Wonder why Subaru doesn't put HIDs in their cars? Look here. (except the Sti)

[TSiWRX]

^^^^^^^^^

This guy makes sense to me.

 

That's a good one - as I rarely, if ever, even "make sense" to myself ( and even less to my wifey )

 

Besides, you have to wonder about #2 (in the post above) and everywhere else in the world. If HIDs are not that great, then why would BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and several other manufacturers produce HIDs for their cars? They must deem that there are benefits over standard reflector halogens.

 

I think that part of it is undeniably marketing related - it's something that every high-end driver has come to expect and demand, and certainly, their customers would raise holy stink about it otherwise.

 

However, I also do think that part of it definitely has to do with their engineers having determined that for their particular setup, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. And certainly, there's the continued development of HID technology, too - whereas with standard halogens, with the exception of HIRs, I think we're fast approaching the end-of-the-road.

[praedet]

I will say the my retrofit plus HIR high beams is REDICULOUS on back roads...

 

Or when I get pissed at somebody

 

Ted

[moviemadness]

what's HIR?

[gargleblaster]

High Intensity Rhetoric.

 

Oh, wait... I thought this was a political thread.

[Hanger]

wow 8 pages and still ongoing...

[JohnG]

I think that part of it is undeniably marketing related - it's something that every high-end driver has come to expect and demand, and certainly, their customers would raise holy stink about it otherwise.

 

I agree with you strongly on that point. The comments we've all read in these forums pretty much prove it; look how many times Subaru enthusiasts here have complained about SOA not putting HID's in the Legacy. It definitely is a "trendy" item that many people associate with a "higher-quality" vehicle.

 

Also, and I am by no means an expert on the subject, while the "prove it with a photograph" suggestion might help some to make a decision between halogen and HID, it should be noted that digital cameras are very sensitive to IR wavelengths, and that could possibly make the resulting night shot images of halogen vs. HID a little misleading. However, I'm not sure how much influence, if any, it might have.

[2Simpletons]

Good grief...still going....

[dseg]

.

[TSiWRX]

^ This is definitely a concern that, I'm sure, will be addressed in the "sooner" part of the near future rather than the more distant....

 

We're already seeing anti-glare (for oncoming traffic) measures becoming more and more prevalent on OEM units. And while even now, they're still much more passive than active, there's no doubt in my mind that very soon, they'll truly become an active safety measure, able to take all sorts of road-conditions into consideration to truly minimize glare to oncoming traffic.

[SWP-LegacyGT]

 

 

of course for further proof.

[SLegacy99]

Interesting. Subaru declares them unsafe when all other car companies use em. My dads 330Xi only comes with HIDs.

[slamck]

STI has HID as standard equipment. So go figure.

[TSiWRX]

^ Ayup, that was noted originally as one of our big "complaints" in the discussion.

 

We all said - "Hum, perhaps someone should write this particular rep back, and then ask him why the hell the STI/STis have long had HIDs for US market!" Do they just not care about their safety?

[chuckzul]

Well, do all the studies in the world you want, cite supposed experts in lighting, call them bling, bash them, whatever..at pushing 45, I simply can't see at night nearly as good as I used to. The stockers were good, hell, even great, by today's standards, but not good enough for me. With HID's I can simply see better, and that's a huge safety issue to me. Never been flashed, nobody's ever complained to me about the glare, nothing. I'll stick with the HID's from now on.

[TSiWRX]

^ You're likely "seeing better" because of foreground flooding - this is again a great "comfort factor" to any of us who are either getting older or suffer from various eye conditions that cause shortcomings in our night-vision.

 

Essentially, we're being tricked into thinking that we're seeing better.

 

However, again, this needs to be put into perspective.

 

For those of us with such vision compromises, it can almost be said that our distance night-vision will NEVER be "optimized." As such, increasing foreground lighting - even if it only gives the illusion of "seeing better" as well as being somewhat compromising to our distance night-vision - can be very helpful, and indeed, can actually be said to be helping us see better.

 

Again, the science only explains part of the story - it's application and practical useage should also be kept in-mind when discussing this particular issue.

 

[IwannaSportSedan]

I am not convinced that ALL HIDS produce harmful levels of foreground flooding. Maybe some poorly aimed OE setups, or aftermarket retrofits...

 

But I have driven on the roads along side Audis, BMWs, Mercedes, and other cars with HIDS, and there is a distinct and VERY NOTICEABLE difference in light output, and not neccessarily on the concrete directly in front of the car.

 

I have paid attention (Because I want HIDs...) to down range sign visibility, and off axis lighting the sides of the road way... and both are markedly improved, in the cases that i have seen.

 

There may be slight drawbacks, and some individual setups may be flawed, but by and large, throwing more lumens down range means BETTER LIGHTING. no quotes, no caveats. The fact that it takes fewer watts, and the bulbs are better resistant to vibration, and longer lasting are also bonuses.

 

there is a reason that arc-type sources are used with searchlights, rather than glowing filaments. MORE LIGHT thrown further.

 

BTW, Daniel Stern's article doesn't condemn HID. It just says it isn't an absolutely perfect solution. No one claims HIDS to be perfect, but better is a reasonable claim. If they weren't, BMW, Porsche, Audi, Mercedes, Mazda, Honda/Acura, Lexus, Infinity and others would have offered something else by now, besides HID.

[TSiWRX]

I am not convinced that ALL HIDS produce harmful levels of foreground flooding. Maybe some poorly aimed OE setups, or aftermarket retrofits...

 

+1.

 

Nevertheless, it still remains a problem for many of today's OEM setups - but as optics continue to improve, this shortcoming will certainly be a thing of the past in the very, very near future.

 

Also, as you later mention, in many of today's higher-dollar vehicles, one can already see that optics design has started to move away from foreground flooding - and projecting more lighting power farther downroad.

 

Aftermarket? Now that's a problem in and of itself - not only in terms of improper retrofits, but also the technical challenges facing enthusiasts who work very, very hard complete total makeovers.

 

BTW, Daniel Stern's article doesn't condemn HID. It just says it isn't an absolutely perfect solution.

 

Exactly on-spot.

 

No one claims HIDS to be perfect, but better is a reasonable claim. If they weren't, BMW, Porsche, Audi, Mercedes, Mazda, Honda/Acura, Lexus, Infinity and others would have offered something else by now, besides HID.

 

"Better," though, needs to be dissected, and cannot be a sweeping statement. It is here that, as you very well put, people need to realize that it's not an absolutely perfect solution, and they need to use their own judgement to see if - particularly of aftermarket retrofits (proper or "improper"), would truly benefit them, based on their own needs, preferences, and even ambient driving conditions.

 

As to offering something else?

 

I think that the high-end is always searching - there are a couple of different technologies that rest just around the corner, and should be adapted for automotive applications soon. However, I think that until such items can be perfected to a degree where the general public will *_easily_* visualize their superiority over HIDs, they are not likely to be introduced simply due to current market fever over HID lighting. And this, of course, will not be easy to accomplish, as that simple ability to see every crack and pebble in the road right in front of us carries with it a huge amount of subjective "safety-feel" which, as many of us older LGT owners have cited, makes them very attractive to those with the bank to purchase high-dollar vehicles.

 

This is a very complex issue that encompasses objective engineering, subjective perception, and, in no small part, also quite a bit of marketing slander.

 

Certainly, HIDs are here to stay and will no doubt very soon completely eclipse standard incandescent lighting - but it's imperative that we all know and understand that in its present form, it's far from perfect, and that we should continue to press automakers into perfecting their design and performance - instead of just randomly slapping them on every vehicle possible, using sub-optimal designs, just to satisfy market demand.

[Lagacy GT]

If our cars came equipped with HIDs, there might be more theft and lead to higher insurance costs.

[speeding_gaijin]

My 99 Legacy came with HID's

I installed bright yellow fogs, so my weather problems are solved.

When you drive in a very dark road with normal weather, nothing beats the HID