Light bulb question -- Daniel Stern?

Went to the Sylvania Web site to see whether XtraVision bulbs are
available for my 300M (they aren't) and looked at the comparison chart
for Standard, XtraVision, Cool Blue, and SilverStar. I was surprised to
see that for a given bulb type (e.g., 9004, 9005, 9006) they quote the
same light output in lumens no matter whether it's a Standard or an
XtraVision! So how come they claim that XtraVision are "brighter"?

MB

 

Sylvania primarily lists *NOMINAL* output, not actual, in their materials.
Nominal output is the legal spec contained in Federal code 49CFR564. The
spec for each bulb contains a nominal flux as well as the allowable
tolerance range as either a plus-minus percentage or an absolute maximum.
Take a look for yourself here:
http://fmvss108.tripod.com/light_source_list.htm and you'll see how
coincidentally all those Sylvania bulbs just happen to (be claimed to
produce) exactly the nominal value, right on the nose. Quoting nominal
values is the same as saying "These bulbs are all legal". Sure they are,
but nominal values do not describe the differences in performance amongst
the different bulbs. Can you think of a reason why Silverstar (which
produces near the high end of the legal output) and Cool Blue (which
produces near the low end) would be quoted at nominal rather than actual?
I can. I can also think of a reason why Sylvania would field a gimmicky,
expensive, short-lived, low-performing Silverstar for your 300M but *not*
a higher-performing, non-gimmicky, longer-lived, less-expensive
Xtravision.

DS

 

Whoops, see below. Shows what happens when I try to post in "food coma"
mode after having just eaten a large dinner.

All the above is fine.

Corrections below in all-caps

 

Amen on the short lived Silstar, went thru a set in 7 months on my chev.
trailblazer, bitched to them, got another set on warranty, 7 months later,
one right after another. It's a shame because they were good, and the
stockers stink.

 

Try
http://dafnwebpd.sylvania.com/os_filenet_pages/FnDocIdDisplay.asp?docid=003680349

 

The Sylvania Silverstars make your headlamps put out *less* light. The
impression you got that they're "brighter" is nothing more than an optical
illusion.

So no, it's not a shame.

 

Another victim of inadquate headlights here.. 97 Sebring convertible.
So I replace the headlight bulbs with Xtravisions and make sure
they're aimed correctly. I'd like to find a set of aftermarket fog
lights for the car.. only mounting location is the factory holes in
the bumper. Looking to improve lighting right in front of the car,
ditches and road markings. Would also consider a dual filament light
to improve distance lighting with high beams.

Just trying to see better at night..

I have used high wattage bulbs in other vehicles.. I am led to
believe that it's not a good idea with these headlights.. why?

Thanks,

Jim

 

That's about all you can do with those headlamps.

Bosch Compact 100s have a particularly useful beam pattern for what you're
trying to do and should fit the factory holes without much difficulty.
They are 100mm (4") diameter.

There is exactly one dual-function fog/driving lamp worth a damn. It is
enormous (8-3/4" diameter) and works well on very large vehicles used off
road. For on-road use, a low-mounted driving lamp is only slightly less
useless than a high-mounted fog lamp.

The wiring is barely adequate for stock wattage, let alone
overwattage,though that can be fixed with relays and heavy-gauge wires.
The unsolvable problems are:

-This is a small headlamp with a reflector made out of low-grade plastic.
It cannot handle the extra heat of an overwattage bulb and will deform,
melt and/or burn.

-The beam pattern is poorly formed. There is too much uplight and too much
upward stray light, and glare is relatively high -- all with a stock bulb.
If you put in an overwattage bulb, you will not make the beam pattern any
less worse, you will only aggravate the glare and backdazzle problems.

-No decent factories manufacture overwattage 9007 bulbs, so what's
available is crap made in the 3rd world. Filament placement is stinkin';
fractions of a millimetre make enormous differences in beam pattern
formation.

So, don't use 'em.

dastern "at" danielsternlighting "dot" com if you have questions or
anything.

 

Daniel, I don't understand. I have Silver Stars in my 97 Cherokee
Sport and My 96 Plymouth Grand Voyager. They are definitely a big
improvement over stock. Why do you say they put out less light and
it's only an illusion that they are brighter?

 

Well.. lets not forget buff/polish the plastic lenses every few weeks
to remove the haze.. *nice* job Chrysler..

I'll look into them..

Lets hear it for Oscar the Super?.. I considered them before I
realized that they would require the 'saws-all' install method.

Appreciate the answers.. one more question. At what voltage drop do
you consider re-wiring the headlight circuit?..

Regards,

Jim

 

They start out putting out more light (this is why they don't last too
long), but then Sylvania puts a coating on the bulb to make it look a bit
blue. This may make you think it "looks" brighter, but tests confirm that
the coating significantly reduces the bulbs output. Some coatings (most
coatings) cut light output in half. "Believe it or don't".

Richard.

 

Yeah...if you're having to buff them every few weeks, it's time for new
headlamps. What initially hazes over is the hardcoat on the lens. When you
polish that away, the polycarbonate lens is no longer protected from UV
and abrasives, and the haze comes back faster and worse every time. (Here
all this time you thought you owned a Chrysler; turns out you've got a
cataract!)

Yep, that's the one.

Well, remember, light output drops exponentially, not linearly, with
voltage drop. Small voltage drops = large light losses. The formula for
determining the change in light output with a change in voltage is:

lumens @old volts x [(new volts /old volts) ^3.4] = lumens @new volts

So for simplicity's sake, let's take a 9007 low beam rated 1000 lumens at
12.8 Volts and plug in different voltages:

10.5V : 510 lumens
11.0V : 597 lumens
11.5V : 695 lumens
12.0V : 803 lumens
12.5V : 923 lumens
12.8V : 1000 lumens <--Rated output voltage
13.0V : 1054 lumens
13.5V : 1198 lumens
14.0V : 1356 lumens <--Rated life voltage
14.5V : 1528 lumens


Voltage drop test conditions:

ALL headlamps connected - you may have to backprobe the sockets, but
removing the socket from the headlamp invalidates the test.

Engine off, circuit to be tested (low or high beam) energized

First, connect your voltmeter across the battery + and - terminals. Record
the voltage reading, this is the battery voltage.

Connect your voltmeter positive lead to the battery (+) and the voltmeter
negative lead to the + terminal of whichever headlamp beam you're testing
-- use the bulb farthest away from the battery. With the lamps on, your
voltmeter will give a direct reading of the voltage drop. Write it down.

Then connect the positive voltmeter lead to the ground terminal of the
headlamp bulb, and the negative voltmeter lead to the (-) terminal of the
battery. With the lamps on, your voltmeter will again give a direct
reading of the voltage drop. Write it down.

Add the two voltage drop figures obtained, and this is the total circuit
drop.

Subtract the total circuit drop from the battery voltage to find the
voltage at which your bulbs are operating.

DS

 

Exactly. This "Definitely a big improvement!" stuff is nothing more than
the Slick-50 effect. ("Of course I can see better! No, really, I can, it's
a vast improvement! Huge! Whaddya mean it's an illusion? Shut up, it is
not! I just spent $45 on these light bulbs; of COURSE I can see better!")

 

Nope. They aren't any such improvement.

Because they put out less light and it's an illusion that they're
brighter.

 

This seems to be such a common problem, is there any way to restore the
UV protective coating once you've got the lenses buffed up? Bribe you
local eyeglass emporium?

nate

 

There's likely to be more going on than the Slick-50 effect: first,
our eyes are really good at seeing at various light levels; that's why
learning to take pictures with manually-operated cameras requires some
learning. We can easily be fooled into thinking things that are much
brighter are actually dimmer and vice versa.

Quick digression: for last year's State Science Fair, one of the
competitors studied the effects of tinted shooting glasses on
accuracy. He had a dozen or so participants, ranging from people
who'd never fired a pistol before to a member of the Albuqurque SWAT
team. *Everybody* was convince that they saw the target more clearly
with yellow tinted lenses. *Nobody* actually shot better with yellow
lenses, and most shot better with clear lenses. Moral: everything
you think you know about how well you see, and under what conditions,
is wrong.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the Silverstar lights have a
narrower spectrum than stock or Xtravision (which is what I would
expect, since I'm under the impression that they're just a standard
halogen bulb with a blue filter), and that this provides the illusion
of greater brightness and visibility. That and the Slick-50 Effect,
of course.

 

Nothing that's worth the effort and available to a DIYer, no. The original
hardcoat is applied and UV-cured under cleanroom conditions; there's
nothing in an aerosol can that'll even dream of coming close.

 

ISTM that this is a wonderful opportunity for an aftermarket product.
Probably of the type that would only be sold to paint shops etc. but
still...

nate

 

Here's what some people use:
http://www.autosportcatalog.com/index.cfm?fa=p&pid=332

Not sure if they have the Dr. Stern stamp of approval, but they
definitely prevent abrasion, give some (claimed but of course
unquantified) UV blocking, and give the added benefit of protecting
against breakage or chips from stones.

Probably it would be best to apply over new headlight assemblies rather
than put over buffed-out old units, but that also could be done if $$ is
tight (if the buffed out old ones will keep their water-clear clarity
due to the added protection of the covers, which is questionable - I
know that without covers, buffed out ones need to be polished every few
weeks as was aready pointed out).

Obviously anything you put in front of the headlight is going to block
some light no matter how clear, but I would think the attenuation is
small, and as a new headlight without them ages, at some point in time,
the headlight with them that was replaced at the same time will be
brighter for the remainder of its life - I would think the crossover
point would come within a few months of sun and blast exposure (and if
the cover starts clouding or yellowing, which may happen after, say, 2
to 4 years depending on geographic location, you can always replace the
covers for another $45 - cheaper than new headlight assys.).

Something to consider.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

 

....and here's the source: www.xpel.com

Your attempt to give me a heart attack so I can't go cancel-out your vote
with my vote is unsuccessful; to have achieved success, you'd've had to
have recommended "Stongard". ;-)

(Besides, I already voted.)

Well...kinda. They prevent sandblasting, but if a large enough road rock
has your headlamp's name on it, it's going to break the headlamp with or
without film. Also, you have to be careful on smaller lamps; these kinds
of films can trap significantly more heat inside the lamp, degrading the
lens from the inside rather than from the outside.

All in all I have much less argument with Xpel than with the other.