What I found on the shelf today in a major auto parts store

[-Virgil-]

Yes, it's important to be careful to understand and apply those tests to what they can do, not make the leap to what they can't do. The last line of the link, after the description of how to evaluate the performance of non-specified bulb type retrofits: None of this is sufficient to say for sure that the test bulb is good enough, but it's enough to reject the test bulb if it's bad enough. That's an important difference.

I went ahead and did some tests this morning and went back to the OE spec bulbs for the stop lights only

That is a wise move. I am guessing you saw big deficiencies in the LED bulbs in terms of the amount and distribution of light and the bright/dim difference. Did you also do the tests on the front turn signals?

The high mount stop is OEM and LED but that is different.

Very different, yes; that lamp was designed and built as an LED device from the start.

 

[merlinx454]

You are correct, without proper instrumentation which is not widely available to the main stream public (vehicle owners, law enforcement, insurance companies, lawyers) it is impossible to accurately determine if it meets or exceeds the industry standards. The average person needs to understand that there is risk in modifying any aspect of a vehicle and the vehicle owner or installer holds the liability on that risk. I evaluated and accepted that risk. I also determined that I was unwilling to accept the risk based on the low performance of the front LED lights I purchased. With that said, I would be interested to see what the legal community has established on this.

As far as " 'observations', but not necessarily correct ones" I am willing to take that risk. Quite frankly you have no claim to whether my evaluation or observation was correct or incorrect as you did not test or observe my tests. You simply assume that I accepted the lesser of two failures. This could not be farther from accurate as each set was an individual test separated by months. Additionally, each LED bulb was evaluated against a new incandescent bulb installed in the car.

 

[Mr. Nobody]

Yes, it's important to be careful to understand and apply those tests to what they can do, not make the leap to what they can't do. The last line of the link, after the description of how to evaluate the performance of non-specified bulb type retrofits: None of this is sufficient to say for sure that the test bulb is good enough, but it's enough to reject the test bulb if it's bad enough. That's an important difference.



That is a wise move. I am guessing you saw big deficiencies in the LED bulbs in terms of the amount and distribution of light and the bright/dim difference. Did you also do the tests on the front turn signals?



Very different, yes; that lamp was designed and built as an LED device from the start.

No on the front turn signals because there clear signals and am using 360° LED bulbs. Those I tested side by side years ago before installing. The only noticed differences is the standerd 3157 is not as bright as the orange LED. Flash is the same and all viewing angle° are the same

 

[Alaric Darconville]

As far as " 'observations', but not necessarily correct ones" I am willing to take that risk.

I'm not. My friends and family are not. The public at large are not. You're not just taking that risk for yourself, you're taking that risk for your passengers and for anyone who happens to be on the same road with you that need your vehicle lamps to perform correctly.

Quite frankly you have no claim to whether my evaluation or observation was correct or incorrect as you did not test or observe my tests. You simply assume that I accepted the lesser of two failures.

You have no claim to whether your observation was correct or incorrect because it was by your eyes, not photometrical instrumentation.

This could not be farther from accurate as each set was an individual test separated by months. Additionally, each LED bulb was evaluated against a new incandescent bulb installed in the car.

Subjective "test", not an objective, instrumented test.

 

[-Virgil-]

I am willing to take that risk.

You're not just taking that risk for yourself, you're taking that risk for your passengers and for anyone who happens to be on the same road with you that need your vehicle lamps to perform correctly.

That is the big, important difference between modding flashlights or changing bulbs in your living room, and changing the lighting equipment on your car. If your flashlight modification doesn't work out or your new living room lights make it harder to read books...oh well, all you've lost is time and money. If things go truly wrong and your modded flashlight or your homemade living room lights catch fire, it's your hand or your house that suffers.

If you change your car's lights in a way that negatively affects their performance, you're not the only one put at increased risk of a crash, that increased risk is thrown on everyone else on the road who's relying on your car's lights to work the way they're supposed to. You personally may be comfortable accepting extra risk, but that's not a decision anyone is entitled to make for anyone else. That's why we have technical regulations to guarantee all car lights give at least a certain level of safety performance and operate in a standard fashion to convey their message clearly and unambiguously.

The parts that are really difficult for some people to swallow are that the technical requirements for every car lighting function are not simple or intuitive or easy to understand, and that the safety performance of a lamp can't be evaluated subjectively (looking at it and giving it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down), but only objectively (under controlled conditions in a test lab with appropriate measuring equipment). Unfortunately, these two facts remain true even for those who don't understand (and don't want to understand) the requirements and can't or won't pay for the testing.

 

[AnAppleSnail]

Sylvania finally made the "Off-Road Use Only" words bigger this month. Still not legal for an 1156, but they won't mind when people waste their money.

photo

Edit: can't resize the photo on my phone...

 

[smokeshow]

First off, let me say...

I am a newb to a lot of this, which is why I came to this forum to learn. And more specifically why I clicked on this thread, to learn more!

In my experience, this kind of product does a very good job of relieving excessive emptiness in trash cans.

Great quote! Err... words actually, now that I think about it, since I am the one who is quoting it.

Except it's a nonexistent loophole. "Off road use only" is legally meaningless. Such a claim or label does exactly nothing to change the seller's and installer's legal responsibilities and liabilities. If a regulated piece of vehicle equipment is physically capable of being installed in an on-road vehicle, the equipment must comply with applicable regulations (even if the equipment also fits in off-road vehicles).

If someone hand-made something for that show vehicle, it'd be one thing, but these are items manufactured and introduced into interstate commerce that render the regulated vehicle equipment inoperative. It's not about the car/agricultural equipment/living room the items are going into, it's about the items fitting into the regulated motor vehicle equipment.

And they're buying products which are illegal per se. No, not "to each his own"; that's just an outlaw attitude that can get people hurt or killed. It's a form of bullying when someone installs equipment that can cause excessive glare, or ruin the performance of a lamp, as if their desire to "look cool" or "see better" (despite that not being the case) is more important than their own safety and the safety of others.

I quoted two sources here because I feel that they are somewhat related.

Believe it or not, not all vehicles sold in the US are used in/on "DOT" roads/highways/interstates. Those vehicles would not be held to the same regulations on usage or standards. For instance, we have "off road" diesel that is widely sold. We have race fuel that is also widely sold. Does it mean that these are not used on public roadways. NO.

There is also, the whole car show/club scene. Where some vehicles are modded to the point where some of them are not even capable of being driven. Most of these have little to do with or care for any shape or form of rules or regulations.

Unfortunately, the general public is just that, the general public. Naïve and ignorant. You can't stop stupid. But you can fine them... if they use non-dot approved items. However, the places that sell these items should have some sort of criteria for limiting sales. Like for instance, race fuel that is sold general is only allowed to be put into containers and not directly into vehicles. Or off road diesel usually gets put into large tanks to be distributed later, usually into farm equipment or things of such nature.

There is no way for the store selling lights to currently know which vehicle or vehicles you are planning to install this on. If you had to give a VIN number or Proof of insurance. I'd imagine sales would drastically drop. As long as there is a way to make money off of ignorant people, companies are going to continue to do so. Does that make it illegal? No. Immoral? Yes... But seldom does business and morals mix.

You should still remove the "LED bulbs" you put in, because they are increasing your risk of being in a crash. Your brake lights and turn signals don't (can't) work properly with them. It's great that you haven't been in a crash so far, but that doesn't mean your lights are safe. Think about what you're saying: it is basically the same as "I don't need a seatbelt! I've been driving for 45 years and never wore a seatbelt and I'm still alive and in one piece!" or "Smoking isn't hazardous to health! I've been smoking since age 14, and I'm 66 now, and I don't have cancer or emphysema!". There are vehicles on the road that have managed (so far) not to get hit despite having defective lights that don't work at all, but that doesn't mean brake lights are optional and it's equally as safe to have them as to not have them.

Try an experiment: put the factory-specified filament bulbs back in the brake lights on one side of the truck, then do the comparisons described in post #6 of this thread here. You will likely quickly see what the big deal is.

Slightly off topic,

But the seatbelt argument for me is a moot point. I do think that wearing your seatbelt 95% of the time is a great thing. There are instances where not wearing your seatbelt would be better for you. I wear my seatbelt. But I don't think that the government should tell me to do so. If I choose not to wear my seatbelt, whom am I hurting? That being said, I still suggest you wear it. Just don't like big brother getting involved in things that he shouldn't. The smoking topic, well... it can be harmful to others, so I will side with you on this one. But as a whole I feel that they are degrading themselves.

That's a good idea, in case you might accidentally learn something you didn't know before...! ;-)

I actually did learn quite a bit from this thread. You do have quite a few good points. Mainly, I learned that I need to keep reading more posts. My ignorance amuses me...


Sorry for the long post, I didn't have time to make a short one...

 

[-Virgil-]

I am a newb to a lot of this, which is why I came to this forum to learn.

Welcome to the weird world of automotive lighting.

Believe it or not, not all vehicles sold in the US are used in/on "DOT" roads/highways/interstates.

True. That's not news.

Those vehicles would not be held to the same regulations on usage or standards.

That is also true. However, it doesn't change the fact that items of regulated vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable regulations if they are physically capable of being installed in vehicles subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It doesn't change anything that some of these items of equipment can also be used in vehicles that aren't subject to the FMVSS. It doesn't matter if I'm buying an 1157 bulb for my (unregulated) '57 Chevrolet or for my (regulated) '77 Buick. This was already pointed out further up the thread; I'm not sure if you overlooked it or simply disagree with it (which also doesn't matter; it remains fact no matter who doesn't believe in it). For one example of how this is applied, see this petition to NHTSA, this followup letter, and NHTSA's response to both requests.

For instance, we have "off road" diesel that is widely sold.

Not analogous. Totally different regulatory structure for totally different material. There are controls in place, though; the penalty for using industrial/agricultural motor fuel in a roadgoing vehicle is usually quite severe, because it is tax evasion.

We have race fuel that is also widely sold.

...which falls into two categories: road-legal (unleaded and oxygenated -- some ordinary gas stations have this) and not road-legal (leaded). The leaded stuff is very difficult to get hold of, and both varieties are extremely expensive. Nobody's sneaking race gas into the tank of a car they drive with any regularity on public roads, not at $9+ per gallon. Nobody's doing it with 100LL leaded airplane fuel, either; not for many years -- that used to be a thing with owners of high-compression old cars, or racers looking to spend less than racetrack prices for fuel, but a valid airplane tail number has been required to purchase aviation gasoline for at least 15 years. The monitoring is stringent and the penalties are fierce.

But please let's not get sidetracked by the fuel situation which really has nothing to do with vehicle equipment.

There is also, the whole car show/club scene. Where some vehicles are modded to the point where some of them are not even capable of being driven. Most of these have little to do with or care for any shape or form of rules or regulations.

Sure, so that's a self-solving problem: vehicles modded so extensively they cannot be registered or driven aren't causing safety hazards on public roadways.

Unfortunately, the general public is just that, the general public. Naïve and ignorant. You can't stop stupid.

Unfortunately, you're right. All you can do is limit the danger stupid and ignorant people can inflict on others.

you can fine them... if they use non-dot approved items.

There is no such thing as a "DOT approved item". Our regulations in North America do not work on an approval basis.

However, the places that sell these items should have some sort of criteria for limiting sales.

Unfortunately, while noncompliant equipment is illegal to import, introduce into interstate commerce, sell, or (for regulated parties to) install in a vehicle, lots of it gets into the country. It's very easy to buy. Enforcement is up to the individual states, and mostly they don't enforce. Most of their vehicle equipment codes are an outdated, moth-eaten mess. In most states, vehicle roadworthiness inspections (or meaningful ones) are a thing of the past.

Like for instance, race fuel that is sold general is only allowed to be put into containers and not directly into vehicles.

Right...that's a practical measure to help keep off-road fuel out of on-road vehicles. What would you propose by analogy for car lights?

There is no way for the store selling lights to currently know which vehicle or vehicles you are planning to install this on. If you had to give a VIN number or Proof of insurance. I'd imagine sales would drastically drop.

I don't think sales would drop. Everyone who has an (imaginary) off-road-only vehicle also has a (real) registered one. Oh, these bulbs? They're for my '58 VW-based dune buggy I built. Here's the VIN." You really think some shmoe behind the counter of AutoZone is going to care or know enough to say "Wait a sec, these bulbs are 7443s, those won't fit any light installed on a '58 VW, but they WILL fit that '07 Subaru you drove up in! Aha! I caught you! No bulbs for you!"

I wear my seatbelt. But I don't think that the government should tell me to do so. If I choose not to wear my seatbelt, whom am I hurting?

You are endangering everyone around you. Belted drivers usually remain conscious and positioned to control the car after a first collision, so there isn't a second or a third or a fourth. Unbelted drivers usually don't. That's not conjecture, either; this is known and very well documented. It's not about lights, so we won't be debating it here, please and thank you, but the "I'm only hurting myself" argument, while (decreasingly) popular, is based on ignorance.

Sorry for the long post, I didn't have time to make a short one...

Blaise Pascal lives!

 

[smokeshow]

Welcome to the weird world of automotive lighting.

True. That's not news.

Thanks for the welcome!

That is also true. However, it doesn't change the fact that items of regulated vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable regulations if they are physically capable of being installed in vehicles subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It doesn't change anything that some of these items of equipment can also be used in vehicles that aren't subject to the FMVSS. It doesn't matter if I'm buying an 1157 bulb for my (unregulated) '57 Chevrolet or for my (regulated) '77 Buick. This was already pointed out further up the thread; I'm not sure if you overlooked it or simply disagree with it (which also doesn't matter; it remains fact no matter who doesn't believe in it). For one example of how this is applied, see this petition to NHTSA, this followup letter, and NHTSA's response to both requests.

I think we are looking at different viewpoint of this. But I understand what you are getting at.

...which falls into two categories: road-legal (unleaded and oxygenated -- some ordinary gas stations have this) and not road-legal (leaded). The leaded stuff is very difficult to get hold of, and both varieties are extremely expensive. Nobody's sneaking race gas into the tank of a car they drive with any regularity on public roads, not at $9+ per gallon. Nobody's doing it with 100LL leaded airplane fuel, either; not for many years -- that used to be a thing with owners of high-compression old cars, or racers looking to spend less than racetrack prices for fuel, but a valid airplane tail number has been required to purchase aviation gasoline for at least 15 years. The monitoring is stringent and the penalties are fierce.

But please let's not get sidetracked by the fuel situation which really has nothing to do with vehicle equipment.

Actually, in a way it does. The properly use higher octane in your vehicle, your vehicle would need to be properly equiped. But yes, we have chased the white rabbit on this...

Sure, so that's a self-solving problem: vehicles modded so extensively they cannot be registered or driven aren't causing safety hazards on public roadways.

I disagree. Do you really think that just because something is "illegal" people won't do it? I think you know that answer already.

Unfortunately, you're right. All you can do is limit the danger stupid and ignorant people can inflict on others.

There is no such thing as a "DOT approved item". Our regulations in North America do not work on an approval basis.

Unfortunately, while noncompliant equipment is illegal to import, introduce into interstate commerce, sell, or (for regulated parties to) install in a vehicle, lots of it gets into the country. It's very easy to buy. Enforcement is up to the individual states, and mostly they don't enforce. Most of their vehicle equipment codes are an outdated, moth-eaten mess. In most states, vehicle roadworthiness inspections (or meaningful ones) are a thing of the past.

Right...that's a practical measure to help keep off-road fuel out of on-road vehicles. What would you propose by analogy for car lights?

I don't think sales would drop. Everyone who has an (imaginary) off-road-only vehicle also has a (real) registered one. Oh, these bulbs? They're for my '58 VW-based dune buggy I built. Here's the VIN." You really think some shmoe behind the counter of AutoZone is going to care or know enough to say "Wait a sec, these bulbs are 7443s, those won't fit any light installed on a '58 VW, but they WILL fit that '07 Subaru you drove up in! Aha! I caught you! No bulbs for you!"

Really, that is how its done at every pump that I've been at that dispenses either one of those products. For car lights... I don't have an answer. I gave what little suggestions I had earlier. And as with any rules or laws, they are only as good as those who enforce them. Other than that, I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to shed anymore "light".

You are endangering everyone around you. Belted drivers usually remain conscious and positioned to control the car after a first collision, so there isn't a second or a third or a fourth. Unbelted drivers usually don't. That's not conjecture, either; this is known and very well documented. It's not about lights, so we won't be debating it here, please and thank you, but the "I'm only hurting myself" argument, while (decreasingly) popular, is based on ignorance.

I agree with you on that data. But I'm on the side of, "why aren't we avoiding the accident in the first place?" To which my seatbelt has 0 relevance. Now, if it was a 5 point harness, in a bolstered seat. I could see a potential argument there for wearing it would potentially change my ability to avoid an accident. But again, that stupid rabbit showed up...

 

[haha1234]

Why does no one carry Phillips, Osram, etc?

Kmart/Sears and Pep Boys carry Philips.

Napa's bulbs are Wagner, but they're worse than Sylvania, and mostly Chinese.

A nearby independent auto parts store sold GE, but the store has since closed.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

I disagree. Do you really think that just because something is "illegal" people won't do it? I think you know that answer already.

For example, baiting posts are against our forum rules, but people make them anyway. And yes, we know people will do something despite its legal status, or despite it being against the rules, but the laws and rules exist so that there are penalties for those violations.

But I'm on the side of, "why aren't we avoiding the accident in the first place?" To which my seatbelt has 0 relevance. Now, if it was a 5 point harness, in a bolstered seat. I could see a potential argument there for wearing it would potentially change my ability to avoid an accident.

Because accidents aren't 100% unpreventable. Because someone else may be intentionally taking risks, even if you're driving extremely carefully. You might have an equipment failure, causing you to temporarily lose control of the vehicle, and any potential to regain control could be lost if you weren't properly secured.

I'm careful with open flame in my house, but I still have smoke alarms.

If I choose not to wear my seatbelt, whom (sic) am I hurting?

You're hurting your friends and family by getting killed or badly injured. You're hurting first-responders who have to deal with the mess.

Your request to play "Devil's Advocate" is declined. Kindly return to the real topic at hand and leave the pseudophilosophical discussion out of it.

 

[lespaul1021]

A few days ago at autozone I had purchased a pair of sylvania zevo 7443 led lampa for the tail/ brake lights on my car when I was replacing a different burnt out bulb in the taillights. I figured they would last longer and being a bit brighter would only increase safety. I installed them and the nexf day noticed my radio cutting out every time I hit the brakes. Naturally I hypothesized the leds were to blame as they weee the only new variable. I searched online to see if anyone else had experienced any em interference using these bulbs at which point I came across this thread. Only at this point after re-examining the package did I see they were labled "for off-road use only". Also on reading this thread I put one of the oem bulbs back in and compared the two sides I found the led bulbs in fact were noticeably dimmer in the brakelights and there was almost no discernible difference between the hi and low output settings so if it werent for the third brake light no one would know I was braking at night. I reinstalled the oem bulbs and confirmed it was the leds causing the interference with my radio. I found this whole thing very disconcerting and am grateful to this forum for the valuable information it provided.

 

[-Virgil-]

lespaul1021, welcome to this forum and thank you for sharing your experience. You did as many, many consumers will do: see the new product, not see (or ignore) the disingenuous "off-road use only" label on the package, and install them. But UNlike most people who do so, you actually paid attention to how they worked (didn't work). Kudos!

 

[MtGoat]

I just found this thread and am confused.
I was looking at Auto Zone for a replacement for my front passenger turn signal bulb 4157NA.
The clerk recommended that I consider a Zevo 3157A (I assume amber colored bulb as my lense is clear).
I decided to do some research to see if I wanted to invest $22 but gain the reliability that LED's are supposed to offer.

Judging from this post the Zevo 3157 may not be legal for turn signal use?

If not what bulbs are recommended?
To date I found GE ($9.99 a pair) and Sylvania ($5.99 a pair or $21.99 for the LED).
We don't have Pep Boys in Idaho.

Thank you in advance.

Pat

 

[-Virgil-]

MtGoat, welcome to the forum here. Don't blame yourself for being confused -- the situation is even more confusing now than it was when this thread got started. Now we have to muck through the confusion of there being such a thing as an LED bulb retrofit that actually does work effectively and safely...in some lamps...on some cars. So first you have to weed out all the junk to arrive at the two legitimate brands, Sylvania and Philips. Then you have to keep weeding; Sylvania has two different lines of LED bulbs: the ones just branded "Sylvania" and the ones branded "Sylvania Zevo". The plain "Sylvania" ones are not worth looking at, they are intended to compete favorably with the huge amount of garbage all over the market and internet, but that's a low bar. The ones branded "Zevo" are the ones to consider if they're the type with the white body that has a sort of "Y" shape in side profile. If they're the older "Zevo" ones with the milk-white round plastic dome, they're unsafe junk.

The Y-shaped ones work well in some lamps on some cars. Which ones? That information is not available. Philips publishes an (incomplete) list of the vehicles and applications their own two lines of LED bulbs work effectively in. Sylvania doesn't publish any such list. They put "Off Road/Interior Use Only" on the packages, which is a load of baloney and everyone knows it...there is no such thing as a vehicle that uses 3157A for interior lighting, and "Off road use only" has no legal meaning or weight. One thing is for sure, if you install LEDs in place of filament bulbs, the turn signals won't flash at their correct rate. Depending on what kind of vehicle you have, you'd either need to change the turn signal flasher to a non-load-sensitive type or add "load resistors" (which Sylvania offers on the shelf of O'Reilly's and probably Auto Zone...for "off road use only", of course). It's very debatable whether cutting wires and splicing in resistors cancels out any reliability benefit from LEDs -- which is not actually a reliability benefit, it's a lifespan benefit. If you want to try out the LEDs and see if you can determine if they work adequately in your application, read this post.

But for most people and most applications, the least-hassle, least-risk path is to use the specified kind (incandescent) of the specified type (4157A or 4157NA) of bulb, and move on with life.

 

[LeoTheLion89]

The Zevo Y shaped ones are the ones I was talking about. if they work in "some" cars.... how do i know if my cars are one of them? do these Zevo LEDs require load resistors to deal with hyperflash issues? looking for a decent pair of LED bulbs for the taillights of the Impala. Is there any decent 921 LEDs designed for use in Reverse Lights? I believe Philips makes some IIRC.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

The Zevo Y shaped ones are the ones I was talking about. if they work in "some" cars.... how do i know if my cars are one of them?

You pretty much don't. You can try to look and see if they're terribly deficient, following the information in this post (which, incidentally, was within the giant wall-of-text quote that I edited out of your above post), but only photometric testing would tell you for sure.

Please, read the post you are about to quote-- it may well answer the questions you have.

 

[LeoTheLion89]

You pretty much don't. You can try to look and see if they're terribly deficient, following the information in this post (which, incidentally, was within the giant wall-of-text quote that I edited out of your above post), but only photometric testing would tell you for sure. Please, read the post you are about to quote-- it may well answer the questions you have.

Thanks! i'll read it after work!

 

[DenCon]

The Zevo "Y" lamps are definitely bright (1156 too bright for running lights), but you have to test to be sure. They didn't play well with my '96 Saab 9000.

 

[RI Chevy]

I own a 2006 Chevy Silverado pickup. One of my day time running lights burned out. I ended up having to replace the sockets as well, due to them being burned inside. I wanted something that ran a little cooler, as to avoid this issue in the future. I installed a set of the SYLVANIA ZEVO LED 4114C bulbs in my DRL. They work well and run cool. Hopefully they will last forever. They are very cold white. It states 6000K on the package, and they are every bit of that. The bulbs were pretty heavy, so I am guessing that they have a decent heat sink built in to the bulb. The bulbs do not provide any throw, but they do provide a decent amount of flood.