What I see with these new a/c systems on GM cars is that they appear to be quick to cycle the compressor off when it's not that hot outside. They're cool enough, but you're thinking that it should probably be cooler given the fact that it's not even all that hot. But then when it does get very hot, they cycle much less (or not at all) and they do keep the vehicle cool. It appears that they're cycling the compressor off before the evaporator gets as cold as it did on older systems, most likely to reduce fuel consumption. If you look at the size of the parts, and also the amount of refrigerant in the system, it's pretty clear that the newer systems are considerably smaller than the older ones. Many hold barely more than 1 pound of refrigerant, versus 2-3 for systems from 10 years ago. The new ones work a lot better in very hot weather if you run them on "maximum" (recirculated air) and they'll consume less fuel that way too. The one on my S10 will hold the output air at 40 F no matter how hot it is outside as long as I run it in maximum. On "normal" (fresh air) the output air will warm up some if it's very hot outside.

I guess the daytime running lights stay on full time when driving, I see all these parts for your daytime running lamp system (sensor,diode,module and relay) But try replacing the bulbs first because since they run full time while you drive chances are the bulbs just burnt out. Or could be a problem with the switch or the wirings. If you have no idea about it, you are free to call for a shop that could handle Chevrolet repair. There are lots of them on the high street Here is a link that might be useful: My private profile

kimmq is kimmsr, I did read what you wrote. Several times. There is no way what you wrote can in any way be interpreted to mean anything other than lack of organic matter causes soil compaction. "Compacted soils are usually the result of a lack of adequate amounts of organic matter in the soil." your statement does not say this is the only cause, but certainly states this is A cause. Your rewriting defines the first commandment. kimmq is kimmsr cannot be wrong. He ain't right, but he cannot be wrong. And yes, from words you have written in the past, I know you are a he. You got the relationship backwards. Soil organic matter is not a cause of compaction...that's pressure. It can be from raindrops. Certain soil types have physical properties that make them more susceptible to compaction under certain conditions, but any soil can be compacted. One of the conditions that soils that have been compacted often have is low organic matter...but it is not the only one, and it is not a cause. It's also one of the few physical properties of soil that you have any realistic hope of changing. (ironically, for the purposes of discussions in these forums, one of the physical characteristics of soils that are usually not compacted is sand. To understand that, you have to know a little about the prismatic nature of sand particles, as well as their nearly inert chemistry. sandy soils also often have very low organic matter, but that's just coincidence, right? However, my prediction is: a lecture about why adding sand is rarely a benefit, the perils of adding not enough, and how much it takes to create any benefit.) Since when does core aeration not assist in the addition of organic matter to the soil profile? To make such a claim is crazy talk. It's like my left foot...it's just not right. You now have a series of holes as deep as you set the machine. Air and organic matter are not able to enter the soil profile to the depth of the core. And as much as anything, it's not the organic matter that is helping...it's the air. Now, things down there can breathe. Composting can happen, microbes can be more efficient...the list of benefits from this is unending. Every once in a while, if a lawn has deteriorated to the point that there is little or no viable turf left, then by all means, consider tilling...again, a lot of potential benefits, but it's just one of a number of possible techniques one can use.

Keep in mind that, even though you've shown us some pictures, we can't know what happens on your property outside of those pictures. There's nothing wrong with questions that prod exploration of alternative solutions. I cannot tell you how many times people have come here saying more or less to the effect of: "Here's the problem and here's how we intend to solve it .... but that creates a problem. What do we do?" Many times this involves telling said person that they are headed in the wrong direction to begin with. So please understand why people might make suggestions of alternative solutions, or question where you're headed. I'll remind you again, Brodyt, that you not only need the new pictures, but you'll need to be working the walkway problem out in plan view. The sooner you draw the base plan (existing house and porch footprint and drive) to scale, the sooner you can work toward a solution. The way I would approach this is by first roughing out some proposed beds, in order to know that the walk will allow for them. Then you can route the walk around them. One question that you'll need to answer, Brodyt, is at what point you'll want to tie the walk to the drive. I've pointed out that it can be somewhat awkward for the walk to dump directly into a car if one is parked just outside the garage. Most walks terminate very close to the garage door. But this has the negative effect of destroying the planting bed. Nevertheless, it's a decision the homeowner needs to make. Personally, I prefer to take the walk toward the end, or last third, of the car so that if one is heading in that direction, they are not forced to walk in the skinny space between the side of the parked car and the lawn. If there are objects (plants) to walk around, it doesn't feel unreasonable to walk to that location.