View Single Post
Old 07-23-2016, 01:09 AM   #164 (permalink)
NoD~
Master EcoModder
 
NoD~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 469

Frogger - '00 Honda Insight Gas Only (unHybrid)
90 day: 68.51 mpg (US)
Thanks: 13
Thanked 247 Times in 133 Posts
Here's the headlights compared...



Installation is pretty easy. The ring comes out so you can install that first, then the rest of the light.





I could just BARELY get the light on with the rubber protective boot on, but it tore my hands up and completely covered the cooling system, so I opted to do some trimming...



And here they are, installed.



As for performance, they are very bright. Far brighter than stock. The big down side is that they do splash up more. Note that I made NO adjustments after installing, so I'll play around with that soon.

Anywho, driver's side is LED, passenger is stock.

Close to garage...



A bit aways...



And brights...



Driving around, yeah... it's bright. Details in the immediate road are very improved. Signs 1/4 mile away reflect like never before. I didn't drive around so much as to test out other driver's vision VS my new lights, but I'll get them adjusted a bit soon and do some more testing.

My biggest complaint? Fans. Why couldn't they do a braided heatsink or something else? They barely move any air, they make noise (not loud enough to hear from in the car, but still), and they are prone to die sooner than later.

Consumption wise, they consume 21.5/35 watts, where the factory lamps are 55/60 watts (low beam/high beam). So yeah, that's less than half the power on the low beams, where I use them 99% of the time.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	20160722_200320.jpg
Views:	73
Size:	38.0 KB
ID:	26074   Click image for larger version

Name:	20160722_200341.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	35.1 KB
ID:	26075   Click image for larger version

Name:	20160722_200405.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	46.9 KB
ID:	26076   Click image for larger version

Name:	20160722_200422.jpg
Views:	82
Size:	54.6 KB
ID:	26077   Click image for larger version

Name:	20160722_201722.jpg
Views:	77
Size:	38.7 KB
ID:	26078  

Click image for larger version

Name:	20160722_201420.jpg
Views:	77
Size:	39.1 KB
ID:	26079   Click image for larger version

Name:	20160722_043600.jpg
Views:	74
Size:	28.4 KB
ID:	26080   Click image for larger version

Name:	20160722_043708.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	30.7 KB
ID:	26081   Click image for larger version

Name:	20160722_043718.jpg
Views:	83
Size:	26.1 KB
ID:	26082  

Last edited by NoD~; 05-29-2019 at 10:30 AM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NoD~ For This Useful Post:
Joggernot (07-23-2016), Natalya (07-23-2016), WD40 (07-25-2016)