On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:27:06 -0600, "WindsorFox<SS>"
> wrote:

>On 12/31/2012 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 4:50 pm, Justin > wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2012 10:53 AM, nofingers wrote:
>>>>>> I don't like these beady little lights they now use in higher-end
>>>>>> cars. They create an off-proportioned look to cars that rows of
>>>>>> accessory LED's don't make up for.
>>>
>>>>> Thanks? I think.
>>>
>>>> I heard some of these headlights cost $500 apiece, and have an electronic
>>>> module on them.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>> I don't have a problem spending money on something that is of good
>>> quality and produces a better result.
>>> I've been driving with Xenon/HID
>>
>> Unless you are a country bumpkin, you don't need the output they
>> produce. Cities are well-lit. The only good thing is the colour
>> temperature, bluer than the yellow of the old lights.
>>
>
>
> That is 200% incorrect. HID lights are *much* brighter and that
>helps you see better no matter where you are and they use a lot less
>power. Regular low bean halogen is 55 watts, HIDs are 35 watts. As
>someone who has used conversions and owned cars that came with HID
>lights, IMO they are worth the upgrade other peoples MMV according to
>the cost and what they are willing to spend.

A lot of the HID's seem to only be for the low beam. High beam is
same old halogen. Many of teh HIDs are extremely glaring to oncoming
drivers.