Spyder headlamps.....my take on 'em...and LIGHTING in general

[83GMCK2500]

i'm hoping the weather turns a bit so i can hook up the fogs.....it's gonna be in the 20's tomorrow and my busted ass just don't want to tolerate that anymore.

and i have the air dam thing to put back on.....i noticed my tow hooks are bent......thibking on ANOTHER set of fogs for down there too!

yea, i'm stupid

who makes a decent "kit" to start?
.....i'm sure i'll be changing the lenses.

There was a factory valence fog on the sport trucks. They're the ones on @88GMCtruck 's '88, under the bumper. I've got a set for my flatbed I need to install, and a 3,500k set of H3C HIDs for them.

Part numbers for the whole bracket & light that bolts directly under our bumpers:
Left - 16524927
Right - 16524928

They are all over ebay, both generic and OEM. The bucket itself that holds the lens was used across many models and some even had an amber fog lens in them.

 

[michael hurd]

No, the HID arc and the H4 filament are very similar, and the upkick is part of the light intended to illuminate more of the shoulder of the road and signs, it's part of it's optics. You can see the angled part in the glass on them as well.

Very similar is not exact. I can put on about 3 different pairs of eyeglasses and 'see' with all three pairs, but only one pair will be correct.

 

[88GMCtruck]

Very similar is not exact. I can put on about 3 different pairs of eyeglasses and 'see' with all three pairs, but only one pair will be correct.

Very well aware of that.

Of all the lights, H4, 9005 and 9006 are some of the closest when using a drop in HID. H4s respond the best since they have bulb shields as well. Combine this with the sloppy lighting characteristics of DOT lighting or cut glass lenses it's entirely possible to get a useable (sometimes even better than) stock lighting with them. The key in all of it is knowing how the optics work and finding the parts that work well together.

 

[michael hurd]

Very well aware of that.

Of all the lights, H4, 9005 and 9006 are some of the closest when using a drop in HID. H4s respond the best since they have bulb shields as well. Combine this with the sloppy lighting characteristics of DOT lighting or cut glass lenses it's entirely possible to get a useable (sometimes even better than) stock lighting with them. The key in all of it is knowing how the optics work and finding the parts that work well together.

Usable does not mean the light emitted meets the legal photometric requirements.

 

[88GMCtruck]

Usable does not mean the light emitted meets the legal photometric requirements.

........no, but then again doing anything with HIDs, LEDs, and many aftermarket housings (including my bosch e-codes) isn't legal. Nor is my aftermarket exhaust, window tint, LED signals....

We aren't here trying to talk the legality of these - we are looking at creating better lighting than the OEM lights which are a joke, without offending other drivers.

Now, the US requirements for headlights are a joke compared to other countries....

 

[shovelbill]

........no, but then again doing anything with HIDs, LEDs, and many aftermarket housings (including my bosch e-codes) isn't legal. Nor is my aftermarket exhaust, window tint, LED signals....

We aren't here trying to talk the legality of these - we are looking at creating better lighting than the OEM lights which are a joke, without offending other drivers.

Now, the US requirements for headlights are a joke compared to other countries....

you did hit the nail on the head......and a ways back i stated i would be a "semi-hypocrite" because of the strict legal terms of using those 60mm Hella 9006 projectors in a quad setup......they are legal on a US motorcycle, hence the SAEM code......but not for a 4 wheel vehicle.....sure, give the bike a better SINGLE headlight.....the Harley Road Glide has TWO headlamps, has been since it's inception in 1980........so why then would this be "legal"?

i ABHOR people slappin in **** HID kits from e-bay, no need to go over that again, the horsey is fu@kin dead already
.......but what you did deserves recognition......while what you did wasn't legal, your approach to quality lighting was pretty unique and responsible.....this is indeed a slippery slope as to the legality....you can't be "almost pregnant"......but we can't use stock e-codes either.

in case some people missed it, here's his thread: http://www.gmt400.com/threads/88gmctrucks-non-projector-hid-conversion.948/
and i'll also include what should be a sticky for the folks just joing us: http://www.gmt400.com/threads/tech-...eam-upgrades-bosch-t84-e-code-headlights.946/

which is going to bring me to my next topic................stay tuned for more mind wrestlin and alternative ideas.

 

[shovelbill]

let's start with this.......which happens to be a Cepek airplane styleed SPOT lamp, two of these were on the roof of my '90 K/5 when i took posession of her.....which i promptly removed....served NO purpose for me and actually hurt the fuel economy(yea, HAHA)....perhaps you guys remember me saying i will indeed put KC Daylighters on the front?? just because i WANT them there.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[michael hurd]

........no, but then again doing anything with HIDs, LEDs, and many aftermarket housings (including my bosch e-codes) isn't legal. Nor is my aftermarket exhaust, window tint, LED signals....

We aren't here trying to talk the legality of these - we are looking at creating better lighting than the OEM lights which are a joke, without offending other drivers.

Now, the US requirements for headlights are a joke compared to other countries....

The US requirements aren't as strict as ECE requirements for glare.

I agree that a lot of OEM lighting leaves a lot to be desired, totally. The IIHS has just started to test headlight performance on new vehicles starting in 2016, and a lot were 'poor'. However, for a top safety pick+, headlight performance is now included.

For the other people reading along, there is nothing wrong with touching upon the legality of certain modifications.

 

[shovelbill]

The US requirements aren't as strict as ECE requirements for glare.

I agree that a lot of OEM lighting leaves a lot to be desired, totally. The IIHS has just started to test headlight performance on new vehicles starting in 2016, and a lot were 'poor'. However, for a top safety pick+, headlight performance is now included.

For the other people reading along, there is nothing wrong with touching upon the legality of certain modifications.

100%.....i believe when i started this saga i stated my intention was upgrade the headlight system, with available parts, to be compliant with the laws in this country....ie" SAE and DOT.

i specifically did it this way to show people that there are alternatives to GOOD lighting without having to resort to illegal, unsafe and dangerous setups because they are "easier" to do.....or CHEAP from the readily available crap on ebay from fu@kin china.

the "lackness" of the laws, in my opinion, stem from the fact they test bulbs at voltages much lower than the rest of the world.....so when we put more "legal" voltage to a bulb we GET a brighter light......we've proven that the stock harness does indeed provide the ****** voltage that they test at.........

it's like and engine, which is really an air pump....more air in and out, more power....PERIOD.

 

[shovelbill]

cropped and played with contrast and some other thing......

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

i think the high beam deal is good, very good......i can't can't bring myself to say the low beam is better than the fake OEM.....seems the Spyder low scatters light all over....the negatives tell the tale as far as i can see....wtf do i know?

i'm not a light guru, just what my calibrated eyeballs tell me.......and at this moment in time they're telling me i need to aim the high beams and get some good auxiliary low beams.....

after the job is done and aimed as correct as i can, i'll evaluate it on my trip upstate...to Utica N.Y......i travel at night......THAT will tell the tale.....i'll be needing someone to drive my truck toward me while i'm in another car....drive behind me etc....

we're not done yet......but i'm not diggin the low beam performance so far.

ok....going all the way back to post 374. this is before i realized the bulb was not seated properly and got me nervous about the quality of the Spyders.....remember, in these photos there was a right Spyder and a left DEPO......i had thought the operation was a failure and began thinking of options.

of course we now know this is in fact NOT the case, but needless to say i DID start on a parallel "program" in my little brain when i saw these results.

fast forward to the KC's.