New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

car-fi - Page 55

post #811 of 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by alv4426 View Post

I'm not sure if you are being serious (especially on that bolded part since putting in the HIDs would be "aftermarket-philia crap") but if you run 7000K HIDs with no projectors that's boarding on what I would consider rice-tastic. You are gonna be blinding anyone in front of you with a wall of purplish glare that is not focused in anyway. And in the US (west coast at least) running that system would not necessarily get you pulled over but if you do get pulled over for another violation they will tack on a Fix-It ticket as well (you can have HIDs but they MUST be adaptable/adjustable and have a projector.

 

No, I mean to say that replacing headlights from "normal" to "new aftermarket with PROJECTORS" is pretty rice-tastic, like the typical Honda Civics with no-name Headlight conversions. Hmm... Maybe 7000k might be a bit overkill, but with that said, here HIDs without projector seems perfectly legal. Heck, they even offered HIDs on the Acura CSX as an option and that doesn't have projector headlights. 

post #812 of 1117
Id be willing to bet those civics you are seeing are running what you planning (hid no projector), it is much cheaper than converting your whole headlight to projector housing. Believe me HIDs with the projectors are nice (4500k to 6000k), above 6000k or no projectors or even worse both is not so great. At least if you go with that system you will have Laker color lights thats a massive plus (purple RL and yellow FL)
post #813 of 1117

Hahaha some has no projector, some does. Some Civics with the Aftermarket Projector headlights has some REALLY COOL carbon fiber trim along the headlamps biggrin.gif. But converting looks SO stupid... I hate this word and often people get angry, but it's so "ricer"... Might as well throw in a useless spoiler. Yea, I never said projectors looked bad, and of course I know what looks nice and doesn't look nice. Ya, Lakers look Purp on Yellow. Meh, I just want HIDs so I can see more of the road while doing some backroad Rallying.

post #814 of 1117

Then for that I would recommend you get some better halogen bulbs for your RL and convert the FL or maybe even High beams to HID and only use them in those situations where they are needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by planx View Post

 I just want HIDs so I can see more of the road while doing some backroad Rallying.

post #815 of 1117

I put HID's in the second car I owned. Since then I have not had a car without them. smile.gif Just saying...
 


Edited by Ponefish - 11/1/12 at 12:07pm
post #816 of 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by alv4426 View Post

Then for that I would recommend you get some better halogen bulbs for your RL and convert the FL or maybe even High beams to HID and only use them in those situations where they are needed.

 

That's why I was contemplating HIDs because since I'm replacing the headlights, I was on the fence about HIDs

post #817 of 1117

I'm certainly not suggesting you get some ebay craptastic projector HID bs lights... I was simply stating that they are not designed to be used in the manner you are suggesting that you'd like to use them in. I do HIDs in every car I have which came with projector housings (my BMWs for example), but I wouldn't put them in any which came with reflectors without first modding them to use a projector.

post #818 of 1117
If you get decide to get some HID lighs you should buy Phillips or osram brand. But make sure they are real, I bet most or all of those brands on eBay are fake.
The real bulbs don't come cheap though. Id say the whole project after converting first to projector housing could cost $500+.
post #819 of 1117

Or you could spend $50 on the DDM HID bulbs and ballasts and call it a day (aside from fitting some kind of projectors). Chinese for sure, but lifetime guarantee I believe. They work nicely on my BMW.

post #820 of 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by planx View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by loxxrider View Post

I think he means "projector" which is a type of headlight housing which uses a lens rather than a reflector to channel light. HIDs were never made to be used in reflector housings and blind oncoming traffic as a result. Projectors have the correct cutoff for HID lights and are therefore safer and not illegal unlike the alternative.

I don't know about the rules and laws in your area, but where I live HIDs are perfectly legal, projector or no projector. And it's stupid to get "projectors" for my car. Gotta keep it OEM/JDM, none of the aftermarket-philia crap. I was going to get Phillips HID kit, maybe 7000k? But with that said, I know that over a certain "k" is illegal.
I bought my car with 8000k, they looked awful and didn't really illuminate the road that well. I replaced them with 5000k and aimed them fairly low so that I wouldn't blind people, but they still glare like sh*t. I'm considering a projector once I get the funds for it. I'm sure you could find a set of headlights that don't have that aftermarket look while still being properly functional with HIDs.
post #821 of 1117

Here are my two cars... I can't remember the brands of some of the parts.

 

 

700

 

My Daily Driver

 

1999 Eclipse GS (Non Turbo)

AEM v2 Cold Air Intake

Header/Test Pipe/Catback (no catalylic converter)

underdrive pulley

custom ground kit

Eibach Sportlines

Tokico Shocks

Greddy strut bars

18" Enkei Rims

Chinese Sport Tires

aftermarket cd player with aux in

Pioneer Speakers

Random other bits I can't remember at the moment.

 

700

 

1998 Buixk Regal GS (Supercharged)

Intake

Catless 2.5" downpipe

Custom Ground Kit

Otherwise stock

post #822 of 1117

Chinese tires and no cat makes me confused.gif

 

Removing the Cat Conv completely is pointless in my views. All it does is make a ton of noise and pollutes the air heavily.

post #823 of 1117

Catalytic converter's mounts had rusted off.. road salt and cheap steel. The Buick's catalytic converter went bad.  It does makes more power without the cat.  Personally I think if the car isn't running rich the cat really doesn't make a difference. The tests that sport compact car magazine did back in the day support this to an extent.   I live in an area that doesn't do emissions testing, so spending out the wazoo to replace a defective part with another part that can become defective, is restrictive in stock form, and I consider useless....

 

I never remove a functioning one.... but I feel that replacing it is a useless gesture.  I was broke and the Chinese tires were well reviewed... They are z-rated sports tires, relatively sticky, and have worn well. A choice made from necessity that worked out well.

 

Oddly the Eclipse is still quieter than most around here, the test pipe has a resonator to replace it.  The Buick does sound a bit off without it but it was worth it.


Edited by cheapfi - 11/4/12 at 6:45pm
post #824 of 1117

Here,s my babies:

 

A 2003 Alfa Romeo 166 and a 1999 Jeep XJ. Both very well looked after and almost impossible to find in similar shape.

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

post #825 of 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapfi View Post

Catalytic converter's mounts had rusted off.. road salt and cheap steel. The Buick's catalytic converter went bad.  It does makes more power without the cat.  Personally I think if the car isn't running rich the cat really doesn't make a difference. The tests that sport compact car magazine did back in the day support this to an extent.   I live in an area that doesn't do emissions testing, so spending out the wazoo to replace a defective part with another part that can become defective, is restrictive in stock form, and I consider useless....

 

I never remove a functioning one.... but I feel that replacing it is a useless gesture.  I was broke and the Chinese tires were well reviewed... They are z-rated sports tires, relatively sticky, and have worn well. A choice made from necessity that worked out well.

 

Oddly the Eclipse is still quieter than most around here, the test pipe has a resonator to replace it.  The Buick does sound a bit off without it but it was worth it.

 

Tires I understand now because tires ARE expensive and seeing how the perform relatively well it seems like the good choice if you're running on a budget. But there are so many toxic elements and compounds that are being released into the air now after removing the Cat Conv. For me, I was shocked how much a Cat Conv does in reducing toxic elements and compounds. And since I actually enjoyed Chemistry in school, I know how harmful these elements and compounds actually are. Maybe I'm just a hippie biggrin.gif

 

Hmm... I heard that removing the Cat DOES give more power, but it's pretty much insignificant from what I was told. The majority of people will agree that removing a Cat has less benefits than negatives so to people like me, it's not really worth it in everyday driving. Luckily I don't live in an area where the air quality isn't bad, but I try to do my part in reducing emissions here and there.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home