Modern Headlights

-
They could be brighter I suppose!

009.JPG
 
Yeah, they're definitely way too dim and way too small even by the standards of the 1960s. Minimum allowable lit area of the front turn signal is 22 square cm (3.4 square inches).

Here's the thing: all vehicle exterior lighting functions, even the ones that aren't mandatory (like daytime running lights and side turn signal repeaters in the USA, or central brake lights on cars made before 1986, etc) are highly specified as to their design, construction, numerous aspects of performance, durability, etc. It's far, far more detailed than just "Well, it's a red light facing rearward that comes on when I step on the brake, so it's a brake light" or "Well, it's amber and it blinks, so it's a turn signal" or "Well, the eBay ad said tail light, so that's what it is", etc. We do not get to just declare any ol' light into whatever function we want -- doing so is unsafe, even if we don't have to pass an inspection. This stuff matters if we want to keep the car (i.e., not get hit in traffic).

Double-whammy in this case: front turn signals mounted within 4" of the headlamp (or the low beam, on a 4-lamp system) have a minimum intensity requirement 2.5× the requirement for turn signals located farther away from the headlamps. That's so turn signals mounted close to the headlamps can still be seen at night with the headlamps on.

(also not "Well, if it's good enough on a motorcycle, then it's fine on a car" -- motorcycle requirements are way smaller/dimmer than car requirements).

There's probably an easy and inexpensive way to have good front turn signals with an appearance you can live with. How much height do you have between top of bumper and lower edge of that ridge where your present turn signals are located?
 
How about LEDs mounted into the center opening of the lower valance? Is there a requirement for how close to the corner of the body the signals need to be?
 
US law is that they have to be "as far apart as practicable". Automakers are given a lot of leeway for deciding how far apart is "practicable", but Ford got their nose swatted ("We're not going to make you recall them, but don't do it again!") by the Federal DOT for the turn signals on the '96 Mercury Sable, which were only about 18" apart. Same thing happened to Subaru for their '92 Legacy because they put the front sidemarker lights/reflectors (which have to be "as close to the front as practicable") behind the front wheels. Ditto Toyota for their original RAV4.

There aren't going to be any Federal light cops coming after '68 Valiants for turn signals too close together, but the main thing is whether the signals can do their job, that is tell other people close enough to matter, clearly and immediately, how and where the car's about to move. If you cram the front turn signals together so there's barely any separation between them, they can't do that.
 
It seems that lots of new cars get around the separation issue between headlights and turn signals by turning off the headlight on the corner with the blinking turn signal light. Maybe Pauly could do that? No idea how the circuitry would work, jus an idea.
 
Not quite -- this what you're seeing is not the headlamp (as such) turning off, it's the daytime running light (which may be the headlamp operated at a lower-than-normal voltage) turning off on the side the turn signal is operating on. That's required with certain kinds of DRLs and certain separation distances between the DRL and the turn signal. It's for daytime only -- it would be an extremely bad idea (not to mention illegal) to turn off the headlamps one at a time while signalling for a turn at night.

If you see this happening at night, it's because some dillweed is driving around after dark with daytime running lights instead of full nighttime lights on.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed new cars with turn signals that I could not see because of the headlights.
I wondered how they get away with it.
How long will it I have to wait for LED lights to replace my 6024s that don't cost 300 dollars a pair?
 
adriver said:
I've noticed new cars with turn signals that I could not see because of the headlights.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's been a problem for a long time. The rule requiring front turns to be extra-bright if they're within 4" of the low beam is a good idea, but it's not good enough; often the turn signals are too _small_ to see clearly when they're close to the headlamp.

And there's a new problem, too: turn signals right next to LED headlamps or daytime running lights, which have a lot of blue in their light spectrum (even more than LEDs). The blue from the headlamp or DRL mixes with the red from the amber turn signal and the front turn signal looks pink. It's because the color output of the various lamps is checked one at a time, not together the way they operate on the car. There's a bunch of stuff like that...rear turn signals that are invisible if the driver's stepping on the brake, etc.

How long will it I have to wait for LED lights to replace my 6024s that don't cost 300 dollars a pair?
Click to expand...

For legitimate ones? A long time. For Chinese headlite-shaped trinkets? You can get 'em right now.
 
Tuck-lites are getting cheaper, and have Dan'a seal of approval. I had them on my Jeep and they were good when properly aimed.
 
H6024: 5 amps on high beam and a little under 3 amps on low beam.

Truck-Lite 27270C: 2.95 amps on high beam and 1.45 amps on low beam.

Complex modern technology (LED headlamp) costs more than primitive ancient technology (sealed beam) — that's just the way it is. In this case, you very much (don't) get what you (don't) pay for; the good LED headlamps such as the Truck-Lites give a much longer and wider seeing range when driving at night, and that $360 pair of headlamps is a whole lot less expensive than even a minor crash.
 
slantsixdan said:
Not quite -- this what you're seeing is not the headlamp (as such) turning off, it's the daytime running light (which may be the headlamp operated at a lower-than-normal voltage) turning off on the side the turn signal is operating on. That's required with certain kinds of DRLs and certain separation distances between the DRL and the turn signal. It's for daytime only -- it would be an extremely bad idea (not to mention illegal) to turn off the headlamps one at a time while signalling for a turn at night.

If you see this happening at night, it's because some dillweed is driving around after dark with daytime running lights instead of full nighttime lights on.
Click to expand...

Have to admit I never paid much attention to what it was, or when, other than thinking it was kind of cool. I figured it was so the blinker was more visible, but it was more an idle thought than anything else. Kind of thought about the issue of half your forward visibility going away when changing lanes when I was typing my response.

Have to say, though, that if the DRL turns off so you can see the turn signal, and the headlight doesn't, then there ain't no way someone is seeing the turn signal with the headlight on. The headlight is brighter than the DRL, so it would have to mask the turn signal like you are saying it isn't supposed to.

Have to add that I sometimes wonder why anyone puts turn signals on cars anymore. Seems kind of rare to see them used. :)
 
DionR said:
Have to say, though, that if the DRL turns off so you can see the turn signal, and the headlight doesn't, then there ain't no way someone is seeing the turn signal with the headlight on. The headlight is brighter than the DRL, so it would have to mask the turn signal like you are saying it isn't supposed to.
Click to expand...

I guess I am assuming that everything is in close enough proximity to cause a problem.

Perhaps the design is such that the DRL is close to the signal light, but the head light isn't. Maybe that would work.

Not certain, but I keep thinking that the new Camaro has it all in one little area, and if anything the DRL is further from the signal light than the headlight is, but who knows.
 
Headlamps aren't necessarily brighter than DRLs. One kind of DRL is running the high beams at reduced voltage. That kind of DRL puts out up to 9,000 candela straight ahead. Low beams tend to put out up to 2,000 candela straight ahead, because they have to be designed with concern for glare at night.
 
roccodart440, that set you linked isn't quite right for your Dart. It's for the '07-'16 Jeep Wrangler, which has a different headlight plug and needs anti-flicker adaptors because of the pulsewidth-modulated headlamp feed. Also, they're priced higher than you need to pay. The one you need are these (×2).

They are extremely good headlamps.
 
I wonder if Pauly had to modify the headlight buckets. The trucklites are a bit deeper than the stock heads.
 
I see more and more of these awful, unfocused, glaring bluish headlights on 10 year old junkers. How do they pass DOT or do most of the Ebay junk lights not comply? And to think they got rid of perfectly good lighting systems that Honda spent millions designing to work right, to "upgrade" to cool blue lights, dude!
 
The Chinese- or Taiwanese-made Grote items aren't total junk, but they are a bunch of large rungs down the quality/performance ladder from the American-made Truck-Lites and Petersons, yet they cost about the same, so the cost/benefit is better with the Truck-Lite or Peterson unit if you can't or won't spend the big bucks for the (American) JW Speakers...though, that said, the JW Speakers are a lot less expensive than they used to be. Currently only about $40 more per headlamp than the Grotes.
 
fratzog lover said:
I see more and more of these awful, unfocused, glaring bluish headlights on 10 year old junkers. How do they pass DOT or do most of the Ebay junk lights not comply?
Click to expand...

For vehicles that don't take standard round or rectangular sealed beams, just about all the aftermarket headlamp units, whether they're stock-lookalikes or restyled (projectors, halos, LED bars, etc) are trinkets from China, not even close to even minimal compliance with the safety standards. Total junk, no matter how much they cost.

And "HID kits"in halogen-bulb headlamps or fog/auxiliary lamps (any kit, any lamp, any vehicle no matter whether it's a car, truck, motorcycle, etc.) do not work safely or effectively, which is why they are illegal. The details here also apply to "LED conversion" bulb kits, which also are not a legitimate, safe, effective, or legal product. No matter whose name is on them or what the vendor claims, these are all a fraudulent scam. They are not capable of producing even a fraction of the amount of light produced by the filament bulb they supposedly replace, let alone producing it in the right pattern for the lamp's optics to work.

And to think they got rid of perfectly good lighting systems that Honda spent millions designing to work right, to "upgrade" to cool blue lights, dude!
Click to expand...

That's the hell of it. A mountain of money, skill, talent, and effort goes into designing, engineering, tooling, manufacturing, and safety-testing even the most basic of exterior lights on a car. Yeah, let's replace it with headlite-shaped or taillite-shaped toys from China…real good idea, not.
 
DNasty777 said:
I wonder if Pauly had to modify the headlight buckets. The trucklites are a bit deeper than the stock heads.
Click to expand...

I did. I opened up the hole in the back of the bucket, then I marked the spots where the casting nubs on the heat sink were making contact with the bucket and drilled them out with a step drill, careful not to cut into the riders (the three detents in the back of bucket that allow movement of the bucket for adjustment). It was still too tight to get the headlight ring seated properly so I simply used longer 1/2" #8-36 screws with #6 washers (I used three) stacked to fir the ring out a little bit. Headlight adjustments work as normal.
 
Last edited:
slantsixdan said:
Yeah, they're definitely way too dim and way too small even by the standards of the 1960s. Minimum allowable lit area of the front turn signal is 22 square cm (3.4 square inches).

Here's the thing: all vehicle exterior lighting functions, even the ones that aren't mandatory (like daytime running lights and side turn signal repeaters in the USA, or central brake lights on cars made before 1986, etc) are highly specified as to their design, construction, numerous aspects of performance, durability, etc. It's far, far more detailed than just "Well, it's a red light facing rearward that comes on when I step on the brake, so it's a brake light" or "Well, it's amber and it blinks, so it's a turn signal" or "Well, the eBay ad said tail light, so that's what it is", etc. We do not get to just declare any ol' light into whatever function we want -- doing so is unsafe, even if we don't have to pass an inspection. This stuff matters if we want to keep the car (i.e., not get hit in traffic).

Double-whammy in this case: front turn signals mounted within 4" of the headlamp (or the low beam, on a 4-lamp system) have a minimum intensity requirement 2.5× the requirement for turn signals located farther away from the headlamps. That's so turn signals mounted close to the headlamps can still be seen at night with the headlamps on.

(also not "Well, if it's good enough on a motorcycle, then it's fine on a car" -- motorcycle requirements are way smaller/dimmer than car requirements).

There's probably an easy and inexpensive way to have good front turn signals with an appearance you can live with. How much height do you have between top of bumper and lower edge of that ridge where your present turn signals are located?
Click to expand...

Truth is Dan, is that the valance is from a 70 duster. The 67 piece is one year only and when some turd ran into me years ago I couldn't find the correct piece so I adapted one from a duster. The original piece would have the lights lower and pretty much on the same plane as the opening in the current valance. I used these because I didn't have any other options that looked decent. Though they don't pass your smell test, they work just fine for their intended purpose for the time being.
I get it that you're the smartest lighting guy on the planet, but using the term "cobbled together" to publicly describe stuff on someone else's car that you've only seen in pictures is offensive. You are an arrogant asshole, we already know that so there's no need to prove it again.
So go ahead Mr. last-word, finish me off and then get back on topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top