The Seven Cities of Gold, the Fountain of Youth, and Headlamp Lens Restoration

Bullzeyebill

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
12,164
Location
CA
In response to AnAppleSnale's post, as I posted earlier, I own a 1999 Town and Country mini-van. A nice clean van that I purchased for my son's family, and I will gift it to him soon. It cost about $500.00 for each headlight, if I have them replaced. Not sure I want to do that. There must be a better solution.

Bill
 

Alaric Darconville

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 2, 2001
Messages
5,377
Location
Stillwater, America
Have you ever driven through the woods at night? Good headlights are *definitely* a life-critical system.
Not when compared to a steering system.

(It is my understanding that) Safety and emissions equipment is supposed to last a minimum of ten years, or 100,000 miles. That includes airbags, seatbelts, catalytic converters and so on. Consumable parts like brake pads and lightbulbs need to be replaced, of course, but non-consumable parts should not require replacement due to aging faster than the rest of the car. Lighting is definitely safety equipment; it's not like they added headlights, taillights, and turn signals to cars for their decorative qualities.

EPA requirements state that the catalytic converter last for 8 years or 80,000 miles, so long as the failure does not result from misuse of the vehicle or failure to follow the manufacturers' written maintenance instructions. Seat belts and air bags may be required to have a 10 year warranty, I really don't know if they do or not.

If headlamps were included in this, then the plastics for the lenses would go through a much more stringent testing procedure than they do now.
 

Alaric Darconville

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 2, 2001
Messages
5,377
Location
Stillwater, America
In response to AnAppleSnale's post, as I posted earlier, I own a 1999 Town and Country mini-van. A nice clean van that I purchased for my son's family, and I will gift it to him soon. It cost about $500.00 for each headlight, if I have them replaced.

Replace one of them now, and the next one in six months.

AllPar.com lists chryslerpartsdirect.com as a good source of parts (and I know Daniel Stern has recommended them, as well); I see they're $405 or so a side there (then there's the labor for aiming once you put them in).
 
Last edited:

NFT5

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
113
Location
Canberra, Australia
The only thing I can think of that MIGHT make a significant difference in preserving a refurbished headlight would be to paint it with a hard-shell UV-resistant clearcoat, like what is used on automotive paint. Nothing short of blocking the UV from reaching the plastic lenses will make any difference in the long run.


OEMs use the most UV-resistant, durable clearcoats that exist and have been tested for adequate safety and durability. They must be applied to clean, smooth plastic in a clean room and cured under controlled conditions. Stuff you smear on in the driveway can't compare. And sanding the front of the headlight changes its optical properties. Even if you go to ten billion grit paper, you've changed the thickness of parts of the plastic more than in other parts. It's a very short-term solution, and you'll start getting hazing in a few months. UV damage will progress much faster with these **** ("Aftermarket, pardon) coatings. I guess if you needed to spend $50+ to buy a month or two before replacement then these might be your thing, but when is that the case?

Exactly what we've been working on and we have a spray booth so conditions can be controlled. There are three issues with automotive clearcoat:

Firstly it has a design life of 10 years. This is readily admitted by the paint companies and vehicle manufacturers. Just look at any car that's about that age and has spent most of its' life outside. Clear degrades just like the stuff they put on headlights, just takes longer.

Second is getting the surface flat so the orange peel doesn't scatter light all over the place. We have this pretty much nailed. Not quite optical lens quality, but what I'd call satisfactory.

Third is adhesion. There are adhesion promoters available and they're almost clear. We can now achieve thin enough coatings for the colour darkening effect to be not visible. Don't forget we're working with total dry film thickness of ideally, around 30μ.

Is all this going to achieve the factory standard of clarity? No, I don't kid myself that we can even get close. Not visible to the naked eye is about the best we will ever achieve. That, however, is a massive improvement even on the lights that are allowed to pass registration inspections. It is also a big improvement in safety for those owners who have UV damaged lights. Tests with a meter of the type used by automotive tinters show that we're getting better than 90% compared to "clear" glass.

Also important is cost. Some of the worst cases we've seen have been what are referred to here as "grey imports". These are second hand cars that are imported from Japan and which were not sold here as new. Mainly performance cars and some four wheel drives. Because there are so few and there never was dealer parts backup, the cost of parts, especially large bulky items like headlights, is horrendous. Talk $700 - $1200 for a second hand headlight. They're low volume, even in Japan, so companies like Depo and TYC don't have an aftermarket alternative. Spending $200-$300 on refurbishment is a viable option when the alternative is that kind of cost or not being able to register or, in some cases, even sell the vehicle.
 

Hamilton Felix

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
933
Location
Marblemount, WA, USA
Fascinating.

I understand the "$200-$300 on refurbishment." Suddenly I'm glad that my online research today showed I can get factory headlights for my 2007 Corolla for about $169 apiece - though there's a scary number of "same quality as OEM" garbage lights out there to watch out for.

Once it starts, the degradation progresses quickly, doesn't it? I just now took another look at my little Toyota (after cleaning the lights with Plexus) and I can see the progression of the "frosty" areas. Also noted a lot of tiny rock chips in the paint. I bought it in May of 2008; it looked virtually brand new at that time, and had 46,000 miles on it. It's now past 175,000 miles, doing nearly 100 miles per workday on both two lane blacktop and freeway; the "new" appearance is long gone.

I wonder how much of what I'm seeing is UV damage and how much is actually "sandblasting" from highway running in traffic. We live in the rainy western part of Washington State, so desert sunshine is not an issue. The lenses are not turning yellow at all.

Considering the information shared here, it would appear that expensive and/or difficult to find lights are worth the effort of refurbishing, but if the lights are under $400 a pair, it's better to just replace them.
 

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
The issue is the UV-reflective coating applied to the lense when it is first manufactured.

True.

That coating gets damaged by road debris, which allows UV light to damage the plastic underneath the coating.

Not so much. There's some abrasion degradation, but mostly the coating actually oxidizes with prolonged exposure to heat and UV.

You can scrub off the damaged plastic and restore the smooth surface, but you can't replace the UV-reflective coating with a rub-on commercial product. There is no way to refurbish plastic headlight lenses for the long-term.

True on both counts.

Supposedly plastic headlight lenses were adopted because they are less likely to shatter in a crash and drop glass on the pavement.

No, plastic lenses were adopted because they were cheaper to manufacture and less subject to impact damage (from rocks and such, not in crashes). Glass dropping on the pavement was not a consideration, nor was pedestrian safety.

Plastic headlights are nothing more than a rip-off and I wish they would be made illegal because they don't last the life of the car, like safety equipment is supposed to do.

There's no requirement for safety equipment to last the life of the car. It would be nice if some real (toothy) durability requirements for headlamp performance were added to the regulations, but I don't foresee it happening. There exist polycarbonates and coatings that will give a reasonably long lifespan even in extremely harsh environments (Arizona, etc.) but these are not used on automotive headlamps because the regulations aren't tough enough to require them, and they cost more than the polycarbonates and coatings that do meet today's lax regulations.

Also keep in mind all glass lenses are not alike. Some are much more prone to breakage than others. In the first place there are two kinds of lens glass, soda-lime ("soft glass") and borosilicate ("hard glass"). The "soft" and "hard" doesn't refer to the glass itself, but to the nature of the flame needed to work it. Then there are various ways of toughening/hardening the glass to make it much more resistant to pitting, chipping, and breakage. There are heavy-duty headlamps with hardened glass lenses that are exceedingly difficult to break; if you ask me that's the material all headlamp lenses ought to be made of. But I'd happily settle for plastic lenses built to comply with a much tougher durability standard.
 

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
OEMs use the most UV-resistant, durable clearcoats that exist and have been tested for adequate safety and durability. They must be applied to clean, smooth plastic in a clean room and cured under controlled conditions. Stuff you smear on in the driveway can't compare.

I agree with you on all these points, but the sand-buff-polish-spar varnish procedure elsewhere on the Auto Geek site linked by "TheExpert" in this thread does seem to do a surprisingly good and durable job.
 

fyrstormer

Banned
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
6,617
Location
Maryland, Near DC, USA
Not when compared to a steering system.
Can't dodge what you can't see. ;) That's why we're flashaholics, remember? It's nighttime half our lives and it's hard to do anything well in the dark. But yes, steering comes up a close second, and braking a close third.

EPA requirements state that the catalytic converter last for 8 years or 80,000 miles, so long as the failure does not result from misuse of the vehicle or failure to follow the manufacturers' written maintenance instructions. Seat belts and air bags may be required to have a 10 year warranty, I really don't know if they do or not.

If headlamps were included in this, then the plastics for the lenses would go through a much more stringent testing procedure than they do now.
I must've remembered the duration wrong, my apologies. I understand that headlights aren't required to last the (statistical) lifetime of the car -- I'm just saying they ARE safety equipment and the SHOULD be required to last that long.

- - -

The overarching problem with automotive design nowadays is the expectation that people will trade their cars instead of running them into the ground, as if salvaging some small scrap of the original purchase price is somehow a worthwhile goal if you're not desperate for quick cash. It's just a scam to get people to buy cars more often, but as a result, it becomes more reasonable for parts like headlights to be designed with the expectation that they'll get swapped for cheap aftermarket parts later in the car's life, and the second (or third, or fourth) owner will never know the difference.

I remember helping my dad buy a used minivan a couple years ago. The sales guy was happy to talk about how they steam-clean the engine bays in their CPO'ed cars so everything is nice and shiny, conveniently removing all trace of fluid leaks AND smear marks from prior service. When I started the engine he made sure to talk over the sound of the engine and stand right next to me while I was examining things. When I pressed the heel of my hand against the valve cover and jammed my ear against my shoulder, he gave me an odd look and then started talking louder, so I stared at him while plugging my other ear with my finger until he got the message and went away. I had to go through four minivans before I found one that the valvetrain sounded like it was still in good condition through my improvised shoulder-stethoscope.

Okay, that's enough of a rant, I guess. :D
 
Last edited:

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
I'm just saying they ARE safety equipment and the SHOULD be required to last

I agree.

The overarching problem with automotive design nowadays is the expectation that people will trade their cars instead of running them into the ground

That's not new ("nowadays"). In general, today's vehicles give much longer, much less troublesome service than yesterday's did. Some parts don't hold up as well as they used to, and headlamps are an example. Yesterday's headlights were much more durable than today's because yesterday the choice was either massively over-engineered headlamps or no headlamps at all. Glass and metal were the only materials available. Mass was of zero concern, and neither was packaging space, which was a moot point anyhow because headlamp size, shape, and fitment was standardized by law.

It's just a scam to get people to buy cars more often

Are you old enough to remember what real planned obsolescence looked like? Now that was an ugly, greedy scam to get people to buy cars more often. Today's version looks like child's play by comparison to how bad it used to be. We all have fond memories of the old 1965 Whatevercar that ran forever...sure, with trips to the service station (remember those?) every 3,000 miles, and with a new look every dang model year nothing was ever put together properly. Remember those long lists of "sample defects" Consumer Reports used to list on the cars they tested? They don't have those any more because today's cars generally aren't defective like yesterday's were, right off the showroom floor.

I don't disagree with you that headlamp durability standards aren't sufficient, but that right there is the reason why headlamps don't hold up. Not because automakers think someone's going to trade in the car because of clouded headlamps, and not because automakers think the owner's going to install aftermarket headlamps.

Unfortunately, we live in a throwaway society. Heavy-duty cars that didn't change with every model year have been tried (Checker) and mostly they were a sales disaster. The Volvo 240 comes to mind, too; it is much prized for its durability, but it never sold in anything like the volumes of the more "conventional" cars with their frequent model changes and so on -- and the 240's durability makes it particularly ironic that 1986 and later models were equipped with very quick-to-degrade plastic headlamps!
 

Alaric Darconville

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 2, 2001
Messages
5,377
Location
Stillwater, America
That's not new ("nowadays").
Every year there's a new crop of people saying "today's kids blah-blah, but when I was a kid I yaddy-yaddy-yah". Same with cars.


In general, today's vehicles give much longer, much less troublesome service than yesterday's did. Some parts don't hold up as well as they used to, and headlamps are an example.
That's for sure. My '01 Corolla has been pretty much trouble-free. ('Cept for the headlamps)

Yesterday's headlights were much more durable than today's because yesterday the choice was either massively over-engineered headlamps or no headlamps at all. Glass and metal were the only materials available. Mass was of zero concern, and neither was packaging space, which was a moot point anyhow because headlamp size, shape, and fitment was standardized by law.

Are you old enough to remember what real planned obsolescence looked like? Now that was an ugly, greedy scam to get people to buy cars more often. Today's version looks like child's play by comparison to how bad it used to be. We all have fond memories of the old 1965 Whatevercar that ran forever...sure, with trips to the service station (remember those?) every 3,000 miles, and with a new look every dang model year nothing was ever put together properly. Remember those long lists of "sample defects" Consumer Reports used to list on the cars they tested? They don't have those any more because today's cars generally aren't defective like yesterday's were, right off the showroom floor.
Like my '65 Dart. But it was carbureted, and I had to rebuild the carburetor a time or two, and adjust screws to get the idle and mixture right (single barrel, whew). The heat riser valve was stuck shut. Points sometimes had to be filed or the point/condensor set just needed to be replaced. Distributor caps cracked, wires would absorb moisture. (But the car ran FOREVER, doncha know, and they don't build 'em like they used to!)

Granted, those user-replaceable and/or repairable systems aren't nearly as forboding as a failed fuel-injection return system (nor as expensive).

I don't disagree with you that headlamp durability standards aren't sufficient, but that right there is the reason why headlamps don't hold up. Not because automakers think someone's going to trade in the car because of clouded headlamps, and not because automakers think the owner's going to install aftermarket headlamps.
Essentially, as much as Honda and others talk about how their used cars are reliable, and X% of their cars sold are still on the road after Y years, the main goal is to sell the NEW car to someone. Keep selling new cars and hope that used car sales don't cut into them.

Unfortunately, we live in a throwaway society. Heavy-duty cars that didn't change with every model year have been tried (Checker) and mostly they were a sales disaster. The Volvo 240 comes to mind, too; it is much prized for its durability, but it never sold in anything like the volumes of the more "conventional" cars with their frequent model changes and so on -- and the 240's durability makes it particularly ironic that 1986 and later models were equipped with very quick-to-degrade plastic headlamps!

Even the F150 goes through changes and changes. And yes, the 240 with its plastic headlamp lenses is kindof an oddball (well, other than many Mazda B2000 and Ford Ranger pickups have the same problem with their headlamps...)
 
Last edited:

fyrstormer

Banned
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
6,617
Location
Maryland, Near DC, USA
Let's not get into an argument about How Things Were Back In My Day, okay? I guarantee there are perfectly valid examples of "real planned obsolescence" nowadays. (ever owned a cellphone, or any portable device with a custom-size battery?)

You might not think people would trade in a car because of fogged headlamps, and you're probably right, just the headlamps alone probably aren't enough, but I know quite a few people who trade their cars as soon as they start to notice bits here and there are starting to demand attention. The more superficial those bits are, the lower the cost is for the dealer to refurb the car and re-sell it for twice the trade-in value. With that in mind, it's much better for car manufacturers to overbuild the expensive, hidden parts and cut corners on the inexpensive, superficial parts, because then they can safely sell the car new at a barely-profitable or unprofitable price, then make their real profit when the car is traded and re-sold as "Certified Pre-Owned".
 
Last edited:

Hamilton Felix

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
933
Location
Marblemount, WA, USA
And on that note: I think I'd better see about laying in genuine Toyota headlamps for my Corolla very soon - since I plan on keeping it for some time, and genuine OEM parts will not get cheaper; lenses beginning to "frost" now, mean it will only get worse with time. Not to mention that I made the mistake of buying an inexpensive "OEM quality" fog lamp kit, only to shine them on a wall and discover they were NOT. I've since acquired one factory fog (left) and need to hunt up another.

Yep, I appreciate that the older cars could be maintained with simple tools and a modicum of know-how. But they required much more frequent maintenance than today's cars. Living in the 1970's and maintaining 50's and 60's cars, one could never imagine spark plugs going over 100,000 miles, much less a car like my 2007 Corolla that has run past 175,000 miles with NO maintenance other than regular oil and filter changes and tires replacement. But when it breaks, I probably will not be able to fix it with the tools I have a home.

It's all a trade-off. Do I drive one I can work on, or one I don't have to? There are advantages to both, and I own both.

If they ever come up with an optically acceptable clear coating for plastic lenses that is both glass hard and a barrier to UV, I'll be tickled pink. But I'm not going to hold my breath until it happens.
 
Last edited:

NFT5

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
113
Location
Canberra, Australia
Let's not get into an argument about How Things Were Back In My Day, okay? I guarantee there are perfectly valid examples of "real planned obsolescence" nowadays. (ever owned a cellphone, or any portable device with a custom-size battery?)

You might not think people would trade in a car because of fogged headlamps, and you're probably right, just the headlamps alone probably aren't enough, but I know quite a few people who trade their cars as soon as they start to notice bits here and there are starting to demand attention. The more superficial those bits are, the lower the cost is for the dealer to refurb the car and re-sell it for twice the trade-in value. With that in mind, it's much better for car manufacturers to overbuild the expensive, hidden parts and cut corners on the inexpensive, superficial parts, because then they can safely sell the car new at a barely-profitable or unprofitable price, then make their real profit when the car is traded and re-sold as "Certified Pre-Owned".

Agree completely on your planned obsolescence point.

There is much more to the marketing of cars than appears. Your points are quite true. In addition though are things like reputation and reliability. When Hyundai started selling their cars here they were seen as "Korean crap" and it's true that paint faded, dashboards cracked and bits fell off, regularly. However, they just kept going and forged a reputation for reliability that threatens to knock Toyota off it's "unbreakable" perch.

And on that note: I think I'd better see about laying in genuine Toyota headlamps for my Corolla very soon - since I plan on keeping it for some time, and genuine OEM parts will not get cheaper; lenses beginning to "frost" now, mean it will only get worse with time. Not to mention that I made the mistake of buying an inexpensive "OEM quality" fog lamp kit, only to shine them on a wall and discover they were NOT. I've since acquired one factory fog (left) and need to hunt up another.

lol. I'm not sure that "OEM quality" is much of a benchmark to aspire to, particularly as far as fog lights are concerned.


But I'm going going to hold my breath until it happens.

I hope not.



I don't know if any of you read right through that link on the polyurethane but at about 2 years he started another thread where he started to test the Opti-Coat against the polyurethane which was starting to degrade. I haven't tried the Opti-Coat 2 (the distributor here doesn't want to sell it, just apply it as a paint protectant) but I suspect it may be better than the polyurethane.
 

Hamilton Felix

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
933
Location
Marblemount, WA, USA
lol. I'm not sure that "OEM quality" is much of a benchmark to aspire to, particularly as far as fog lights are concerned.

Right you are. I've learned to be careful of the fine print. Phrases like "OEM quality" and "same as OEM" or "built to OEM standards" should be red flags in general. And I agree that a lot of OEM fogs aren't really decent fog lights.

In general, I've learned there are applications where "same as" does not work. Certain GM cars need the GM fuel pump because the one from O'Reilly's will die quickly; certain Honda cars must have the Honda thermostat because the one from NAPA won't work, etc. It certainly appears that lights and body parts constitute an area where a great many cheap copies exist, and a lot of shops buy the cheaper parts.

NFT5, thanks for spotting my typo: I'll definitely NOT hold my breath. :sick2:

That Autogeek test with all pictures is certainly interesting. The part showing failed auto paint clear coat sure is familiar. Right now, Dad has a 1995 Town Car that looks bad on trunk and roof, where the sun hits it directly.

As initially stated, the example of the 1999 minivan with $500 headlights is food for thought. If expected remaining life of the vehicle is within expected life of a headlight refurb job, then refurbishing the lights for perhaps $300 makes sense. But the decision hinges on how much longer the vehicle will last and how long the refurb will last. Even if you can refurb the lights more than once, that cost quickly begins to argue in favor of new lights, especially if cost of the new lights drops to $400, $300 or less. I'm really interested in this pursuit of better clear coatings. So far in this forum, we've seen a number of refinishing products that will work with enough patient polishing, but none would last very long. While a product requiring the controlled environment of a professional spray booth still rules out cheap home jobs, it does offer some of us a viable alternative.

Oh: Scheinwerfermann, I like the concept of steel doors protecting solidly mounted headlights. It's better than pop-up lights that can move around and won't stay aimed. But I agree that reliability of the extra gadgetry to do it is an issue. My mother and her first husband had a 1937 Cord 812 (Dad was her second husband). I wish I could have seen it. I've often wondered about those hand cranked pop-up headlights. On the whole, I still favor a moving door over a moving light, but manual operation would probably be more reliable than the vacuum arrangement seen on the 67-9 Thunderbirds.

I suppose all modern cars undergo extensive wind tunnel testing. But I think there are still some cars where the headlights take more of a beating than on others. I recall a friend who bought one of the early Chevy Monzas, and he had trouble replacing headlights as quickly as he broke them.

I'm a bit sorry that protective covers aren't legal, but I understand why. Too bad there's not a feasible way to refinish something like a Cibie 175 fog after years of highway running on winter sanded roads has degraded the lens surface. (I didn't have the heart to get rid of them, so I put them on my old IH 4x4 as offroad cornering lights.) I doubt we'll ever see cost-effective refinishing of glass lenses.

This is a good thread. We're learning.

An off-topic but cheerful note on a manufacturer that stands behind its products: I've used an Al Mar SERE 2000 folder for about a decade, and used it hard. It's done a few things not recommended for knives. Not long ago, I contacted Al Mar Knives and arranged to send it back because of an issue with the tiny screws holding the pocket clip and the steel block they thread into. I had a couple of pleasant phone conversations with "Gary," during the last of which he asked if I had any sentimental attachment to that particular knife. I told him "No, only the work it can do." I am right now looking at an invoice that says "1 S2K loose, worn and well used throughout. Per Gary - exchange for a new one. N/C." And there is a brand new Al Mar SERE 2000 clipped into my pocket. I wish there were more companies like that. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

fyrstormer

Banned
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
6,617
Location
Maryland, Near DC, USA
Yep, I appreciate that the older cars could be maintained with simple tools and a modicum of know-how. But they required much more frequent maintenance than today's cars. Living in the 1970's and maintaining 50's and 60's cars, one could never imagine spark plugs going over 100,000 miles, much less a car like my 2007 Corolla that has run past 175,000 miles with NO maintenance other than regular oil and filter changes and tires replacement. But when it breaks, I probably will not be able to fix it with the tools I have a home.

It's all a trade-off. Do I drive one I can work on, or one I don't have to? There are advantages to both, and I own both.
In my infinite wisdom, I came up with a slogan for this phenomenon: "if you make it hard to break, you make it hard to fix." Things can be easy to break and hard to fix (glass dishes, for example), but almost nothing with any mechanical or electrical complexity can be hard to break and easy to fix. That's just how the world works. So I present that choice to my project managers when designing software -- I can make it hard for the user to break, but if it ever needs to be used in a non-standard way, it will probably be impossible, or I can make it easy for the user to break, and give them instructions for how to use it right in all kinds of different scenarios. Their choice, I can do it either way.
 

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
Yes, that's pretty much it exactly -- the attention required by today's cars is (much) less frequent but also more expensive. I think consumers prefer it this way, which makes sense, and I suspect the overall real cost of maintenance and repair of reasonably comparable cars from, say, 1952, 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002, and 2012 probably trends downward or at least stays reasonably flat.
 

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
1AAuto is not a manufacturer, they're an importer. All of the aftermarket headlamps such as the ones they sell (and you link) are junk. Their performance and durability are poor. Most of them don't even minimally meet the applicable regulations and standards; the "DOT" and "SAE" markings are fraudulent -- here is a compliance test of original vs. aftermarket headlamps. Technically basic, simple, relatively easy to make headlamps for high-volume vehicles were compared. Even though TYC is widely regarded as the "least bad" of the bunch, their lamps still completely fail as do the Depo units (skip directly to pages 21 and 30 if you don't read the whole report). The other off-brand headlights are markedly worse than TYC and Depo. "OEM quality" is just as much of a lie as "DOT compliant". I have looked at a lot of the parts 1AAuto and the many other vendors like them supply, and have yet to see one that is genuinely "better quality than OEM"; the best their parts do is come close enough to acceptable quality for a cut-price repair job.

The low price of an off-brand aftermarket headlamp is tempting, but you (don't) get what you (don't) pay for.
 
Top