Has anyone tried the new non-GE Bulbs?

Non-GE brand HIR 9012 and HIR 9011 bulbs are offered on e-bay for about
$30.00 a bulb. Has anyone given then a try yet? Do they work as well as the
expensive GE part?

Richard.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, it was written:

> Non-GE brand HIR 9012 and HIR 9011 bulbs are offered on e-bay for about
> $30.00 a bulb. Has anyone given then a try yet? Do they work as well as
> the expensive GE part?

For those who don't know what a 9011/9012 HIR is, see he
http://bmwz.org/articles/lighting/0506trick/

GE introduced the 9011 and 9012 (HIR1 and HIR2) bulbs in the late 1990s,
and discontinued them approximately 18 months ago, though they still
appear in the '03 GE catalogue. Several automakers got rather badly burned
on that product -- GE had a good idea, and they had the experience with
infrared-reflective technology from some of their architectural and
utility lighting, but the form factor they chose for their 9011 and 9012
was mechanically very fragile. It was a long, spindly glass tube with an
external support wire, looking very much like an automotive HID bulb. With
normal road vibrations, the bulb broke at the glass-to-base junction an
uncomfortably large percentage of the time, and all parties involved got
rather angry with one another. Hence the discontinuation.

There've been a few copycat Chinese/Korean products on the market from
IPF, Polarg, etc. -- as usual, not worth messing with. (There's fairly
strong evidence that GE's tooling for these bulbs was "back doored" to one
of the Asian companies).

The only current OE-certified manufacturer of 9011 and 9012 is Toshiba.
They do not have GE's fragile construction. They have the spherical bulb
glass with the infrared-reflective coating, but are otherwise practically
identical to 9005 and 9006 in all critical dimensions (with the obvious
exception of the one plastic base tab which is wider than on the 9005 and
9006, to prevent the use of these bulbs where 9005 and 9006 were
originally specified). The overall length of the Toshiba HIR1 and HIR2
bulbs is identical to 9005 and 9006, so there are none of the "Tough luck,
too long, won't fit" problems often encountered by headlamp manufacturers
with the discontinued GE product. Filament focus is MUCH better in the
Toshiba product than it ever was in the GE.

What are you considering putting these bulbs in? As the linked website
suggests, you can't safely just bung 'em into anything -- there are glare
factors to consider.

DS

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, it was written:

> Non-GE brand HIR 9012 and HIR 9011 bulbs are offered on e-bay for about
> $30.00 a bulb. Has anyone given then a try yet? Do they work as well as
> the expensive GE part?

For those who don't know what a 9011/9012 HIR is, see he
http://bmwz.org/articles/lighting/0506trick/

GE introduced the 9011 and 9012 (HIR1 and HIR2) bulbs in the late 1990s,
and discontinued them approximately 18 months ago, though they still
appear in the '03 GE catalogue. Several automakers got rather badly burned
on that product -- GE had a good idea, and they had the experience with
infrared-reflective technology from some of their architectural and
utility lighting, but the form factor they chose for their 9011 and 9012
was mechanically very fragile. It was a long, spindly glass tube with an
external support wire, looking very much like an automotive HID bulb. With
normal road vibrations, the bulb broke at the glass-to-base junction an
uncomfortably large percentage of the time, and all parties involved got
rather angry with one another. Hence the discontinuation.

There've been a few copycat Chinese/Korean products on the market from
IPF, Polarg, etc. -- as usual, not worth messing with. (There's fairly
strong evidence that GE's tooling for these bulbs was "back doored" to one
of the Asian companies).

The only current OE-certified manufacturer of 9011 and 9012 is Toshiba.
They do not have GE's fragile construction. They have the spherical bulb
glass with the infrared-reflective coating, but are otherwise practically
identical to 9005 and 9006 in all critical dimensions (with the obvious
exception of the one plastic base tab which is wider than on the 9005 and
9006, to prevent the use of these bulbs where 9005 and 9006 were
originally specified). The overall length of the Toshiba HIR1 and HIR2
bulbs is identical to 9005 and 9006, so there are none of the "Tough luck,
too long, won't fit" problems often encountered by headlamp manufacturers
with the discontinued GE product. Filament focus is MUCH better in the
Toshiba product than it ever was in the GE.

What are you considering putting these bulbs in? As the linked website
suggests, you can't safely just bung 'em into anything -- there are glare
factors to consider.

DS

I was thinking of putting the authorized bulbs in a 98 RAV4 and a PT
Cruiser. Both seem to have decent cut-off light beams that would not cause
excessive glare.

Richard.

I was thinking of putting the authorized bulbs in a 98 RAV4 and a PT
Cruiser. Both seem to have decent cut-off light beams that would not cause
excessive glare.

Richard.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, it was written:

> I was thinking of putting the authorized bulbs in a 98 RAV4 and a PT
> Cruiser. Both seem to have decent cut-off light beams that would not
> cause excessive glare.

Agree with you on the PT Cruiser -- not the RAV4 unless you aim the
headlamps to ECE specs,

http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/aim/aim.html

Send me an e-mail if you want help. tech at danielsternlighting dot com

DS

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, it was written:

> I was thinking of putting the authorized bulbs in a 98 RAV4 and a PT
> Cruiser. Both seem to have decent cut-off light beams that would not
> cause excessive glare.

Agree with you on the PT Cruiser -- not the RAV4 unless you aim the
headlamps to ECE specs,

http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/aim/aim.html

Send me an e-mail if you want help. tech at danielsternlighting dot com

DS

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, it was written:
>
>> I was thinking of putting the authorized bulbs in a 98 RAV4 and a PT
>> Cruiser. Both seem to have decent cut-off light beams that would not
>> cause excessive glare.
>
> Agree with you on the PT Cruiser -- not the RAV4 unless you aim the
> headlamps to ECE specs,
>
> http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/aim/aim.html
>
> Send me an e-mail if you want help. tech at danielsternlighting dot com
>
> DS

Did as you instructed and they are a superb improvement!

Richard.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, it was written:
>
>> I was thinking of putting the authorized bulbs in a 98 RAV4 and a PT
>> Cruiser. Both seem to have decent cut-off light beams that would not
>> cause excessive glare.
>
> Agree with you on the PT Cruiser -- not the RAV4 unless you aim the
> headlamps to ECE specs,
>
> http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/aim/aim.html
>
> Send me an e-mail if you want help. tech at danielsternlighting dot com
>
> DS

Did as you instructed and they are a superb improvement!

Richard.