2022 Dodge Charger 9005 headlight upgrade?

[John_Galt]

>But I will get you the benefit of the doubt here since headlights are screwed on.

Headlamps are typically left at their mechanical zero by their manufacturer, then installed as an assembly piece on the line. I would guarantee there is more concern about panel gap than aiming the lamp once its installed.

>All manufacturers aim their car headlights with proper tools before leaving the assembly line. There's no if's or butts about this.

Lol. Lmao even.

>Correct headlight aiming cannot be done by eye.

And yet the very next sentence is about the method of aiming, by eye.

>If you stick in a bulb with a higher flux, that spec is going to be out of spec and will blind others. There's no if or butts about this either.

Much more complex than that, and this is not to state that there won't be some increase in potential glare for oncoming vehicles, but it's not the omgwtfbbq insanity level of extra lihht you seem to insist that it is. There will be more glare in a typical patch of traffic from overloaded vehicles and people who have had fender benders and didn't care to re-aim their lamps, than the "extra" 15 candela of intensity because you installed a 9012 instead of a 9006 bulb. That's without even mentioning the people who think driving with their high beams on is ok because they have a low beam out.

 

[EJR]

The way headlights are designed is this...

LOL, I don't need a lesson on how optics work in a headlamp. I am very familiar with the basics. I'm even more familiar with how various bulb types in various lamps actually perform objectively because I actually test and measure them myself. Light testing is sorta my side thing. Not just one lamp or one bulb but many.

There is a very specific reason why I originally asked you WHICH VEHICLE you supposedly installed 9011 bulbs and supposedly caused glare to others. Still waiting for your answer on what car this is.

And I also asked about where exactly in the beam you think "you'll have too much light in certain areas where there wasn't meant to be that much light" because i know exactly where that is. I just wanna make sure YOU do. Based on your post here, I don't think you fully understand. Seems like your just making up nonsense to sound technical.

Do you even know the technical differences in geometry and position between a H11 and H9? Or what about a 9005 and 9011?

Your ideas about higher flux and different form factor affecting output negatively for the bulbs I listed are just NOT valid whatsoever. And this can be proven.

 

[theory816]

LOL, I don't need a lesson on how optics work in a headlamp. I am very familiar with the basics. I'm even more familiar with how various bulb types in various lamps actually perform objectively because I actually test and measure them myself. Light testing is sorta my side thing. Not just one lamp or one bulb but many.

There is a very specific reason why I originally asked you WHICH VEHICLE you supposedly installed 9011 bulbs and supposedly caused glare to others. Still waiting for your answer on what car this is.

And I also asked about where exactly in the beam you think "you'll have too much light in certain areas where there wasn't meant to be that much light" because i know exactly where that is. I just wanna make sure YOU do. Based on your post here, I don't think you fully understand. Seems like your just making up nonsense to sound technical.

Do you even know the technical differences in geometry and position between a H11 and H9? Or what about a 9005 and 9011?

Your ideas about higher flux and different form factor affecting output negatively for the bulbs I listed are just NOT valid whatsoever. And this can be proven.

If I sounded condescending, I apologize. But automotive optics is a very niched topic with very little information found on the web. That's why I gave a mini lesson so that we are on the same page at the very least if we want to discuss the issue at hand.

The reason why I can tell you don't understand the core concept is that you asked which vehicle, because it doesn't matter what vehicle. Once you put in a different bulb, the spec is thrown off.

 

[EJR]

If I sounded condescending, I apologize. But automotive optics is a very niched topic with very little information found on the web. That's why I gave a mini lesson so that we are on the same page at the very least if we want to discuss the issue at hand.

The reason why I can tell you don't understand the core concept is that you asked which vehicle, because it doesn't matter what vehicle. Once you put in a different bulb, the spec is thrown off.

I'm asking about your vehicle so I can see if I have your lamp in my portfolio. I may be able to provide actual data (not baseless claims and made up technical jargon) to prove or disprove whatever your claiming.

So what is the vehicle make/model/year?

 

[theory816]

I'm asking about your vehicle so I can see if I have your lamp in my portfolio. I may be able to provide actual data (not baseless claims and made up technical jargon) to prove or disprove whatever your claiming.

So what is the vehicle make/model/year?

You're not understanding my post. The projector/reflector is designed to work a specific way in any vehicle. If you change the bulb, it gets out of spec. The vehicle is irreverent. They all work on the same principle.

 

[John_Galt]

Your theory is based on the idea that every single headlamp is designed to max out every single legal intensity level. Which is wrong.

Most headlamps are junk meant to meet the legal minimums of performamce. A higher flux bulb that is optically compatible will not push these into too-bright to be legal territory.

And again, you ignore that HIR 1 and 2 were intended to he baclwards compatoble to replace 9005 amd 9006 bulbs

 

[jzchen]

As I understand there's a range of lumens for a (taken as example) H11 bulb. Do some of these upgrades push beyond this range?

@theory816 is this a legal concern vs a safety concern?

@ the rest (upgrade proponents) is this defined legally (which I assume it actually is)? I guess a way to refine this question is what defines the safer upper limit?

 

[theory816]

Your theory is based on the idea that every single headlamp is designed to max out every single legal intensity level. Which is wrong.

Most headlamps are junk meant to meet the legal minimums of performamce. A higher flux bulb that is optically compatible will not push these into too-bright to be legal territory.

And again, you ignore that HIR 1 and 2 were intended to he baclwards compatoble to replace 9005 amd 9006 bulbs

Every headlight is designed around the light the source. This light source is an electronic file stored in CAD programs. It becomes a pick, drag and drop situation on the software. The reflector housing is then designed around the light source to focus the rays into segments. With that, "maxing out" doesn't really make sense.

Nothing can be backwards compatible. A swapping of a bulb with a different intensity or form factor throws everything out of spec. The HIR 1 situation you are referring to may be a bulb released on the new headlights at the time. It's not meant to be a replacement for an old headlight unit. I could be wrong though.

As I understand there's a range of lumens for a (taken as example) H11 bulb. Do some of these upgrades push beyond this range?

@theory816 is this a legal concern vs a safety concern?

@ the rest (upgrade proponents) is this defined legally (which I assume it actually is)? I guess a way to refine this question is what defines the safer upper limit?

Im not sure on the exact legality, but the law does not want you to use anything but the exact same parts on headlights. It's also a safety concern because, again, everything becomes out of spec when you put in a bulb that is brighter or dimmer. When I used the 9005 bulbs, it was blinding everyone.

Phillips, for the longest time, did not offer certain types of bulbs replacements because of the technical issues stated above. They will release some that are a bit brighter or whiter but most of that is mostly marketing for them. They recently released an LED plug and play kit after a decade of engineering. They were losing a ton of money to the aftermarkets.

 

[turbodog]

As I understand there's a range of lumens for a (taken as example) H11 bulb. Do some of these upgrades push beyond this range?

@theory816 is this a legal concern vs a safety concern?

@ the rest (upgrade proponents) is this defined legally (which I assume it actually is)? I guess a way to refine this question is what defines the safer upper limit?

You don't want to be on the wrong side of either of these.

And legal concerns are _usually_ born out of safety/accident/death concerns. Practically all our vehicle laws are bathed in blood.

 

[John_Galt]

>With that, "maxing out" doesn't really make sense.

It makes complete sense in context. You are responding past what I am saying, not responding to it.

Exactly as I said, your comment about the innappropriateness of a replacement bulb that is higher intensity resulting in something resulting in patchy/unevenly distributed intensity is also wrong. An optically compatible filament that happens tp be higher in output will not change the intensity gradients in some portion of the beam, while not effecting others.

Again, as the case with a 9011 (higher flux) bulb replacing the older, much less efficient 9005 design.

The intensity of light above the horizontal cut off of the low beam in such a replacement will be higher. But as most lamps will not have been designed to max out the intensity allowed by law with the 9005 bulb, the slight bump that will result with a 9011 will likely still be within the legal limit.

A completely seperate issue is aim. A good bulb does not make up for misaim where the lamp is aimed too low, just as a low output/long life bulb will not make up for misaim that is too high. Poor aim is poor aim, and despite your previous comments it is absolutely not something that should be considered too complex for someone to be able to adjust on their own.

>Nothing can be backwards compatible.

Absolutely incorrect. 9011 and 9012 are designed to replace 9005 and 9006, because both of the latter bulbs are lpw performance bulbs. The bases (both locking rings and plugs) are compatible, the power consumption is compatible, the filament placement is compatible as is the filament size, and the filament still, shockingly, is greatest intensity at its center, which happens tp be the same point on space as the older bulb type.. The HIR1 and 2 are simply designed to be significantly more energy efficient, resulting in greater output for the same nominal power rating.

And speaking of ratings, the lumen spec and power ratings are just that: nominal. There is a significant +/- % allowable under the standard. A poor performing 9011 may only be minutely higher performing than a top-performing 9005. But you argue that such a substitution is completely beyond the pale.

>Phillips, for the longest time, did not offer certain types of bulbs replacements because of the technical issues stated above.

[Dr. Evil] RIIIIIIIIIGHT...[/Dr. Evil]

>They recently released an LED plug and play kit after a decade of engineering.

There are physical constraints with current two-sided reteofit bulbs that have not been overcome by Phillips. LED reteofots are just a marketing job to try and steal back some of the money they are losing to chinese trash that fails to meet any reasonable level of performance.

 

[theory816]

>With that, "maxing out" doesn't really make sense.

It makes complete sense in context. You are responding past what I am saying, not responding to it.

Exactly as I said, your comment about the innappropriateness of a replacement bulb that is higher intensity resulting in something resulting in patchy/unevenly distributed intensity is also wrong. An optically compatible filament that happens tp be higher in output will not change the intensity gradients in some portion of the beam, while not effecting others.

Again, as the case with a 9011 (higher flux) bulb replacing the older, much less efficient 9005 design.

The intensity of light above the horizontal cut off of the low beam in such a replacement will be higher. But as most lamps will not have been designed to max out the intensity allowed by law with the 9005 bulb, the slight bump that will result with a 9011 will likely still be within the legal limit.

A completely seperate issue is aim. A good bulb does not make up for misaim where the lamp is aimed too low, just as a low output/long life bulb will not make up for misaim that is too high. Poor aim is poor aim, and despite your previous comments it is absolutely not something that should be considered too complex for someone to be able to adjust on their own.

>Nothing can be backwards compatible.

Absolutely incorrect. 9011 and 9012 are designed to replace 9005 and 9006, because both of the latter bulbs are lpw performance bulbs. The bases (both locking rings and plugs) are compatible, the power consumption is compatible, the filament placement is compatible as is the filament size, and the filament still, shockingly, is greatest intensity at its center, which happens tp be the same point on space as the older bulb type.. The HIR1 and 2 are simply designed to be significantly more energy efficient, resulting in greater output for the same nominal power rating.

And speaking of ratings, the lumen spec and power ratings are just that: nominal. There is a significant +/- % allowable under the standard. A poor performing 9011 may only be minutely higher performing than a top-performing 9005. But you argue that such a substitution is completely beyond the pale.

>Phillips, for the longest time, did not offer certain types of bulbs replacements because of the technical issues stated above.

[Dr. Evil] RIIIIIIIIIGHT...[/Dr. Evil]

>They recently released an LED plug and play kit after a decade of engineering.

There are physical constraints with current two-sided reteofit bulbs that have not been overcome by Phillips. LED reteofots are just a marketing job to try and steal back some of the money they are losing to chinese trash that fails to meet any reasonable level of performance.

Let me put it this way using a metaphor:

When you purchase a shoe, you purchase one that fits your foot correctly. You don't buy one thats smaller or bigger. There is no leeway for room. Either it fits or it doesn't. Of course, you can stretch the shoe out but what would be the point of that? The shoe is bespoke to the foot.

The bulb is bespoke to the projector. There is no room for play. It can't go up or down several shoe sizes. This is the only "maximizing" of performance that is possible. Headlights are not dynamic. Shoes are not dynamic. They don't and can't change to different conditions.

As for uneven light distribution, either way, the light isn't in the pattern that was originally designed. Everything may look even but that may not have been the original design. Again, the shoe has to fit the foot.

 

[John_Galt]

Your username is appropriate, for pontificating from theory while actively ignoring reality.

Reality holds that there are several major bulb types that in certain (not all) circumstances are perfectly capable of replacing one another.


Your bespoke shoe analogy is off. Most shoes are not made to fit. You find something that fits reasonably well. Most shoes are not designed to the human anatomy, and most feet are crushed into compliance by poor shoes from within a few months of birth. Feet swell and change shape throughout the day, and as the shoe begins to be broken in, or in some cases the foot broken in to the shoe, the size and shape of the shoe will change. However, substituting a bulb which has the same base and filament placement within space, and does not fundamentally change where the intensity gradient is (as would be the case of installing an HID or LED retrofit, where the size, shape and placement of the lightsource can be close, but the light distribution, intensity etc is not capable of being anywhere near the same) is perfectly fine. The lamps function is not, actually, altered. Its intensity at various points within its beam pattern may be.


In a large number of H11 low beams, whether they are reflector or projector, an H9 may be an appropriate and suitable upgrade even over a performance H11 bulb. The major consideration for the average person thinking about it should be if the headlamp assembly incorporates a glare cap to shield oncoming traffic from the light coming out of the forward tip of the bulb capsule, as an H11 bulb is required to have a glare cap on the envelopes exterior, and the H9 is not, as it was initially intended to be a high beam bulb.

The same major considerations exist for the 9006 to 9012 swap.

The 9005 bulb does not incorporate a glare cap.

After bulb selection, attention should be paid to the aim of the lamp. Mis-aim is capable of being corrected by anyone who can find a relatively level parking lot with a building wall. Or use a portable screen, if thats easier. While this is not going to be as precise as using an optical beamsetter, it will at least reveal if your headlamps are badly mis-aimed vertically (and potentially horizontally, if checking after an accident or bodyshop repair).

And putting lipstick on a pig makes no sense in some circumstances. Good bulbs and corrected aim do not make up for damaged reflectors, lamps filled with visible pools of water, or lenses so hazed over you can't see through them.

>Headlights are not dynamic

Ooooohhhh man, do I have some news for you.

 

[theory816]

Your username is appropriate, for pontificating from theory while actively ignoring reality.

Reality holds that there are several major bulb types that in certain (not all) circumstances are perfectly capable of replacing one another.


Your bespoke shoe analogy is off. Most shoes are not made to fit. You find something that fits reasonably well. Most shoes are not designed to the human anatomy, and most feet are crushed into compliance by poor shoes from within a few months of birth. Feet swell and change shape throughout the day, and as the shoe begins to be broken in, or in some cases the foot broken in to the shoe, the size and shape of the shoe will change. However, substituting a bulb which has the same base and filament placement within space, and does not fundamentally change where the intensity gradient is (as would be the case of installing an HID or LED retrofit, where the size, shape and placement of the lightsource can be close, but the light distribution, intensity etc is not capable of being anywhere near the same) is perfectly fine. The lamps function is not, actually, altered. Its intensity at various points within its beam pattern may be.


In a large number of H11 low beams, whether they are reflector or projector, an H9 may be an appropriate and suitable upgrade even over a performance H11 bulb. The major consideration for the average person thinking about it should be if the headlamp assembly incorporates a glare cap to shield oncoming traffic from the light coming out of the forward tip of the bulb capsule, as an H11 bulb is required to have a glare cap on the envelopes exterior, and the H9 is not, as it was initially intended to be a high beam bulb.

The same major considerations exist for the 9006 to 9012 swap.

The 9005 bulb does not incorporate a glare cap.

After bulb selection, attention should be paid to the aim of the lamp. Mis-aim is capable of being corrected by anyone who can find a relatively level parking lot with a building wall. Or use a portable screen, if thats easier. While this is not going to be as precise as using an optical beamsetter, it will at least reveal if your headlamps are badly mis-aimed vertically (and potentially horizontally, if checking after an accident or bodyshop repair).

And putting lipstick on a pig makes no sense in some circumstances. Good bulbs and corrected aim do not make up for damaged reflectors, lamps filled with visible pools of water, or lenses so hazed over you can't see through them.

>Headlights are not dynamic

Ooooohhhh man, do I have some news for you.

The shoe metaphor's main message is that you buy a shoe that fits your foot. You don't buy something that doesn't fit. A shoe that would fit the best is one that has been tailored made, taking your foot's every measurement. That's exactly how headlights are designed and made. The projector(shoe) is tailored to the bulb(foot). There is no and, ifs, or butts about this.

Headlights simply can't have different bulbs with different performance. It's not interchangeable. Its not dynamic.

At the end of the day, its not the end of the world when people just replace the bulbs with something else and that's ok(if they don't want the best performance from their headlights and blind others)

 

[jzchen]

The 9011, 9012, 9005, 9006 has been covered here before…. As some people noted the difference is not large enough to be (easily) recognizable by the naked eye. To me that means it's an "upgrade" but hardly noticeable and I would like to set that aside…

I have had two different vehicles that take an H11 low beam bulb: 2013 Ford C-MAX (reflector, vehicle purchased new) and my current 2014 Scion iQ (projector, vehicle purchased used, found out after purchase there was headlight related accident damage). I came on here asking about an upgrade for both. Both times Virgil and Alaric were the moderators. H9 was not an option for the C-MAX but was/is an option for the iQ. To be honest I never upgraded the C-MAX because even though it was halogen vs the rest of the household HID/LED I was happy with the night lighting. I found upon wall aiming that the iQ's aim was off, it was not properly aimed after the accident.

Someone/Something is determining "what is safe" for one but not the other. I realize/knew beforehand that the law doesn't allow any type change, which is why the base is not the same in any two/needs modification. I know @EJR offered to check…

 

[jzchen]

I guess to sum things more simply:

The type law seems too restrictive.

The isoplot output seems definitive. (Did someone define these settings/limits)?

For example, I know that some of the HID lamp(s) on vehicles in the household at least dip downward depending on vehicle angle. (Curious as to why it was explained to prevent blinding others). Yet some others are fixed/do not move. (Somehow these don't blind others in the same way)? I'll try to give concrete example 2008 BMW 335xi (I believe this moves) and 2009 Mercedes C350 (early build, I believe this one is fixed/doesn't move). Both are HID…

 

[theory816]

I guess to sum things more simply:

The type law seems too restrictive.

The isoplot output seems definitive. (Did someone define these settings/limits)?

For example, I know that some of the HID lamp(s) on vehicles in the household at least dip downward depending on vehicle angle. (Curious as to why it was explained to prevent blinding others). Yet some others are fixed/do not move. (Somehow these don't blind others in the same way)? I'll try to give concrete example 2008 BMW 335xi (I believe this moves) and 2009 Mercedes C350 (early build, I believe this one is fixed/doesn't move). Both are HID…

Headlights are all created using software. It's very technical. They focus all the rays and create the projector around a specific bulb. That's why you can't use a different bulb because then everything will be out of spec. The headlights cannot adjust to the different bulb.

I'm confident to say that when people use a brighter or different bulb, its because they want something brighter or looks cooler. But this mentality should change. People should appreciate OEM because its well made. There's beauty in standards. And really halogen projectors are really good headlights. Halogen reflectors is different story though.

 

[turbodog]

Headlights are all created using software. It's very technical. They focus all the rays and create the projector around a specific bulb. That's why you can't use a different bulb because then everything will be out of spec. The headlights cannot adjust to the different bulb.

I'm confident to say that when people use a brighter or different bulb, its because they want something brighter or looks cooler. But this mentality should change. People should appreciate OEM because its well made. There's beauty in standards. And really halogen projectors are really good headlights. Halogen reflectors is different story though.

I've got a truck with a reflector that's chopped up into many small strips, and while the idea for this certainly came from a human, the angles, widths, focal points, etc were computer calculated.

They are great and I wouldn't dare change them.

Additionally... after being party to various lawsuits (plaintiff and defendant) you _really_ don't want to run illegal lights, bulbs, etc. That's gifting the plantiff's attorney an easy win.

 

[John_Galt]

Headlights are all created using software. It's very technical. They focus all the rays and create the projector around a specific bulb. That's why you can't use a different bulb because then everything will be out of spec. The headlights cannot adjust to the different bulb.

I'm confident to say that when people use a brighter or different bulb, its because they want something brighter or looks cooler. But this mentality should change. People should appreciate OEM because its well made. There's beauty in standards. And really halogen projectors are really good headlights. Halogen reflectors is different story though.

Lol-ing at your "appreciate the oems perfection" schtick. No, mowt headlamps are not well designed, they are designed to meet the bare minimum level of legal performance at a specific cost per unit. And anyone who has had a vehicle from the 90s to the early 00's can attest to this. IIHS testing of headlamp performance (and their tests are very flawed) has been helping to publicly flog Some oems into fitting above-minimum-compliance lamps on some models, and occassionally just specific trim levels.

Out here in "The Real World," it is recognized that there is still lots of ways, both borderline grey and pure-white legal to significantly increase safety and performance of many aspects of a vehicle. It's not just about looks.

It is a fact that most headlamps are borderline trash. Halogen lamps, and to a more limited extent the few remaining OEM HID systems are still capable of having some level of increase in performance eked out of them with bulbs that are legally compliant, manufactured by legitimate companies.

Your appeal to authority "oh my, it's vewy vewy TECHNICAL, and vewy vewy SCARY, <motor company> knew best, so be happy with poor headlamps" is tiring.

 

[theory816]

I've got a truck with a reflector that's chopped up into many small strips, and while the idea for this certainly came from a human, the angles, widths, focal points, etc were computer calculated.

They are great and I wouldn't dare change them.

Additionally... after being party to various lawsuits (plaintiff and defendant) you _really_ don't want to run illegal lights, bulbs, etc. That's gifting the plantiff's attorney an easy win.

Lol would you mind elaborating on the lawsuits? I've never heard such a thing over headlights unless you were a dealer of aftermarket parts.

 

[turbodog]

Lol would you mind elaborating on the lawsuits? I've never heard such a thing over headlights unless you were a dealer of aftermarket parts.

Lawsuits & settlements I've been party to were not headlight-related, but you better believe I learned a few things.

Headlights blind someone, causing a wreck. Investigation determines aftermarket, non-spec bulb/etc. You'd better settle...

Heck, if you are involved in a wreck at night, whether lights were a factor or not, you're fighting an uphill battle having already lost the case.

I would be curious to know if knowingly installing a non-dot or non-vehicle-approved bulb/reflector/assembly/etc would invalidate your insurance coverage in the event of a claim.

A good thing to ask yourself, legalities aside, if what would happen if everyone was driving around with the same overpowered, blue-light emitting headlights? If that doesn't sound like a safe environment for ALL drivers, not just those in peak physical condition, mental acuity, eyesight, and reaction time... then there's your answer.