Author Topic: Intellibeam just as annoying as Autronic Eye  (Read 4193 times)

Rusty Shepherd CLC 6397

  • Guest
Intellibeam just as annoying as Autronic Eye
« on: February 19, 2005, 11:25:04 AM »
When Cadillac introduced Intellibeam on this years cars, I think most people believed that fifty years of electronic improvements would make it superior to Autronic Eye, but apparently thats not the case.  Todays New York Times has a mostly very positive review of the 2005 STS which calls Intellibeam slow-witted and said that it succeeded only in annoying drivers of oncoming cars until it was turned off which, of course, is the same solution the vast majority of owners of Autronic Eye Cadillacs employed.

Doug Houston

  • Guest
Re: Intellibeam just as annoying as Autronic Eye
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2005, 10:14:03 PM »
The Autronic Eyeball was a sort of cute idea from the start. But when you consider that a Photoelectric (PE) device has to discern whether or not enough light is coming into it from outside, it doesnt always act in the proper time to be effective and will indeed, aggravate oncoming drivers. It was no different with the later "Guide-Matic" version of the early sixties, or the Guide-Matics that looked out of the radiator grille in the mid-sixties. Now, its the same concept, and a different era.

I installed one on my first 56 Convertible and it worked very nicely, but I was always uncomfortable about its operation, because I always wanted it to dim the lights before it wanted to. I ended up by disabling it (turning it off)

One amusing thing about the first models, and I believe the second ones too, there is an amber filter in front of the photomultiplier (the PE tube). If you approach a flashing amber traffic light, the Autronic eyeball goes bananas and flips your lights up and down with the flashing amber light.

Is a cute gadget to have on the car, even if you dont use it. I have one here that Im going to install on the 56 convert that I now have and Im sure that Ill never use it.

Bruce Reynolds # 18992

  • Guest
A good talking point though
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2005, 12:58:10 AM »
Gday Doug and Rusty,

I totally agree that the Autronic Eye/Intellibeam is a nice gadget to have on the car, and hopefully, the "Intellibeam" is as "Standoutish" as the Autronic Eye on my 60 CDV.

It is a useless piece of equipment as far as road safety goes, but is a wonderful talking point at car shows and displays when people ask what the "Thing" on the dash does.

Bruce,
The Tassie Devil(le),
60 CDV

Roger A. Zimmermann #21015

  • Guest
Re: A good talking point though
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2005, 06:10:01 AM »
One of the first time I took my 57 Brougham for a night drive, I noticed that the system was well working with on coming vehicles. It was dirrerent when following a vehicle; the red light was not enough to dim the light; I had to dim the lights "manually". Then I got to a street with curves and reflecting panels. The system began to play havoc until I had no headlight any more! I disabled the system the next day.
On my 56 Biarritz, I let repair the system; it is functionning but also disabled.
My answer to people asking what it is: "its the bad eye" followed by a more correct explanation.

Roger

Mike #19861

  • Guest
Re: A good talking point though
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2005, 08:10:09 AM »

 I agree the Autronic Eye (or later Guide-Matic) could be quite irritating to both oncoming traffic and the driver. I oft wonder just how the new fangled "Intellibeam" works. If indeed it is any better than the old systems.

 The 86 Fleetwood is equipped with both Twilight Sentinal and Guide-Matic. In urban traffic I leave the Guide-Matic turned off. I have placed a piece of tape over the photo cell for the Twilight Sentinal, fooling the system that it is dark at all times and effectively giving the car DRL. It works well.

 In rural traffic the Guide-Matic does work well. I leave it on the "Far" setting and it dims the lights as required, and restores the high beams after the car passes. Reflections off signs do confuse it somewhat, though. Driving in a snow storm drives it absolutely wild.

 I await to hear impressions from owners of new Cadillacs equipped with Intellibeam. A fresh take on an old idea, and see what effect it has on those folks who think Intellibeam is indeed someting new, never having being exposed to Autronic Eye or Guide-Matic.

 And, BTW, I find a great talking point is whan people ask just what that big long tank is under the hood of my 70 Fleetwood. I tell the kids its an old Nitrous System. They do believe it, before I set them straight. But some do get away thinking it is and mutter to their friends "Dont mess with that old green Cadillac!"

  Mike

Dick Heller

  • Guest
Guide-Matic
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2005, 09:03:25 AM »
I too have placed a piece of tape over the photo cell for the Twilight Sentinel on my three Cadillacs and my two daily drivers, fooling the system that it is dark at all times and effectively giving the car DRL. It works well and its extremely effective for alerting oncoming cars that they do not own the road.

With regard to the Guide-Matic, I find that it does work well when the car is traveling straight, however, as soon as you make a slight bend turn, it does not disengage and I always get a flash.  I dont use the feature, however, I wouldnt want my Cadillacs without the feature.

Rusty Shepherd CLC 6397

  • Guest
Rain Sense wipers not perfected either
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2005, 05:16:15 PM »
Many years ago, I had the idea of windshield wipers that would automatically adjust to the amount of rain on the windshield. When I bought a 97 Seville with the Rain Sense system, I was really disappointed with its operation.  Even though the system had a sensitivity control, it often seemed to have a mind of its own, either letting too much water accumulate on the windshield before wiping or going into a wiping frenzy when it was barely wet. I think this was caused by varying amounts of light on the windshield making the system see more or less water than was actually there. If you couldnt stand the automatic system, your only choices were low and high constant speeds as there were no intermittent settings. The range between off and low that would have been used for adjusting delay time was used for the Rain Sense sensitivity adjustment.
Like Intellibeam...work still in progress and probably never nearly as good as our eyes.

Porter 21919

  • Guest
Re: Rain Sense wipers not perfected either
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2005, 05:33:53 PM »
Rusty,

I recently saw the Toyota Avalon commercial, they have rain sensitive wipers, perhaps they have engineered a system that works acceptably.

Porter

David #19063

  • Guest
Re: Rain Sense wipers not perfected either
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2005, 05:58:37 PM »
The Rains Sense wipers were standard on our 96 Concours.

They are not perfect, but they work pretty well.  Much better than the auot dimming headlights Cadillacs used to have.

Also, we do have interemittent wiper ability that can be set from low to high, if the rain increases, then the Rain Sense kicks in.

David

Johnny

  • Guest
Why rain sensors?
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2005, 06:07:12 PM »
Didnt the Broughams of the 50s have rain sensors that would automatically put up the windows if it started to rain?  By the way theres a thing from the past, leaving car windows down, when you left your car.  Sure rain sensors in theory are a nice feature, but in reality are they all that important?  Since they were introduced, I have always liked the intermittent windshield wipers.  I dont find it all that demanding to make adjustments to them as the rain changes.  I think rain sensors is just taking things a little to the extreme.   Plus think of the cost of repairs!  Maybe a more practical application would be to put the controls on the steering wheel, like the manufacturers do with radio controls, cruise control etc.

Doug Houston

  • Guest
Re: Intellibeam just as annoying as Autronic Eye
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2005, 07:37:21 PM »
Oh yes....the twilight Sentinel. Its a good thing, if it works. I had one on my 66 ragtop and it worked beautifully. The next car I had it on was my 91 Buick Roadmaster wagon. It works too...in bright sunlight on for a while, then off for a while, with no obvious reason. I keep it turned off. Then again on my 97 Buick roadhog wagon, and the same doggoned scenario. I keep it turned off, too. Why do I have it at all?  always buy used cars, and on them, you take what you get.

Bruce Reynolds # 18992

  • Guest
Re: Intellibeam just as annoying as Autronic Eye
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2005, 09:47:53 PM »
Gday Doug,

I wonder just how cheap a car would be these days if it only had a basic motor and manual transmission, standard steel wheels, and things like manual wind-up windows, two speed wipers, heater/demister........   You know, just like the old days where one could order accessories at an added cost.

Maybe, then people could get back to really being able to actually drive a car, and not have everything done for them.

Bruce,
The Tassie Devil(le),
60 CDV

Michael Stamps 19507

  • Guest
Re: Intellibeam just as annoying as Autronic Eye
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2005, 10:24:02 PM »
I talked to our guy at work that orders our trucks.  He actually pays more for manual windows.  Then he went off muttering something about Ford and the cost of repair on their windows.

Stampie

PS - The new vans (I am in line to get one) are GMC 2500s with a Posi rear.  Vortec V8s.  I drove a Uhaul van six months back with the same engine and was impressed with its acceration.

PSS - They made me give up my Chevy 2500 Utility Truck this week.  I have to put up with a Ford E250 Van until they get the GMCs ready.  The OD trans kicks in and out constantly at speed.  The AC/Heat controls cannot be set to where Im not always changing the settings.  I cant wait for a good GM product.

Doug Houston

  • Guest
Re: Intellibeam just as annoying as Autronic Eye
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2005, 11:54:02 PM »
In the past few months, at one of our local Cad-LaS meetings, one of Cadillacs engineering guys gave a presentation on one of the new cars that Cadilllac is, or will soon be offering. He went on and on about all of the "wonderful" conveniences in the thing. Everything was automatic,. short of the car knowing where you want to go, and when.

He was duly proud of what he and his associates had produced, but I thought that I really wouldnt want this thing. I want to feel that Im in charge of what the car does, and when and how it does it. Id rather have a bigger, heavier car that has a few goodies on it, but a car that I enjoy the control of. In fact, considering everything, there isnt a passenger car built in this country that Id really want. The last car that I really admire is the one I have now: a 96 Buick Roadmaster station wagon. I never really did admire foreign cars, and thats what the industry is pushing off on us. So, the only thing that can cause a luxury car to be as such is a lot of embellishments, gadgets and "convenience" things. The cars are otherwise shapeless little pods that nobody can get excited over.

Randall McGrew CLC # 17963

  • Guest
Re: Intellibeam just as annoying as Autronic Eye
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2005, 01:48:18 AM »
Intellibeam may be as annoying, but in fact I like my Autronic Eye (or whatever the thing is called in 77) and use it.  The halogens are fairly bright, but the older seal beams are sort of dim.  Notihng is as irritating as these new blue white lights.  So if my high beams dont turn off right away....tough.

Mike #19861

  • Guest
Basic Cars
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2005, 07:53:50 AM »

 I have always liked the way cars were packaged and sold in the 60s. None of this base content with all the gadgets and wizards that are forced on us these days in differant packages.

 You could start with a basic sedan, move up trim levels, choose differant powertrains and comfort and convenience options. In a Chevrolet, you could start with a basic Biscayne and put in any power train right up to a 425 hp 427. And move up to a Bel Air, Impala or Caprice.

 I just wonder how many drivers nowadays that could even drive a basic Biscayne with Armstrong steering and brakes and a 6-cylinder stick. And endure that good old AM radio that had 2 settings, twangy and extra twangy.

  Mike

Johnny

  • Guest
Re: Basic Cars
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2005, 02:49:40 PM »
[I have always liked the way cars were packaged and sold in the 60s. None of this base content with all the gadgets and wizards that are forced on us these days in differant packages.]

Allow me to make a few comments about cars today that come with "packages"

I kind of like the idea. It somewhat makes the car buying experience easier, because you dont have to go through a long laundry list of options to see what you want.  The manufacturers through research have "discovered" what options buyers want most, and offered them in a package at a savings.  Of course they can build a car cheaper with "packages" and increase their profits.

Its interesting how the manufacturers change standard items from time to time.  One year they might not make cruise control standard.  I would suspect to raise the profit margin again.  Why give the customer something they want in a package, when you can charge extra for it as an option.

I think if you look hard enough, you may find a "stripped down" model somewhere out there in entry level cars, but does a Cadillac enthusiasts really want a car sans gadgets and wizardy?

Mike #19861

  • Guest
Re: Basic Cars
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2005, 05:25:44 PM »

 Dont get me wrong. I love Cadillacs for their engineering, level of comfort, style and of coarse the equipment levels. I understand why cars have option packages. It is indeed cheaper to group them all together, that way you get the most popular or what you like the most. And yes, it is more cost effective to do it this way.

 But I am also attracted the the abject simplicity of these basic sedans from the 60s. The way you could option them out allowed a lot of creativity. Many "Factory Freaks" were created in this era because of the way a car could be optioned. That was one of the reasons for success for the early pony cars as well. It was their incredible option list that allowed you to build an incredible array of variations. This created huge profit for the manufacturers as well.

 But, to drive a very simple basic sedan gives you a feeling more like you are part of the machinery. A bit more involved in the process of the car going down the road. Not like the coddled isolation of a luxury sedan. Really, it is incomparable. I have owned my share of these cars, and have enjoyed every one of them. But they were not the car I would like to take across country given the choice of that or a Cadillac.

 Even the most basic car today has equipment and features that were either considered full out luxury, or not even heard of 40 years ago. And as such, these basic cars of the 60s were that to the cars of 40 years previous. Part of the evolution of the automobile, and it gets to be a very complex subject even on terms of the technology involved, but how this affects how we do things and the economic and social impacts.

  Mike

Johnny

  • Guest
Re: Basic Cars
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2005, 05:43:03 PM »
[Even the most basic car today has equipment and features that were either considered full out luxury, or not even heard of 40 years ago. And as such, these basic cars of the 60s were that to the cars of 40 years previous. Part of the evolution of the automobile, and it gets to be a very complex subject even on terms of the technology involved, but how this affects how we do things and the economic and social impacts.]

Boy that is so true, in fact you dont have to go back 40 years.  I have a 85 Eldo, which was more or less near the top of the line of the Cadillac line.  It seems rather primitive compared to my 04 Envoy with nothing more then standard equipment.

I understand the feelings behind your post.  A person could feel more connected with their car back then, because they could option it out to their liking.  Theres one important fact to keep in mind.  The manufacturers dont make cars for enthusiasts such as ourselves, they make them to appeal to the masses, who basically see the automobile as something to get them from Point A to Point B.

Mike #19861

  • Guest
Re: Basic Cars
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2005, 06:20:13 PM »

Yes, you are correct in that cars have changed so much in the last 20 years. I also have an 85 Eldo that is currently a project car. It is quite simple to even that of a current Impala. Never mind the technology found in the new STS! My 85 Caprice is more actually akin to 60s technology. This car is plug simple, and bulletproof reliable.

 I think this back to basics in these cars of the 60s really puts you back into perspective as to what cars are.  These were the cars that were demanded by the consumers back then. To spend some time reading brochures from the 60s (which I have an extensive collection) or perusing through magazines of the era really drives that home. The manufacturers build what the people want, and to some extent create a mold of what people want through promotions and advertising. The power of the media. This way they can influence to some extent what they build as an advantage to themselves. I think these option, or equipment packages are a result of that. As are the limited colours and trims. Lack of drivetrain choice is more a result of government mandate, having to emissions certify each combination. This is an expensive and time consuming procedure.

 This is just touching on the comlexity of this subject. You can talk for hours on this, and I have with a well educated car fanatic friend of mine. You can pick an era and talk endlessly on the various aspects of the automobile industry of that time. Fascinating conversation, but tends to get quite long winded in this sort of forum.

 And to think this thread started out on the Intellibeam vs Autronic Eye.

  Mike

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13