Sylvania SilverStar Replacement Headlights

[y_p_w]

If you're paying $50 for a bulb that puts out the same
quantity of light as a stock $20 one, it had better last at
least twice as long. Most don't.

If you're paying $50 for a bulb that puts out more light,
in a better pattern than a stock $20 one, then it's more of
a subjective decision.

I don't know if you saw the other posts on this thread. I look at
it like spending money on high performance tires that cost 50%
more but also wear 50% faster. It seems that as long as you
don't go with colored bulbs, you can spend more on high performance
bulbs with a marginally shorter life, or on long-life bulbs with
considerably longer life and marginally lower output.

It's going to be a royal pain when I have to replace that left
bulb in my 2004 WRX. Who's brilliant idea was it to put the
battery an inch from the headlight socket?

 

[MikeL]

Does anyone make an aftermarket HID kit for the WRX? Does not the STi use
them and they might be a good fit, eh?

 

[Rex B]

||
||
||Daniel J. Stern wrote:
||> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, y_p_w wrote:
||>
||>
||>>BTW - what might one recommend for a '96 Buick Regal in 9006/HB4?
||>
||>
||> A new car. Sorry to be flippant...those headlamp optics are godawful. Not
||> quite as bad as the ones on the Century of the same year, but pretty damn
||> bad. There is no such thing as a magic bulb that turns bad headlamps into
||> good ones.
||
||He's got no problem with my mom's 2001 Toyota Camry, which also
||uses 9006 for the low beams.

The optics are in the plastic lense shell, not the bulb.
The Camry has a better design.


Texas Parts Guy

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

Does anyone make an aftermarket HID kit for the WRX?

Yep. Who makes 'em and how good they are depends on what year WRX you're
working with.

Does not the STi use them and they might be a good fit, eh?

This part's unclear. What're you asking?

DS

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

He's got no problem with my mom's 2001 Toyota Camry, which also uses
9006 for the low beams.

There are some bulbs that are intrinsically bad and cannot be used to form
a good beam pattern (9004 is the worst offender here), but most bulbs,
including 9006, are found in bad headlamps and good headlamps alike. The
'01 Camry's optics are a great deal more efficient than the '96 Buick's
optics, and the wiring on the Camry is also 5 years newer and less
deteriorated than on the Buick.

I think that commercial was on Fox during the Major League playoffs.
I didn't think they'd sell enough to justify that kind of advertising
budget.

I think it's the other way 'round...

Spoken like Bill the Cat. ;-)

Thpth. Pthpthpth. Ackthpthpth.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

Just a sanity check: existing cars can not be EASILY retrofited with the
HID lights, since it's not as easy as sticking a different type of the
bulb (i.e. one would need balast, etc.). Correct?

It depends.

Some cars -- primarily those on which HIDs are available as original
equipment -- *can* easily be retrofitted with HID lights, simply by
purchasing the complete "loaded" headlamp assemblies ("loaded" means it
includes the bulbs, ballasts, etc.) and installing them.

There are a few good aftermarket setups for a few cars for which HIDs were
never available from the factory.

There are specialist "headlamp boutiques" that will disassemble factory
headlamps and adapt HID projectors: www.illusion-lighting.com , have a
fire extinguisher handy for when your credit card bursts into flames.

And of course there are the cheap and nasty "HID kits", which are never a
good idea -- see
http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/bulbs/Hid/conversions/conversions.html

for the reasons why.

DS

 

[y_p_w]

There are some bulbs that are intrinsically bad and cannot be used to form
a good beam pattern (9004 is the worst offender here), but most bulbs,
including 9006, are found in bad headlamps and good headlamps alike. The
'01 Camry's optics are a great deal more efficient than the '96 Buick's
optics, and the wiring on the Camry is also 5 years newer and less
deteriorated than on the Buick.

My previous (and recently stolen) car was a 1995 Acura Integra GS-R which
used 9006 for the low beams and 9005 for the high beams. I could have
sworn the headlight assemblies were designed to mimic a couple of cheap
Eveready double D-cell flashlights. It was like two tiny spotlights.

I think it's the other way 'round...

Well - I ended up getting a two-pack of Sylvania XtraVision 9006 for
$22 (+ tax). The Sylvania Silverstars were $25 ea or $50 for the
two-pack (what no discount for buying two?). They were also completely
out of them in 9006, and low in other bulb types. Apparently they're
selling really well. So I ran the numbers given the price and the
manufacturer's rated life. The 9006 ST (Silverstar) costs more than
12 times per hour of use than the 9006 XV (XtraVision). If they're
making money like that, then I guess they can afford to buy commercial
time on Fox.

I've read a few posts by people who gave up on the Silverstars after
they burned out after four months.

 

[y_p_w]

Yep. Who makes 'em and how good they are depends on what year WRX you're
working with.




This part's unclear. What're you asking?

Apparently, whether or not a factory STi HID kit could be installed
in place of a standard WRX headlamp assembly. That would be my
guess as to the intent of the question.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

Apparently, whether or not a factory STi HID kit could be installed in
place of a standard WRX headlamp assembly. That would be my guess as to
the intent of the question.

Factory HID headlamp assemblies could be installed, yes.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

My previous (and recently stolen) car was a 1995 Acura Integra GS-R which
used 9006 for the low beams and 9005 for the high beams. I could have
sworn the headlight assemblies were designed to mimic a couple of cheap
Eveready double D-cell flashlights. It was like two tiny spotlights.

Yep. Those and early BMWs used inefficient projectors.

http://bmwz.org/articles/lighting/0506trick/

DS

 

[Edward Strauss]

||
||
||Daniel J. Stern wrote:
||> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, y_p_w wrote:
||>
||>
||>>BTW - what might one recommend for a '96 Buick Regal in 9006/HB4?
||>
||>
||> A new car. Sorry to be flippant...those headlamp optics are godawful. Not
||> quite as bad as the ones on the Century of the same year, but pretty damn
||> bad. There is no such thing as a magic bulb that turns bad headlamps into
||> good ones.
||
||He's got no problem with my mom's 2001 Toyota Camry, which also
||uses 9006 for the low beams.

The optics are in the plastic lense shell, not the bulb.
The Camry has a better design.

Texas Parts Guy

Finally, A fact about automotive lighting. You cannot overcome poor
headlamp optics with more expensive bulbs. But, if you watch enough
TV, maybe you can...

 

[Daniel M. Dreifus]

Finally, A fact about automotive lighting. You cannot overcome poor
headlamp optics with more expensive bulbs.

Maybe everyone here already knows this, and it will not improve poor
optic design in the headlamp lens, but polishing compound can often
brighten them up considerably - which will also increase light
transmission versus clouded or dull surface.

 

[y_p_w]

A new car. Sorry to be flippant...those headlamp optics are godawful. Not
quite as bad as the ones on the Century of the same year, but pretty damn
bad. There is no such thing as a magic bulb that turns bad headlamps into
good ones.




Intensity, but yeah, they're not good performers. GE Night Hawk or Philips
Vision Plus would be a tough-to-find first choice. Narva Rangepower, GE
SUV or HO, or Philips High Visibility would be a close second preference.

As an aside, I tried looking up "GE Night Hawk" in a search engine.
What I got were public specs of the Lockheed F-117A stealth fighter
(in reality a bomber). Apparently, it's unofficially known as the
"Night Hawk", and uses a couple of GE engines.

 

[Tegger®]

(e-mail address removed) (y_p_w) sprach im

My previous (and recently stolen) car was a 1995 Acura Integra GS-R
which used 9006 for the low beams and 9005 for the high beams. I
could have sworn the headlight assemblies were designed to mimic a
couple of cheap Eveready double D-cell flashlights. It was like two
tiny spotlights.

Good thing you didn't have to put up with the previous generation's
headlights. The design goal on that model was tallow candles.

 

[y_p_w]

(e-mail address removed) (y_p_w) sprach im


Good thing you didn't have to put up with the previous generation's
headlights. The design goal on that model was tallow candles.

I had the 1st generation Integra. H6054 in a retractable assembly
It was a royal pain replacing those things, although their performance
was decent.

The best part of the '95 Integra was the ease of replacement, and
the ease of aiming. It contained a bubble level, and the vertical
(and horizontal) adjustment was via a crown screw that could be
turned with a #2 Phillips screwdriver. However - it was pretty
darn bad when it came to lighting up pavement.

 

[Tegger®]

y_p_w <(e-mail address removed)> sprach im

As an aside, I tried looking up "GE Night Hawk" in a search engine.
What I got were public specs of the Lockheed F-117A stealth fighter
(in reality a bomber). Apparently, it's unofficially known as the
"Night Hawk", and uses a couple of GE engines.

Does it have good headlights?

 

[y_p_w]

y_p_w <(e-mail address removed)> sprach im




Does it have good headlights?

Don't think so. Wouldn't be very stealthy, would it?

Now for the off-topic part......

I used to be have a mild interest in military aviation. I've always
been skeptical of the benefit of the F-117A. It carries only two
bombs, has no defensive capabilities, and costs two to three times
as much to purchase and maintain than an F-16. An F-16 can carry
at least four times the ordinance, is faster/more maneuverable, and
the Pentagon doesn't totally freak out every time one is shot down
in combat (or otherwise goes down) for fear that stealth material
will be recovered. In addition, it's questionable whether the F-117A
would have been able to evade the pulse radar systems that the
Soviet Bloc was developing. Basicially, few F-117A's have been
shot down because they typically fly low to the ground to reduce
visual detection. One could do that equally well with an F-16.

I once talked to a former USAF maintenance officer about the F-117A.
I was trying to get the point across that it was a rather silly
aircraft, and that F-16's could do a better job for a lower price.
His answer was that he didn't disagree with my assessment.

That being said, I've seen a couple in person at an airshow. With
that shape, it seems a miracle that it can be controlled. Apparently
flying one is akin to trying to fly a rock, and that only thing
keeping it from going in odd directions are a ton on electronics
constantly monitoring movement and correcting the thrust from the
engines. It was kinda cool when the two F-117A's came right into
the crowd area at the Edwards AFB Airshow/Open House, making people
move to make space for it (behind some velvet ropes and guarded by
mean looking guards with shotguns and M-16's). The maintenance crew
was nice enough to come into the crowd, answer questions, and
autograph glossy pictures of the plane. He pointed out one of the
two we saw was the first prototype, and showed the minor cosmetic
differences. Apparently, there's also an attachment about the size
of a fist that, when mounted on the plane, can make it detectable
by ordinary civilian radar.