Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

FIRST $250 WILL BE DONATED TO SKYLINESAUSTRALIA FORUM.

Supplier Lookee.com.au

Brand Supervision

All the specs please see the pics below.

price is $260 delivered by express within australia

minimum 10 people

organiser BEN

list

khunjeng

Passage31 *2

I've organised more than 100 kits in this forum so far so good..

just needs $50 deposit

ENDS IN 2 WEEKS ABOUT 15th of OCT

26_112_9296e3014015f20.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/136346-hid-group-buy-australian-seller/
Share on other sites

depends how good u want the installation.

u can just put them anywhere in the engine bay or u can have a proper installation with the ballasts hidding under the headlights.

Can these just plug directly in to replace where the orginal bulb is?

Extra stuff hanging out the back doesn't bother me but is it otherwise a simple plug in thing.

How bright are these compared to the original bulbs?

What frequency is the best or what frequency are these at this price?

Does 8000-10000kHz give more reflection off fluorescent signs?

Edited by Edge

the installation itself is simple p&p but to put the ballasts properly is a hard job, sometimes u have to take off the bumper.

they are very very bright..

sry it's not about frequency, it's the colour temperature.. u can see the pic in the first post and see the differences of colours.

it states here that these are 9000k variants

3.jpg

These are great looking but does the 10,000k add any tinge of blue to it. Because from so close up you cant see the reflection it causes until you are from a distance ie incoming traffic that see's this car coming towards them. hope that makes sense, just want to clarify if 10k is much bluer, not at all or slightly.

Edited by Nozila

I mean H4 with HID Low and HID High single chamber version, according to the advertising should be $260 right. If so I'm in on this, still thinking about the difference between K - wish I could find out the colour spectrum being put out by these Xenon lights at 4300K or 6000K, Perhaps you can advise which is better for contrast at night, I haven't found a colour spectrum output graph for Xenon discharge yet.

OK here is a rambling piece to follow, after reading several sources online such as osram, aerovisions, spectra of xenon gas discharge, xenon-bulbs etc.

5500K between mercury vapour and metal halide, seems to be the best even mix of xenon, metal halides and mercury etc. for the best daylight simulating light at a guess.

Daylight simulating triphosphor fluorescent tubes made by osrtam are 6000K. Cool Daylight fluorescent tubes are at 4000K. In terms of depth and colour perception at night the higher frequencies seem better, but from my own testing it seems yellow light allows more simple contrast but less detailed contrast. So in terms of being bright enough to take advantage of colour perception and to gain maximum detail and depth perception the 6000K seems to be the best.

Likely to be more mercury in the bulbs, meaning more pressure and heat in the bulbs at 6000K, is that a good or bad thing for longer life?

Why does yellow light cut through rain and fog better than white? Since I have seperate fog lights I can get stronger intensity long(higher frequency) wavelengths of light. Also 6000K is said to have a higher circadian value for keeping you awake. It is also more comforatblet o view this light at high intensities, so I have to wonder whether for the same lumens whether it is more comfortable on the eyes to use 4300K lights at night as when you look further away it will appear less weak at the lower intensity reflections, so this is why yellow light seems to be easier to make out simple contrast but gives less detailed contrast, as the eye is used to more yellow light in low light conditions.

Toward the blue end of the green spectrum the eyes are more sensitive at night, but we are talking about subjects under illumination and this is why yellow end of the green spectrum is giving more depth.

Under very low light you will be able to see newspaper better in blue end of the spectrum, but see the black tarmac better with more light toward the yellow end of the green spectrum no matter what. Though to see detail such as read newspapers in low light you will be straining in the yellow end of the green spectrum.

So it is that if the light is brighter then 6000K is better but if the light is softer then 4000K is better even if considering both are "white light ie. containing all colours".

In conclusion 4300K is the best choice for more natural illumination for a low brightness scenario. While 6000K is best choice for a high brightness scenario.

Since someone said these bulbs are really bright the 6000K should be better in terms of being the most comfortable for the largest range of distances and produce less eye strain.

Edited by Edge

nozila ur pic looks like 6000k

to Edge

the single chamber hi/low is 100 over normal ones due to the the motor which is driving the chamber forward and backward to switch hi/low

the 4300 is the best choice of overall condition of weather but most of the people not only like it's brightness also it's colour. if u buy the 4300k there's milky white colour...

u can come to my place and have a look at the 4300k 5000k 6000k 8000k and special colour........

and i have a small fish tank to demo they are water profed

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • So, the other thing I've sorted is a baseline dyno run up at Unigroup's new location. The auto trans was a little unco-operative by both shifting down when the throttle was floored on the dyno (so Mark had to ramp it up more slowly than in a manual) and also by shifting up at 6,000 even in sports mode instead of the indicated redline of 7,000 Still, on a hot day it made 240rwkw at 16psi which seems about right for 300kw (400hp) through an auto at the wheels.  The shape of the curve is not quite right because it was not full throttle to about 4,500 to stop it kicking down, but until I can get a tune on the auto trans control this was the best we could do.....full boost will be well below 5,000 once that is sorted, I'll get some data logs when I can to confirm For comparison, the R32 made 255 at 12psi (at 4,500) on the same dyno with tune, n1 turbos, cam gears, big exhaust but otherwise all standard so the v37 is likely a little better out of the box. One thing that is very clear is that the standard water to air intercoolers are not up to sustained use at full throttle in warm ambient temps. After about 5 runs (so only a few minutes full throttle), it was pulling boost and timing and dropping 10-15% power. Unfortunately I didn't get that printout and the Unigroup guys are away at the moment, will try and get hold of it on their return. So, looks like a healthy engine to start modifying and the only real area of concern is the w2a heat exchangers which the aftermarket has plenty of solutions for    
    • I maintain it actually looked really nice in person. So much so that I thought "No, this is illegal" but there it was, clear as day. I think we can easily call the wing and wheels/height to be transformative. Not saying it's better than the GR Whatever, or the 86, or the WRX STI or anything of that sort (the internet says it all bolts up so you can buy best of all worlds?) but it's still at least a thing and not nearly AS bad as people say.
    • That's less offensive than the previous gen.....except for all that ugly black tupperware around the edges. Blerck!
    • I leant out the window recently and took a picture of this new WRX. It looked real damn fine in person. It's faster around a track (stock) than a (stock) GR Yaris. It's much more practical despite being heavier. It's significantly cheaper. This gen tunes really well, much better than others. .... I think they're probably a lot better than people expect.
    • WRXs are a pure pleb boring car these days. You need to get an STI to even get close to what a WRX used to be.
×
×
  • Create New...