Are your headlight lenses getting cloudy?

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
>
>
>>My wife's '89 Mitsu Galant has no yellowing or cloudy lenses at all.
>>Why? Because they use GLASS lenses. Nothing substitutes for glass when
>>it come to longevity.
>
>
> Until a road rock comes along. *Krunch!* (Or lots and lots of little
> pieces of road grit, which pit and "sandblast" the lens until it disperses
> the light just as badly as a clouded-up plastic lens).
>
> Hardened/toughened glass is where it's at...


Hardened toughened glass, and in a STANDARD FORM FACTOR (or three) so
that every car made can use one of maybe 3-4 standard lamp designs, all
of which work well and can be kept in stock on parts store shelves.
Instead of a custom lamp design for every different car model, some of
which work OK and some of which barely work at all, and NONE of which
are sitting on the shelf down at Joes Parts Shack when you need them.

;-p

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:

>>My Explorer has some of the worst lighting I've ever driven with.
>
> I'm guessing it's a pre-2003 model. The '03 up Explorers actually have
> rather efficient and well-focused low beams, but the previous models have
> three generations of really awful headlamps.


My '92 Explorer had the best headlights I've ever seen, and my '99 is
only slightly less impressive.

Of course, the '92 Explorer did catch fire and burn up, but that was
after I owned it, at about the 150,000 mile point. I don't think it got
any more TLC after it left here.

Even the '99 Explorer's lights are about 200% better than the crappy
lights on our '97 Sebring convertible. The convert's have not yellowed,
either, though come to think of it I don't even know if they are glass.
It mostly just sits in the garage. It's got 15,000 miles on it since we
got it new in Sep '96.

The '99 Explorers "fog" lights, make pretty good corner lights -- the
Sebring's might as well not be there. The beam is so low and narrow they
only illuminate stuff you're just about to run into, or over.


Jack

Jack wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
>
>
>>> My Explorer has some of the worst lighting I've ever driven with.
>>
>>
>> I'm guessing it's a pre-2003 model. The '03 up Explorers actually have
>> rather efficient and well-focused low beams, but the previous models have
>> three generations of really awful headlamps.
>
>
>
> My '92 Explorer had the best headlights I've ever seen, and my '99 is
> only slightly less impressive.
>
> Of course, the '92 Explorer did catch fire and burn up, but that was
> after I owned it, at about the 150,000 mile point. I don't think it got
> any more TLC after it left here.
>
> Even the '99 Explorer's lights are about 200% better than the crappy
> lights on our '97 Sebring convertible. The convert's have not yellowed,
> either, though come to think of it I don't even know if they are glass.
> It mostly just sits in the garage. It's got 15,000 miles on it since we
> got it new in Sep '96.
>
> The '99 Explorers "fog" lights, make pretty good corner lights -- the
> Sebring's might as well not be there. The beam is so low and narrow they
> only illuminate stuff you're just about to run into, or over.
>
>
> Jack

The problem with all the vehicles you claim have great headlights is
that they **** *everyone else* off. Ford trucks/SUVs in particular I
find to be painfully glaring when following me, the low beams still have
enough stray upward light that I can't even glance at my rear view mirrors.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> Jack wrote:

> > My '92 Explorer had the best headlights I've ever seen, and my '99 is
> > only slightly less impressive.

> The problem with all the vehicles you claim have great headlights is
> that they **** *everyone else* off.

That's true, but secondary. The problem with the vehicles he claims have
great headlights is that they *don't*. I hesitate to imagine what-all
headlamps Jack has driven behind to have such low standards that the '92
and '99 Explorer headlamps, both of which are objectively poor, are the
best ones he's seen. He mentions a '97 Sebring, and that's certainly got
bad lamps.

But y'know, if you've been eating dirt all your life and somebody offers
you a bowl of grass clippings, you'll probably say the grass clippings are
the best food you've ever tasted!

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Jack wrote:
>
>> > My '92 Explorer had the best headlights I've ever seen, and my '99 is
>> > only slightly less impressive.
>
>> The problem with all the vehicles you claim have great headlights is
>> that they **** *everyone else* off.
>
> That's true, but secondary. The problem with the vehicles he claims have
> great headlights is that they *don't*. I hesitate to imagine what-all
> headlamps Jack has driven behind to have such low standards that the '92
> and '99 Explorer headlamps, both of which are objectively poor, are the
> best ones he's seen. He mentions a '97 Sebring, and that's certainly got
> bad lamps.
>
> But y'know, if you've been eating dirt all your life and somebody offers
> you a bowl of grass clippings, you'll probably say the grass clippings are
> the best food you've ever tasted!

Is there a publically available headlight comparison?

Ed

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>> The problem with the vehicles he claims have
>> great headlights is that they *don't*. I hesitate to imagine what-all
>> headlamps Jack has driven behind to have such low standards that the
>> '92 and '99 Explorer headlamps, both of which are objectively poor,
>> are the best ones he's seen. He mentions a '97 Sebring, and that's
>> certainly got bad lamps.

A lot of very mundane cars, just like everybody else except the esoteric
gurus here, of course.

Now you've made me want to see if I can even remember all the cars I've
owned, let alone the ones I've driven in the past ~50 years. Let's just
say...a lot. But the 92 Explorer's lights were the most satisfying. Hey,
I LIKE it when they put a lot of light everywhere, and I got very few
complaints.

Of course sitting up high in a 4x4 will put the lights in a smaller
vehicle's rear view mirror, so I stay further back at night stops.

Maybe my lights are adjusted properly, and I don't usually drive over
100 mph -- suppose that could be it?


Jack

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Jack wrote:

>> The problem with the vehicles he claims have
>> great headlights is that they *don't*. I hesitate to imagine what-all
>> headlamps Jack has driven behind to have such low standards that the
>> '92 and '99 Explorer headlamps, both of which are objectively poor,
>> are the best ones he's seen. He mentions a '97 Sebring, and that's
>> certainly got bad lamps.

> Now you've made me want to see if I can even remember all the cars I've
> owned, let alone the ones I've driven in the past ~50 years. Let's just
> say...a lot. But the 92 Explorer's lights were the most satisfying.

Fascinating.

> Maybe my lights are adjusted properly, and I don't usually drive over
> 100 mph -- suppose that could be it?

No, not really. Most likely what's going on is that the aspects of beam
distribution that tend to influence subjective opinion of headlamp quality
are generally not the same aspects that influence actual beam performance
(i.e., the degree to which you *can* see at night, vs. the degree to which
you *think* you can see at night). Gurus and geeks will tend to squawk
about objectively poor beam patterns, while most people seldom comment one
way or the other, and a few people praise poor beams. The opposite is also
true: Subjectively-poor beams can actually give extremely good objective
performance. It's a question of how safe you *are* vs. how safe you
*feel*. The human visual system is a very poor judge of its own
performance, and is easily "fooled".

The headlamps in question ('92 Explorer) have low overall output, poor
focus, a low peak intensity, narrow beam width and high levels of upward
stray light. All of those factors add up to an objectively poor beam.

C. E. White wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> .umich.edu...
>
>>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jack wrote:
>>
>>>>My '92 Explorer had the best headlights I've ever seen, and my '99 is
>>>>only slightly less impressive.
>>
>>>The problem with all the vehicles you claim have great headlights is
>>>that they **** *everyone else* off.
>>
>>That's true, but secondary. The problem with the vehicles he claims have
>>great headlights is that they *don't*. I hesitate to imagine what-all
>>headlamps Jack has driven behind to have such low standards that the '92
>>and '99 Explorer headlamps, both of which are objectively poor, are the
>>best ones he's seen. He mentions a '97 Sebring, and that's certainly got
>>bad lamps.
>>
>>But y'know, if you've been eating dirt all your life and somebody offers
>>you a bowl of grass clippings, you'll probably say the grass clippings are
>>the best food you've ever tasted!
>
>
> Is there a publically available headlight comparison?
>
> Ed
>
>

Yeah, stop by my house and I'll take you for a ride in the Porsche with
the Cibie E-codes, then every other headlight you sit behind for the
rest of your life will seem wussy and ineffective by comparison, unless
you've got some pretty nice hardware of your own

nate

(unless, of course, I get the '55 coupe together, in which case I'll
probably swap the lights over to that car.)
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> The headlamps in question ('92 Explorer) have low overall output, poor
> focus, a low peak intensity, narrow beam width and high levels of upward
> stray light. All of those factors add up to an objectively poor beam.

Now, THAT is fascinating!

Of course I don't have the ol' '92 around anymore so further discussion
of it's headlight performance would be worse than subjective. I ran them
day and night and changed bulbs perhaps two times in the 11 years I
owned it. I put better-than-OEM Halogen bulbs in it, so maybe thats why
I was happy with it -- or maybe they were holographic and gave only the
appearance of projected perfection.

I went from a '81 Chevy pickup to the '92 Explorer, and believe me --
the Explorer lights were infinitely better than those of the Chevy PU.

The '99's low beams are average, the "brights" are pretty good, focus
could be better, and I like being able to read the graffiti on the
under-side of the over-pass, but the "narrow" comment above is absurd --
subjectively speaking -- but like I said, my everyday comparison is the
'97 Sebring. I have yet to change a headlight bulb on the '99 Explorer.
I can hardly wait to see what it will do with AM bulbs -- probably have
to get a special license for it.

My first car (and my only other Chrysler product) was a '47 Dodge, and
with the lights and the tin-foil body work, I think I've had my last
Chrysler, if the rest are like the Sebring. Don't even get me started on
its electrics and ghost-ridden alarm system.

And 25 mpg -- BFD.


Jack

"Jack" > wrote in message
m...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> > The headlamps in question ('92 Explorer) have low overall output, poor
> > focus, a low peak intensity, narrow beam width and high levels of upward
> > stray light. All of those factors add up to an objectively poor beam.
>
> Now, THAT is fascinating!
>
> Of course I don't have the ol' '92 around anymore so further discussion
> of it's headlight performance would be worse than subjective. I ran them
> day and night and changed bulbs perhaps two times in the 11 years I
> owned it. I put better-than-OEM Halogen bulbs in it, so maybe thats why
> I was happy with it -- or maybe they were holographic and gave only the
> appearance of projected perfection.

I think they work so well that's it's difficult to tell if you have one not
working unless you go out and look.