Colin Stamp <col.dustbin@stamp.plus.com> Jan 4, 2008 at 09:34 AM
>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:08:42 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
<toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Richard ("Richard" <root@localhost>) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>they were saying:
>>
>>> What is Hella Vision plus headlights?
>>
>>Rip-off bulbs which claim to be a bit better.
>Actually, he says they're 55/100W which would mean they *do* have a
>much more powerful main-beam than standard bulbs, though almost
>certainly illegal for road use.
>If it were my ridiculous "car", I'd be checking the main-beam relay
>for welded contacts...
>Cheers,
>Colin.
If stocks are 55/60W and if if no additional relay was fitted on
installation, *first* check the connector to the bulbs. If it's melted,
then anything can happen - although it's more impressive with 90/130s! If
it is, changing the terminals has agood chance of fixing your probelm.
If that's alright, check for an earth leak somewhere. Otherwise, I'd be
suspecting a stuffed dipswitch/column wand - assuming Jeeps don't sitll
have a floor dip ... :)
FWIW, a 900 will usually survive a 55/90 changeover with no damage, but
I'd fit an extra realy for anything more, such as 90/130s. 100W is an
improvement over 60W, but nothing like 80%, more like 30-50. Any
additional improvement will be more down to new bulbs over old. Note -
*don't* do this if you have plastic lenses. Not pretty! Cheers
--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/alt.autos.saab/
More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html
Richard - 05 Jan 2008 14:36 GMT
> Colin Stamp <col.dustbin@stamp.plus.com> Jan 4, 2008 at 09:34 AM
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> Note -
> *don't* do this if you have plastic lenses. Not pretty! Cheers
"When you need more light you are either going to fast, or need better
glasses"?
;)
R.
still just me - 05 Jan 2008 20:02 GMT
>100W is an
>improvement over 60W, but nothing like 80%, more like 30-50.
One of the main issues being that most lamps are still measured in
terms of energy consumed rather than light output :-)
hippo - 07 Jan 2008 04:19 GMT
still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jan 5, 2008 at 08:02
PM
>On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:52:32 -0500, "hippo"
<johnh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>100W is an
>>improvement over 60W, but nothing like 80%, more like 30-50.
>One of the main issues being that most lamps are still measured in
>terms of energy consumed rather than light output :-)
True - like vacuum cleaner retailers advertising "2200W of suction"...
yeah right!
and Richard - my glasses are fine :) my speeding is sometimes fined :(
90/130W with a relay did give a bit more advance warning of impending
wildlife at a time when I couldn't afford additional driving lights
though. Cheers
--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/alt.autos.saab/
More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html