HID conversion kits.

.... expensive

So is your car when you smack it into a moose you didn't see.

--TW

Jim B.

To my knowledge, putting E-codes in an A3 Jetta involves radiator support modification, which I really don't feel like doing. I also looked a little further and noted that HIDs have around 3x the output of regular headlamps, I cannot believe the NHTSA has allowed them in this country. To be honest, I find them really, really obnoxious in the glare department. I guess I'll just stick to the less-obnoxious and much cheaper PIAA bulbs and my auxillary driving lamps.

--TW Getting addicted to being able to see at night while driving.

True.... tho they should only have the same range as normal halogens only brighter, or is this not true? I would imagine if they had more range they would really hurt other drivers eyes, as they would need to be aimed higher.... or is my concept of linear travel backwards when it comes to lights?

HID lights have a much longer range than Hallogen... I'm a Tech at a Benz dealer & the difference I see in the cars when people buy the Xenon HID option is unreal. They are aimed exactly the same as Hal. lights but yes do tend to get flashed often on the roads at night cause they are so bright.

Jim B.

Dan stern had an article on this on his site

but Icould no longer find it...I think he's redoing parts of his site. Basicallythe gist was that sticking a HID arc capsule in a lamp originally designedfor halogen capsules "damaged" the beam enough so that was usually tooglaring for other drivers.

Nonsense. The HID bulbs will not melt the lamp. The give off LESS heat than halogen bulbs. If the lamps have melted it is probably because the owner experimented with over-wattage halogen bulbs.

I still agree with the "Holly crap no you can't do that" part, though. If you stick HID bulbs in lamps designed for halogens you will get a horrible (and illegal) beam pattern and bug the fecal matter out of oncoming traffic.

=20 His claim that:=20 BOTTOM LINE: The laws of physics are the laws of physics. They don't = bend even for the highest-paid advertising agency. There is no way to = get "85 watts of light for 55 watts of electricity." Tinted bulbs aren't = better.=20

is a poor, baseless rant. It's like saying you can only get X horsepower = out of a liter of gasoline; which is true in itself, there is only X = energy in a liter of gasoline but there are a variety of methods of = extraction which vary in efficiency.

Case in point: HID lights. Gee, lower wattage, greater output. = Efficiency. Hmmm.

I don't feel like getting into all the details of perception and the = absorbtion and reflection of different wavelengths of light on and = through different medium. Somebody else can dig up some factoids.

--TW

My question is for $400 or so I can Ecode my Jetta. What would I get for $1000 for some hacked hid kit? Efficiency? I have to work almost a week after taxes, well actually closer to 3 days to pay the premium for hid which probably will not work so swell. The rant was not about efficiency but about the fact the the bulb has a narrower "element" which has to be factored in when designing a bulb so you do not have dark spots. Color of the light seems to cause night vision problems with some. A great ecode headlamp systems is a pretty awesome system. I had some Bosch 7" rounds in my 67 beetle. They were great when new. I don't think I have seen a better lamp yet except for maybe Marchal

7" rounds. Round is a good bit easier to engineer than the any other shape I would guess.

Back to the efficiency question. I bought a TDI. I drive over 35,000 miles a year. The $2,000 premium over the 2.0 amkes sense because the increased efficiency of the TDI saves me money based on the amount of miles I drive that car and how long I keep the car. If I bought a new pickup and the diesel cost me $4,000 more but I only drive my pickup

6,000 miles a year I would never pay off the premium. Even at a few thousand dollars premium the diesel does not make financial sense.

A more efficient light that produces more lumens per watt but does not send it anywhere usefull is rather inefficient. Lumens is the one of the ways to measure efficiency. Another way if you realize how the eye sees is color temp. A bulb that produces more light in a color temp that the eye can use at night is more efficeint than the higher lumens per watt bulb that produces light the night eye does not use well. Ignoring how your eyes work just because of some claim of higher lumens per watt is folly. If you were to go to the doctor for a cure when he says he has a 97% success rate would be great but he is a gynacologist and you have prostrate problems.

So are you sayijng that HID is the greatest th>

for the highest-paid advertising agency. There is no way to get "85 watts of light for 55 watts of electricity." Tinted bulbs aren't better.

a liter of gasoline; which is true in itself, there is only X energy in a liter of gasoline but there are a variety of methods of extraction which vary in efficiency.

and reflection of different wavelengths of light on and through different medium. Somebody else can dig up some factoids.

Jim B.

Not really. Light output measured in Lumen is weighted according to the color sensitivity of the eye. At 555 nm, one lumen is 1.46 mW of light (not 1.46 mW of consumed power). At any other wavelength it takes more than 1.46 mW to equal one lumen.

That said, I agree that sticking $1000 worth of hacked HID lighting in headlights not designed for it is a poor investment. I put $400 of DOT compliant HID auxiliary low beams (Sylvania Xenarc 1010) on my car and I am very happy with the results (this NG is probably getting tired of me and my 1010's by now. I have mentioned them a few times before...).

You completely missed my point. We live on different planets. End of thread.

--TW EOT

Jim B.

You can find the curve at

or do agoogle search on "CIE photometric curve" or "photopic luminousefficiency"

Thanks.

Jim

Randolph wrote:

Jim B.