improving light output for 1999 T&C?

This van is nortorious for its weak head light. Is there any way to improve it?

Also I am wondering if the light enclosure or somewhere is aging, therefore causing more and more complaint from my wife--she is the one driving it. I looked at the head light componet and saw on half hemisphere shape shiny cover/refllector in front of the light. It is no longer shining as compared to its new condition. Should I replace it and expecing better light output?

Any service manual detailing the procedures for disassemling? Thanks

Harry

Reply to
Harry
Loading thread data ...

There is some plastic polish out there for cleaning these up, check with an auto parts store. To increase light output you can install Phillips 9005HV (High Visibility) in the high-beams.

The plastic is coated at the factory to prevent it from degrading, once the coating is gone they start to go. After polishing you can wax it.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Ted,

The local parts store does not carry Philips, any idea where I can get it or any other replacement? Did you say putting the Phillips 9005 in the "high-beams"? Will that "improve" the visibility while I am using low beam most of the time?

Thanks

Harry

Reply to
Harry

Most of the replacement bulbs on the market that promise improved performance are lying. In a nutshell, if it has any kind of coloration to the bulb glass (blue or purple) and advertises as "Blue", "White", "Silver", "5000K", "Hyper", "Hiper", or any variant of these, it's crapola. There's also no bulb swap that will magically make your bad headlamps into good ones. The Sylvania Xtravision, Philips High Visibility, Wagner BriteLite or Candlepower Bright Light bulbs would give a minor incremental improvement, but there's no such upgrade for the

9005XS (straight-base) bulbs used in your low beams.

The only way to get *good* headlamp performance in the '96-'00 Chrysler minivans is this setup from Germany:

formatting link
(click the picture at the topshowing the minivan with the double headlamps). DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

This version of the van ('99-'00 Town and Country) had the "premium" or "upgraded" headlamps -- they are slightly less dangerously bad than the Dodge/Plymouth and pre-'99 Chrysler version of this van. Scary, eh?

See my other post in this thread: There is no magic bulb that makes bad headlamps into good ones.

If the headlamp itself has obviously and badly deteriorated (very cloudy front lens, peeling or dull reflector, water inside the unit) then yes, there will be a correspondingly serious drop in output.

No, that's just the bulb shield. It discolors with the heat of the bulb, but this does not affect the lamp's output.

The headlamp assemblies cannot be disassembled unless you never want to put them back together again.

DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

DS,

Where can I buy it in US? Any info available in English?

Reply to
Harry

You can't -- but Vmaxx accepts international orders. Send me an e-mail (instructions below) and I'll see if I can dig up the guy's name to contact over there.

Not on their website, no. What do you need translated?

--Daniel

TO WRITE TO ME: Remove the headlamp from my return address.

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

Turning on high beams will improve visibility. (I know, cheap joke)

You might also want to check the aiming of the headlights. In Oregon where I live the DMV has a headlight aiming pamphlet that explains how to adjust them, the car must be so many feet back, the bright spot must be so many feet high and so many feet to the right, etc.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Given what is written in the ORS regarding light aiming, I'd love to see that brochure. Probably worth a few belly laughs. Care to scan it in?

DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

Sure, the brochure is titled "Lighting The Way" and is a joint publication between Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) I'll scan it in and post a URL later tonight.

However, it's probably amusement value only. The publication dates from the

80's and when I tried finding it online on the DMV website I could not. So I went and dug up the current regulations and I think that there's been a change in the last couple years in ORS on this topic, to bring ORS inline with current standards, and which I'm sure has superseded this brochure. Here's what I have found that may be of interest to you:

ORS Chapter 816 - Vehicle Equipment Lights.

formatting link
Note the operative paragraph, 816.010:

"...The Department of Transportation shall... Approve or disapprove and issue and enforce rules establishing standards and specifications for the approval of any vehicle lighting equipment of a type on which department approval is required under ORS 816.040 to 816.290 including their installation, adjustment and aiming and their adjustment when in use on motor vehicles..."

In short, the Oregon Legislature as of year 2001 is apparently getting itself out of the business of setting lighting standards, and now is referring the entire matter over to ODOT. This is enforced by 816.040 which states:

"...Any standard provided for a piece of lighting equipment under ORS

816.040 to 816.290 is subject to being superseded by a rule adopted by the Department of Transportation...."

Now, one interesting bit in there is ORS 816.050 which states (among other things):

"...Headlights shall show a white light..."

Which means all blue-coated bulbs are illegal for use in headlights in Oregon.

Now, going to ODOT's website here:

formatting link
There's a link off the front titled "Transportation Safety", click on that and you get this link:

formatting link
Select the menu item "Safety Programs" then the submenu "Vehicle Equipment Standards" and you get this URL:

formatting link
One of the first links off of there is titled: "2003 So you want to customize your vehicle facts" which goes to the following link:

formatting link
and buried in THAT is the statement:

"Oregon adopted FMVSS 108"

Plus a whole list of illegal things, such as use of blue headlights, neon outlines on license plates, winshield washer lights, valve stem lights, etc. etc. I don't know if ODOT is creatively interpreting FMVSS 108 but their list of illegal lighting they are justifying by saying that FMVSS 108 prohibits it. And their list appears to be just about everything that the typical "ricer" likes to hang on his vehicle.

THIS brochure is dated August 2003, I'm going to have some fun printing this out and distributing it to a lot of the local auto parts places I think.

Also, going back to the Transportation Safety homepage of ODOT, there's a second link to FMVSS 108, pointing here:

formatting link
It is actually facinating to see this as the above URL is not the official site of the FMVSS #108 and it's quite surprising to see ODOT essentially referring rulemaking authority to an interpretation of a standard by a private individual!

So it's pretty clear that the legal law of the land in Oregon now regarding vehicle lighting is under ODOT's authority, and ODOT intends it to be FMVSS 108. I assume that FMVSS 108 is a controlled publication of some kind and copyright restrictions prevent it being published in the ODOT online archives.

Whether this is a good thing, I have no idea.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Can't wait...

This, I believe, is the location of the bit of Oregon Legislative whimsy that says "Low beam headlamps shall be deemed to comply with the requirement not to produce glare, regardless of the loading of the vehicle".

...which, in turn, adopted US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

No, just the ones that don't emit legally "white" light. The "white" color standard is huge (excessively so) and there's lots of room for blue bulbs. They don't help anyone see better, and they cause more glare, but the ones from the major makers are legal.

I know that website well. I'm not convinced the site owner is as "private" as he intends visitors to assume. There is no official website of FMVSS

108, but this is damn close and adheres *rigidly* to the text and official (NHTSA) interpretations of 108.

Not at all! The full text of FMVSS 108 is widely available. Its location in the Code of Federal Regulations is 49CFR571.108. The full text is also available on the website you mention above.

Mostly good, yes. It gives Oregon teeth to enforce against unsafe ricer lighting, but it did delete Oregon's previous explicit permission for European ECE headlamps. Washington kept theirs.

DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

Here you are:

formatting link
If your using Internet Explorer, go to Tools, Internet Options, Advanced, Multimedia, then uncheck Enable Automatic Image Resizing

Heh. It probably was. But that statement is no longer in there. That was probably in

816.050. What's there now is:

"...Headlights shall be aimed in accordance with rules adopted by the department. If headlights provide only a single distribution of light and are not supplemented by auxiliary lights, the single beam headlights shall be so aimed that when the vehicle is not loaded, none of the high intensity portion of the light shall, at a distance of 25 feet ahead of the vehicle, project higher than five inches below the level of the center of the lamp from which it comes, or higher than 42 inches above the level on which the vehicle stands at a distance of 75 feet ahead of the vehicle..."

However, that's superceded as stated in ORS 816.040, to whit:

"...Any standard provided for a piece of lighting equipment under ORS

816.040 to 816.290 is subject to being superseded by a rule adopted by the Department of Transportation..."

Not exactly. The actual law - 816.050 - states:

"...The Department of Transportation shall adopt and enforce rules establishing minimum standards and specifications for headlights. The rules shall conform, insofar as practicable, to safety standards and specifications for vehicle lighting issued by the federal government and, to the extent there are no such federal standards, to standards and recommendations promulgated by the Society of Automotive Engineers..."

That "insofar as practicable" lets them off the hook. All ODOT has to say is that either FMVSS or SAE has an "unpracticable" rule, and they can make whatever rule they want to replace it.

Ah, but there are three interesting bits to add to this. The first is that ORS 816 does not refer to a standard for what they define as white light. Meaning that since they are allowing ODOT to supersede 816, legally all ODOT has to do is say that any bulb that has a color coating of any kind is not "white" It doesen't have to be christmas-tree color blue. In short, ODOT can define what "white" is, outside FMVSS 108

I cannot find anything on ODOT's published materials that claims that they are restricted to FMVSS 108. They say they adopted it, but what does that mean? The law seems to allow ODOT to pick and choose from either SAE or FMVSS 108 unless they don't like either, then they can do what they want.

The second interesting bit is in ODOT's "customize vehicle" FAQ. In the question titled "are colored (blue, green etc.) headlight BULBS permitted?" they say the following:

all headlamps must be "white in color as defined by Society of Automotive Engineers" amd FMVS 108. FMVSS 108 disallows any color coating on headlights and/or headlight bulbs"

Now, if as you say FMVSS 108 permits blue coated bulbs, then ODOT's statement in the FAQ regarding FMVS 108 is wrong. What is even more telling is that among the rationale cited in the FAQ for this rule is the statement: "colored bulbs give a distorted headlamp pattern which may prevent the driver from seeing a person at road edge"

It sounds like ODOT is being deliberately misleading in the FAQ. They must know that the blue-coated bulbs are legally white, but they are taking pains to write the FAQ to specifically refer to bulbs, not simply headlamp assemblies, and they are claiming FMVSS disallows any color coating. All that it would take is a simple administrative rule from ODOT defining all the blue-coated bulbs, "ie: cool-blue, silverstar, etc." as not being legally "white" regardless of FMVSS 108 - which ORS permits them to do - and instantly those bulbs become illegal in Oregon, despite whatever FMVSS or SAE's "white standard" is.

And the last bit that is much more interesting is this. ODOT runs a research think tank, which has a website here:

formatting link
This unit has apparently been considering this blue-headlight problem. See the following:

formatting link
Knowing how vehicle laws seem to be enforced in Oregon my guess is what is going on is there's a bureaucrat buried in ODOT that wants to get rid of the blue lights, but isn't going to do anything to provoke a showdown with the likes of Sylvania, Phillips, espically when NHTSA has investigations going with those makers over this issue. So they aren't going to outright ban them. Instead they are going to build a set of administrative rules that are interpretable enough so that any police officer can write tickets.

Right now I can say with conviction that ORS is vague enough so that a cop could, if he wanted to, start writing tickets on these. The way that the Oregon courts have always handled these "vehicle non-compliance" tickets is that you show up to the judge and produce some kind of documentation saying the problem is fixed, then they dismiss the ticket. In short, show up with a copy of an auto parts store receipt for $20 for 2 new headlight bulbs and they dismiss the $200 ticket. In fact the cops will even tell you this when they write these kinds of tickets. So, if they just started writing tickets now on these, nobody would mount a legal challenge since they can get the ticket dismissed for $20. Instead, it's one of those nuisance tickets that for most people, it's easier to just do what they want you to do instead of getting hassled.

True, but with these administrative rulemaking bodies like ODOT, they would have to make an explicit rule disallowing European ECE headlamps before it would become illegal. And even if they had kept the explicit permission in ORS, since ORS now defers to ODOT, the explicit permission would have been pointless unless it had been rewritten to exclude it from ODOT's control.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Gee, not bad...I didn't find much in the way of nits to pick. Of course, as you mention, this brochure is very old, but their aiming instructions are fairly good.

I found it here:

formatting link
811.515 (6) (a):

Whenever the driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within 500 feet, the driver must use a distribution of light or composite beam so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver. >>>The use of the low beams of the vehicle headlight system is in compliance with this paragraph at all times regardless of road contour and loading of the vehicle.

...except that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards preempt any State standards that differ in any respect from the Federal standard. So, for example, Oregon could pass a law requiring all vehicles to have amber (not red) rear turn signals, but the Federal preemption would make the law moot

-- automakers would still be allowed to sell cars with red rear turn signals in Oregon.

...but then along comes Sylvania (Wagner, GE, Philips, PIAA...) and says "This bulb complies with all applicable requirements contained in FMVSS

108", and then an interesting legal battle ensues. I honestly can't say how that would play out. Any bulb that's legal under the Federal standard is, perforce, legal in every state. Nevertheless, it would not be the first time Oregon has raised a middle finger to some aspect of the Federal lighting laws. In the 1970s, they did so with respect to FMVSS prohibition of European ECE headlamps. NHTSA (then under Joan Claybrook) went ballistic:

formatting link
and reacted similarly to Washington's identical move:

formatting link
Oregon (and Washington) told the Feds to go pound sand (or, to be more exact, "We will not enforce against European headlamps. If you want to send your own cops up here to enforce, be our guests.")

That's not quite true yet, though it looks as though we're moving in that direction slowly (and finally!).

See above -- any item of motor vehicle equipment Federally legal is legal.

formatting link

Looks more to me like they're trying to figure out a way for cops to tell if headlamps are misaimed (too high), which is briefly described as a growing problem especially given the "Blue-white very bright headlamps that blind oncoming drivers" -- a common lay description of HID headlamps.

I do like that Oreg "Fog lights may be either white or amber (yellow). They may not be blue, bluish or any other color than white or amber."

DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

Being an authority on lighting regulations, do you happen to know the prevailing legal interpretation of the phrase "or importing into the United States through the State of [x]...", i.e. just what is considered illegal importation? Does it have to be for resale or commercial purposes?

--Aardwolf.

Reply to
Aardwolf

nonconforming items of motor vehicle equipment subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or other US regulations may be legally imported only if:

-They are to be used for research and development, testing and/or display

-They are for export only (must be marked as such on items and packaging)

-They are not capable of being installed on any vehicle certified as conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

Now, that is something I don't understand why this is. Take emissions regulations, it seems clear that *more restrictive* state regulations on vehicle emissions are allowed, for example California emissions cars. Why are lighting regulations the opposite?

Is there a quick and dirty way to tell this?

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

New York State banned Chrysler's new technology "driving lights" about 25 years ago because they were "blue", and NYS had reserved blue for emergency vehicles. Chrysler pulled this option since each state had a different view on this issue. Later the feds preempted the states in this area of vehicle lighting. This is good, but too bad the feds then dropped the ball on adequately regulating lighting.

Richard.

Reply to
Richard

The Clean Air Act specifically lets CA adopt more stringent standards (and lets other states adopt CA's standards too). I'd guess the law(s) governing lights make no such provision.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Because it's the only way to make sure that automakers can produce a vehicle legal for sale and use in every state.

California's special emission requirements are just that: Special. The State of California argued -- successfully, though not necessarily correctly -- that they had such unique environmental conditions that the Federal standards could not possibly address them. They were therefore specifically allowed by the EPA to set their own, different vehicular emission standards.

With US headlamps? No, not really.

DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

Emissions regulation was 'trendy' while lighting standards have never been. The closest they ever got was the 1940 changeover to sealed beams - or the 1975 beginnings of *rectangular* lights. Even then, hardly anyone noticed or gave a shit (aside from those few lighting anal retentives like my pal, Daniel).

Dragging the big pollution battles in front of the state and federal courts involved lots of money and lots of strong opinions on both sides. However, when it comes down to FMVSS for lighting, damn few people, including even LEOs, care much about it. There's lots bigger fish to fry than whether Oregon's legislatively-influenced standards were better or worse than what the federal government will 'allow'.

I suspect the federal regulators would be shut down by Congress in short order if they threatened to withhold federal highway funds for such a petty reason. Even better would be the sudden appearance of a horde of Federal Automotive Reflectance Trainees ('F.A.R.T.s', for short) throughout the country stopping cars (like my E28 BMW's Euro lights) for displaying 'illegal' lights.

-- C.R. Krieger Been there; done that

Reply to
C.R. Krieger

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.