We already knew that turn signal DRL's were a bad idea...
in [Drive]
|
Prev: How many treadwear miles do we REALLY get for every 100 UTQG points?
Next: Vector LR 970 Radar Detector (?L01 CAL)
From: Brent P on 6 Nov 2007 16:45 In article <1194381950.473664.139080(a)z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Daniel J. Stern wrote: > Well, GM have certainly done stupid things before. Let's see if this > is one of them. Here are some major (bright) filament life ratings for > various S8 wedge-base bulbs physically, electrically, and > photometrically compatible with one another: > > 3157LL (3157K): 2k hr @ 12.8v, 1k hr @ 13.5v, 624 hr @ 14.0v > > 4157K (4157LL): 4k hr @ 12.8v, 2k hr @ 13.5v, 1.2k hr @ 14.0v > > 4114K (4114LL): 12.8k hr @ 12.8v, 6.4k hr @ 13.5v, 4k hr @ 14.0v > > Which looks like the smart choice for DRL service? Which looks like > the dumb choice? That data is not relevant to GM decision makers. How much does each bulb cost from various suppliers and what does the decision maker get from choosing a particular vendor? If a rep for a Chinese company that can supply 3157LL's for a tenth of a penny less each than any other vendor on any of the bulbs plus throws in some superbowl tickets, that's the "smart" choice given the priorities. The buyer has to replace the burned out bulbs so it is not something GM has to worry about. (Plus, all the buyers who know better stopped buying GM cars two decades ago)
From: N8N on 6 Nov 2007 16:57 On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1194381950.473664.139...(a)z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Daniel J. Stern wrote: > > Well, GM have certainly done stupid things before. Let's see if this > > is one of them. Here are some major (bright) filament life ratings for > > various S8 wedge-base bulbs physically, electrically, and > > photometrically compatible with one another: > > > 3157LL (3157K): 2k hr @ 12.8v, 1k hr @ 13.5v, 624 hr @ 14.0v > > > 4157K (4157LL): 4k hr @ 12.8v, 2k hr @ 13.5v, 1.2k hr @ 14.0v > > > 4114K (4114LL): 12.8k hr @ 12.8v, 6.4k hr @ 13.5v, 4k hr @ 14.0v > > > Which looks like the smart choice for DRL service? Which looks like > > the dumb choice? > > That data is not relevant to GM decision makers. How much does each bulb > cost from various suppliers and what does the decision maker get from > choosing a particular vendor? > > If a rep for a Chinese company that can supply 3157LL's for a tenth of > a penny less each than any other vendor on any of the bulbs plus throws > in some superbowl tickets, that's the "smart" choice given the priorities. > > The buyer has to replace the burned out bulbs so it is not something GM > has to worry about. (Plus, all the buyers who know better stopped buying > GM cars two decades ago) Maybe *new* GM cars. I'd still like to find something similar to my dad's '67 Cutlass. Back in the day, GM knew how to bolt a car together. I still would rather have, say, a '67 Barracuda... but hey, guess what, both Olds and Plymouth are now history... sad. Does anyone subscribe to Hemming's Muscle Machines? This month's issue featured a '67 Dart GT... I immediately snapped back about 10 years. I was living in Pittsburgh and trying to find various pieces parts to keep my '67 Dart on the road, found a junkyard in McKee's Rocks that still kept all the "old stuff." Got to know the owner, turns out he was a CMU alum, so we'd chat for a bit every time I or one of my friends needed something. Found a '67 Dart GT in the 'yard, identical in every way to the car in this month's HMM except this one was dark metallic green. Gorgeous car, and didn't really show any reason why it should be in the junkyard. Only thing I could see wrong with it was the driver's door had a padlock hasp screwed into it (?!?!?!?!?!) I'd talked to the owner about possibly buying it off him as a resto project, and he tried to talk me out of it, saying that I'd be stuck with a salvage title if I went through with it. Well one day the decision was made for me when someone bought the transmission out of the car, and they removed it by flipping the car on its side with a forklift and torching out the rear mount. I know that when you run a junkyard, you can't get sentimental about your stock, but a little part of me still is sad about that. I felt like that guy in that TV commercial that's sobbing as he picks up the old Camaro and drops it on the pile... (yeah, I know I'm getting a little OT here...) nate
From: Nate Nagel on 6 Nov 2007 18:19 Daniel J. Stern wrote: > On Nov 4, 6:26 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: > > >>>>According to Sylvania's web site, yes - 3157LL >> >>>Probably because Sylvania don't supply the correct bulb, which is >>>4114K (much longer life and slightly cooler running than 3157LL). >> >>Apparently GM did not either, the 3157LL was in there previously. >>Unless it'd already been replaced. > > > Well, GM have certainly done stupid things before. Let's see if this > is one of them. Here are some major (bright) filament life ratings for > various S8 wedge-base bulbs physically, electrically, and > photometrically compatible with one another: > > 3157LL (3157K): 2k hr @ 12.8v, 1k hr @ 13.5v, 624 hr @ 14.0v > > 4157K (4157LL): 4k hr @ 12.8v, 2k hr @ 13.5v, 1.2k hr @ 14.0v > > 4114K (4114LL): 12.8k hr @ 12.8v, 6.4k hr @ 13.5v, 4k hr @ 14.0v > > Which looks like the smart choice for DRL service? Which looks like > the dumb choice? > > DS > Why did I not ask you about this when I bought the pickup and had to replace a taillight? would have made a wiser purchasing decision :) (yeah, I know, I wasted a whole five bucks at most) I did not think to look in the owner's manual of the Malibu. I might do that next time I end up in one. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: Nate Nagel on 6 Nov 2007 18:25 Daniel J. Stern wrote: > On Nov 6, 9:44 am, N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>The requirements for reflector durability and seal integrity are >>>more stringent for headlamps with replaceable lenses, though, and for >>>that reason it is more costly in the North American market to equip a >>>car with replaceable-lens headlamps. >> >>More stringent than ECE? > > > Yes. > > >>I have in my posession a factory set of ECE >>headlamps for a Corrado G60 so they are 17 years old at the newest and >>they are certainly in MUCH better shape than the US-spec ones > > > Nice anecdote ;-) I get your point, but it does seem like an awful lot of US-spec headlamps fail FAR before the point at which an ECE lamp would. Of course, I don't have a whole lot of data points to draw on, because I've only had two sets of ECE lamps in my posession (the Corrado ones and a set for my old Scirocco) not counting sealed beam replacements and US-spec lights can be viewed simply by walking through any parking lot. Still, if nothing else, if an ECE lamp is showing signs of seal failure, you can just get a new seal, or even gob something up with silicone if you're, um, frugal. If a US-spec lamp shows signs of seal failure, well, there's not a whole lot you can do about it without getting real creative, but the lenses are likely already fogged. Heck, since I had to repair the Corrado's lights (couple of broken adjusters,) I "detailed" them by throwing everything but the reflectors in the dishwasher :) Try that with a US-spec light! <snip> > >>Certainly the vast majority of vehicles on the road today >>have either sealed beams or polycarbonate-lensed aero-style >>headlights. > > > Sealed beams are almost absent from the market any more. Most > headlamps in North America do these days have polycarbonate > lenses...but not because there's any law saying they have to. I guess at least one part of my statement was in error then, I must have been misremembering something. Personally I'm not sure why they were *allowed* in the first place, as UV-protective coatings still seem to be not quite ready for prime time, or at least not utilized in an effective manner. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: Brent P on 6 Nov 2007 18:28
In article <1194386264.671454.152600(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, N8N wrote: > On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> In article <1194381950.473664.139...(a)z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> > Well, GM have certainly done stupid things before. Let's see if this >> > is one of them. Here are some major (bright) filament life ratings for >> > various S8 wedge-base bulbs physically, electrically, and >> > photometrically compatible with one another: >> >> > 3157LL (3157K): 2k hr @ 12.8v, 1k hr @ 13.5v, 624 hr @ 14.0v >> >> > 4157K (4157LL): 4k hr @ 12.8v, 2k hr @ 13.5v, 1.2k hr @ 14.0v >> >> > 4114K (4114LL): 12.8k hr @ 12.8v, 6.4k hr @ 13.5v, 4k hr @ 14.0v >> >> > Which looks like the smart choice for DRL service? Which looks like >> > the dumb choice? >> >> That data is not relevant to GM decision makers. How much does each bulb >> cost from various suppliers and what does the decision maker get from >> choosing a particular vendor? >> >> If a rep for a Chinese company that can supply 3157LL's for a tenth of >> a penny less each than any other vendor on any of the bulbs plus throws >> in some superbowl tickets, that's the "smart" choice given the priorities. >> >> The buyer has to replace the burned out bulbs so it is not something GM >> has to worry about. (Plus, all the buyers who know better stopped buying >> GM cars two decades ago) > > Maybe *new* GM cars. Last 30 years give or take 5. > I'd still like to find something similar to my dad's '67 Cutlass. > Back in the day, GM knew how to bolt a car together. I still would > rather have, say, a '67 Barracuda... but hey, guess what, both Olds > and Plymouth are now history... sad. That was 40 years ago ;) > Does anyone subscribe to Hemming's Muscle Machines? This month's > issue featured a '67 Dart GT... I immediately snapped back about 10 > years. I was living in Pittsburgh and trying to find various pieces > parts to keep my '67 Dart on the road, found a junkyard in McKee's > Rocks that still kept all the "old stuff." Got to know the owner, > turns out he was a CMU alum, so we'd chat for a bit every time I or > one of my friends needed something. Found a '67 Dart GT in the 'yard, > identical in every way to the car in this month's HMM except this one > was dark metallic green. Gorgeous car, and didn't really show any > reason why it should be in the junkyard. Only thing I could see wrong > with it was the driver's door had a padlock hasp screwed into it > (?!?!?!?!?!) I'd talked to the owner about possibly buying it off him > as a resto project, and he tried to talk me out of it, saying that I'd > be stuck with a salvage title if I went through with it. Well one day > the decision was made for me when someone bought the transmission out > of the car, and they removed it by flipping the car on its side with a > forklift and torching out the rear mount. Salvage titles can be cleared by going to a state that doesn't keep track of such things. As much as you've moved it would have had a regular title by now ;) I've seen a fair number of cars in junkyards that really didn't seem like they belonged there.... then watch them get cut up, stripped, and generally abused. |