >> >> >> > pipersp...@webtv.net wrote: >> >> I have a 1993 Honda civic EX 4 door sedan. I was in a minor accident >> >> on >> >> Sunday, if you want to call it that. I rear ended a young man, but no >> >> damage to either car & neither of us was injured as well. I looked >> >> over >> >> the car well the next day & drove it & I did not see anything wrong >> >> with >> >> the inside or out, should I still have someone look at it?? >> >> > ----------------------------------- >> >> > Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it >> > checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would >> > never >> > see. >> >> On flat, level pavement, at night, or in an underground parking garage... >> >> 1) Drive up to a wall, maybe ten feet away. If you can manage 25 feet, >> even >> better. >> 2) Make sure you're perpendicular to the wall. >> 3) Are both beams at the same level, or is one higher than the other? >> 4) Are both beams the same distance apart as the lamps are on the body? >> (As >> reference, use the center of the blob, or the point of "kickup" on the >> beam) >> >> If both beams are straight and line up together, then alignment was not >> materially affected. If there is no visible damage to the bumper's skin, >> then the impact disturbed nothing of note. >> >> -- >> Tegger >> >> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQwww.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > > Isn't the driver's side headlight aimed slightly lower than > passenger's side? > > Dan D > '07 Ody EX > Central NJ USA > |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Dano58 <dan.dibiase@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1190117812.719936.171380@y42g2000hsy.googlegr oups.com: > > Isn't the driver's side headlight aimed slightly lower than > passenger's side? No. They are aimed in the same direction. If your left one is low relative to the right, one of them is aimed wrongly. The low beams are down and to the right relative to the centerline of the lamps, while the high beams are straight-on. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Dano58 <dan.dibiase@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1190117812.719936.171380@y42g2000hsy.googlegr oups.com: > > Isn't the driver's side headlight aimed slightly lower than > passenger's side? No. They are aimed in the same direction. If your left one is low relative to the right, one of them is aimed wrongly. The low beams are down and to the right relative to the centerline of the lamps, while the high beams are straight-on. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
"Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
news:13evio92s1vkc15@corp.supernews.com: > "motsco_" wrote > >> Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it >> checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would >> never see. > > Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue. > > ;-) > > > So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my rear-view mirror... -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
"Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
news:13evio92s1vkc15@corp.supernews.com: > "motsco_" wrote > >> Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it >> checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would >> never see. > > Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue. > > ;-) > > > So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my rear-view mirror... -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger wrote:
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in >> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue. ---------------------- > So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably > aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my rear-view > mirror... ------------------------ Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's highways, I don't know. 'Curly' |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger wrote:
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in >> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue. ---------------------- > So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably > aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my rear-view > mirror... ------------------------ Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's highways, I don't know. 'Curly' |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in
news:Xns99AF64E3AC6E1tegger@207.14.116.130: > "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in > news:13evio92s1vkc15@corp.supernews.com: > >> "motsco_" wrote >> >>> Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it >>> checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would >>> never see. >> >> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue. >> >> ;-) >> >> >> > > > So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably > aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my > rear-view mirror... > how about those pickups that have the rear dragging lower than the front? (intentionally,via hydraulics) Think they get their headlights realigned? If I were a cop,I'd be nailing them every time for it,too. Those "Bigfoot" type trucks also need ticketing;inherently unsafe. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in
news:Xns99AF64E3AC6E1tegger@207.14.116.130: > "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in > news:13evio92s1vkc15@corp.supernews.com: > >> "motsco_" wrote >> >>> Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it >>> checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would >>> never see. >> >> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue. >> >> ;-) >> >> >> > > > So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably > aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my > rear-view mirror... > how about those pickups that have the rear dragging lower than the front? (intentionally,via hydraulics) Think they get their headlights realigned? If I were a cop,I'd be nailing them every time for it,too. Those "Bigfoot" type trucks also need ticketing;inherently unsafe. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
motsco_ <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in
news:13evn8lsonvc1d9@corp.supernews.com: > Tegger wrote: > >> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in >>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an >>> issue. > > ---------------------- >> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're >> probably aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly >> into my rear-view mirror... > ------------------------ > > Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are > aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's > highways, I don't know. > I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change, although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it. The online copy was last updated in 2005. <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far), it appears to me that 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness instead of 80% as previously. Observe for yourself. The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid being dazzled. They're absolutely awful. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
motsco_ <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in
news:13evn8lsonvc1d9@corp.supernews.com: > Tegger wrote: > >> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in >>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an >>> issue. > > ---------------------- >> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're >> probably aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly >> into my rear-view mirror... > ------------------------ > > Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are > aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's > highways, I don't know. > I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change, although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it. The online copy was last updated in 2005. <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far), it appears to me that 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness instead of 80% as previously. Observe for yourself. The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid being dazzled. They're absolutely awful. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger wrote:
>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are >> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's >> highways, I don't know. >> > > > I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change, > although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it. > The online copy was last updated in 2005. > <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps> > > From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler > products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far), > it appears to me that > 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and > 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness > instead of 80% as previously. > > Observe for yourself. > > The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point > where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid > being dazzled. They're absolutely awful. ------------------------------- The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or burn the vehicle to the ground. Jackasses. |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger wrote:
>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are >> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's >> highways, I don't know. >> > > > I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change, > although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it. > The online copy was last updated in 2005. > <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps> > > From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler > products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far), > it appears to me that > 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and > 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness > instead of 80% as previously. > > Observe for yourself. > > The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point > where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid > being dazzled. They're absolutely awful. ------------------------------- The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or burn the vehicle to the ground. Jackasses. |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
motsco_ <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in
news:13f0hl5dmcfmd0f@corp.supernews.com: > Tegger wrote: > >>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are >>> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's >>> highways, I don't know. >>> >> >> >> I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change, >> although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it. >> The online copy was last updated in 2005. >> <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations...ulations/mvsrg >> /100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps> >> >> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler >> products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far), >> it appears to me that >> 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and >> 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness >> instead of 80% as previously. >> >> Observe for yourself. >> >> The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point >> where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid >> being dazzled. They're absolutely awful. > > ------------------------------- > > The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't > figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or > burn the vehicle to the ground. > > Jackasses. > That's unfair. Unless you mean the government is the jackass. The automakers had no part in DRLs at all; it was forced upon them. Just like those 200mph bombs that used to be in your steering wheel. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
motsco_ <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in
news:13f0hl5dmcfmd0f@corp.supernews.com: > Tegger wrote: > >>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are >>> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's >>> highways, I don't know. >>> >> >> >> I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change, >> although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it. >> The online copy was last updated in 2005. >> <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations...ulations/mvsrg >> /100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps> >> >> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler >> products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far), >> it appears to me that >> 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and >> 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness >> instead of 80% as previously. >> >> Observe for yourself. >> >> The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point >> where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid >> being dazzled. They're absolutely awful. > > ------------------------------- > > The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't > figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or > burn the vehicle to the ground. > > Jackasses. > That's unfair. Unless you mean the government is the jackass. The automakers had no part in DRLs at all; it was forced upon them. Just like those 200mph bombs that used to be in your steering wheel. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:13 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands