08 JKU HID issue

[Bodo]

Hey gang

A buddy of mine just acquired a used JKU Saraha. The guy that originally had it had many modifications done that were removed before it was traded in.
We took it out for our first night time drive and I noticed that the headlights were not stock. They are definitely HID. I wasn't aware that they even came with HID, so I'm assuming that they are aftermarket.

The issue is that the "bright" function does not work. The low beams are fine, but no high beams. Is this usual for HID conversions?

Thanks for your time!

 

[Bodo]

80-something views and no comments?

 

[bob91yj]

HID's do not have a Hi/Lo filament in the same bulb. Vehicle's designed with HID's stock either have separate bulbs for the high beam, or a mechanical cover that covers/uncovers a portion of the bulb for hi/lo beam if using a single bulb.

 

[Rubicon_Fan]

I run 3 sets oh HID`s on my JK. I had similar issue with my High beams, the lights would flicker badly. The solution i found was to splice in a capacitor (Size 500)

Hope this helps.
BTW> This issue is well talked on JKF and JKO

 

[Bodo]

Thanks gang. Looks like the HID will be coming out and the stock bulbs will be going back in. I wonder if we can find a Hella or KC that takes the 9008 style bulbs?

 

[Hilldweller]

The HID kit in there is illegal.
Read this.

And I've fitted several legal lights to pre-2012 JKs. Read all about it HERE.

Short answer. If you want the best legal headlights, call Daniel Stern and get the Cibie kit.

The KC kit, IPF kit, and a few others are junk and/or illegal. The Hella kit is pretty good from Rallylights. Info obtained from JK-Forum is, ummmm, not to be trusted as factual. JK Owners tries hard but isn't up to speed yet. Look to JeepForum or WranglerForum for good advice.

 

[Viperpilot611]

The KC kit, IPF kit, and a few others are junk and/or illegal.

Whoa there... I know that in Texas the IPF kit is legal and in my humble opinion much better than stock. To determine the legality of the lighting in his state, he needs to look into the laws himself.

The Lift Laws website is a good starting reference point for which statues address lighting on vehicles (www.liftlaws.com/florida_lift_laws.htm) The statues are listed out beside them.

 

[Hilldweller]

Whoa there... I know that in Texas the IPF kit is legal and in my humble opinion much better than stock. To determine the legality of the lighting in his state, he needs to look into the laws himself.

Interesting first post for you.

The IPF kit has a cute little "E" in a circle to simulate the ECE markings that would show that it was tested and certified to meet European specs and would be therefore be legal here due to a UN resolution in 1956.
They didn't have it tested though, not to meet ECE regs, not to meet DOT regs. It isn't legal in most of the world.
Although lighting laws do vary state by state, each state must defer to the DOT on the laws unless they want to make them stricter, not more lax. Even Texas.

Look at the tests that I did. I measured the light output; it was terrible. It also scatters light willy-nilly and would blind both driver and oncomer in a foggy environment.
Trust me; they suck. Look through that thread I linked.

 

[Viperpilot611]

Interesting first post for you.

The IPF kit has a cute little "E" in a circle to simulate the ECE markings that would show that it was tested and certified to meet European specs and would be therefore be legal here due to a UN resolution in 1956.
They didn't have it tested though, not to meet ECE regs, not to meet DOT regs. It isn't legal in most of the world.
Although lighting laws do vary state by state, each state must defer to the DOT on the laws unless they want to make them stricter, not more lax. Even Texas.

Look at the tests that I did. I measured the light output; it was terrible. It also scatters light willy-nilly and would blind both driver and oncomer in a foggy environment.
Trust me; they suck. Look through that thread I linked.

Thanks, for noticing the first post. I have had to defend my IPF Headlights in court so I understand your point of view.

Long story short the judge ruled that (and mind you this only applies to Tarrant County TX), it is the manufacturer's responsibility to meet and certify to DOT standards not the vehicle owner. The owners responsibility is in installing components properly labelled as DOT compliant as my IPF replacements were at the time. But I just realized you are discussing HID not the H4 upgrades so my experience probably doesn't apply.

Could you please PM with your test data for the lights? I feel like there is something missing and would like to see for myself.

 

[Hilldweller]

Thanks, for noticing the first post. I have had to defend my IPF Headlights in court so I understand your point of view.

Long story short the judge ruled that (and mind you this only applies to Tarrant County TX), it is the manufacturer's responsibility to meet and certify to DOT standards not the vehicle owner. The owners responsibility is in installing components properly labelled as DOT compliant as my IPF replacements were at the time. But I just realized you are discussing HID not the H4 upgrades so my experience probably doesn't apply.

Could you please PM with your test data for the lights? I feel like there is something missing and would like to see for myself.

Their H4 kits are actually illegal too; the boxes read something like, "suitable for rally use and offroad". I've never seen one labeled that they meed DOT or SAE standards, just that they're drop-in H4 replacements.

I got to the IPFs by post #39 in this thread:
http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f96/headlight-shootout-1166827/index3.html

I already knew (more or less) what to expect from two industry insiders but wanted to see for myself; I still have the reflectors in my garage.
They have a bogus (counterfeit?) E in a circle to mimic the ECE stamp, no DOT or SAE markings, and don't even have a bulb shield.
Their performance really is terrible.
On the bright side (pun), they sure do look bright when you look at them. Unfocussed light will do that.

Your judge was correct, btw; it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to have their product tested by an independent lab on a goniometer to make sure the product meets regs.
If you have a set that was marked to meet the standards, it's either a different product than what they sell now or an outright lie. Either way, you're not liable.
But if a customer installs lights that they know are illegal, they can be held liable or, in some cases, culpably liable (civil and criminal penalties).

 

[Viperpilot611]

Their H4 kits are actually illegal too; the boxes read something like, "suitable for rally use and offroad". I've never seen one labeled that they meed DOT or SAE standards, just that they're drop-in H4 replacements.

I got to the IPFs by post #39 in this thread:
http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f96/headlight-shootout-1166827/index3.html

I already knew (more or less) what to expect from two industry insiders but wanted to see for myself; I still have the reflectors in my garage.
They have a bogus (counterfeit?) E in a circle to mimic the ECE stamp, no DOT or SAE markings, and don't even have a bulb shield.
Their performance really is terrible.
On the bright side (pun), they sure do look bright when you look at them. Unfocussed light will do that.

Your judge was correct, btw; it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to have their product tested by an independent lab on a goniometer to make sure the product meets regs.
If you have a set that was marked to meet the standards, it's either a different product than what they sell now or an outright lie. Either way, you're not liable.
But if a customer installs lights that they know are illegal, they can be held liable or, in some cases, culpably liable (civil and criminal penalties).

When I find my box, I'll snap a picture and send it to you. I bought these about a year ago from 4wheelparts. As for the fake E, yes, mine does have it.

As for unfocused light claim, mine appear to be focused quite well. They have a wider throw horizontally than the factory lights, but narrower on the vertical throw. I'll have to dig out my light meter from my theatre days to really check the amount of light at the different throw points.

 

[Hilldweller]

When I find my box, I'll snap a picture and send it to you. I bought these about a year ago from 4wheelparts. As for the fake E, yes, mine does have it.

As for unfocused light claim, mine appear to be focused quite well. They have a wider throw horizontally than the factory lights, but narrower on the vertical throw. I'll have to dig out my light meter from my theatre days to really check the amount of light at the different throw points.

H4s need a bulb shield too; does it have one? Any other markings in the glass besides the E and the company name?

Interesting if the box says that it conforms to anything; I wonder if 4WheelParts did it or IPF...

Thanks, btw. I work in a support industry and automotive lights are a passion.

 

[Viperpilot611]

H4s need a bulb shield too; does it have one? Any other markings in the glass besides the E and the company name?

Interesting if the box says that it conforms to anything; I wonder if 4WheelParts did it or IPF...

Thanks, btw. I work in a support industry and automotive lights are a passion.

Yes, the bulb has a shield. No other markings on the glass besides model number. My wife just told me she tossed the box. We are getting ready to move to a new state (Massachusetts).

I do know that these were drop shipped from ARB so I doubt 4WheelParts did anything. No worries, I've learned a few things. Thanks for the good info.

 

[Hilldweller]

Yes, the bulb has a shield. No other markings on the glass besides model number.

Interesting. Different than what is sold now then.
Still not technically legal but not the same for sure.

I'd put in some Hellas or Cibies before driving through Virginia though; they're tough on headlight regs.

Have fun in Mass.