|02-22-2015 06:28 PM|
Ok read about a billion threads but I have a question
I'm getting stock retro fits with morimoto projectors and ballasts from the www.lightingfirm.net. For $370 it's not worth it for me to mess with it.
They send out canbus harness as it works for many cars. If it doesn't they will ship the harness with resistors.
Canbus looks slick. Pretty much plug and play. But if they don't work here is my question. Can I use the canbus harness since its plug and play but then modify the car with FoCCCus so it sees I have alternate hid lights? Or does it have to have a harness and use the FoCCCus? Basically anytning in the canbus harness that will mess with the system that I can't use them both together?
Also, if I do the foccus app thing Id follow this post as it seems to be great
But I don't understand the who entering the strategy codes. Why do we have to do that and why do some get errors?
|02-09-2015 08:09 AM|
|02-09-2015 08:03 AM|
I'm retroing bi-xenon projectors into my car, and will be using the projectors as well as the stock halogen highs. Quad highbeams of death!
|02-08-2015 06:30 PM|
|tnygigles66||I might be OCD when it comes to my car......|
|02-08-2015 06:30 PM|
I've done my research. They aren't for HID's, but since I already have all the wiring I'll add HID's to see how they look and the beam pattern. I'll post pictures. I might run them for a little while and see if I have any issues.
I just didn't like the HID bulbs in the stock housing because they didn't look like they belong there. We'll see what they look like in the projectors. The high beam is an H1 which is hard to retro with an HId bulb so I'll probably keep them halogen as I don't like have an HID low beam with a halogen high beam.
|02-08-2015 06:23 PM|
|02-03-2015 06:24 PM|
|TheHumbleGeek||My apologies Roger... I should have walked away earlier, but as they say, hindsight is 20/20...|
|02-03-2015 06:17 PM|
Edited to remove most of the argument, while still leaving the start & most pertinent information.
Often all it takes to avoid a typical argument is to take a response at face value, rather than assuming a motive behind it.
"Stupid question, but..." is often used to put a question while attempting to avoid a possible misunderstanding. Didn't work here, and the "debate" became too argumentative. ALL points could have been made without that.
|02-03-2015 10:39 AM|
Yup - Time to quit the arguing for sure.
tnygiggles - there was no reason to take such offense that you needed to make this an argument.
One example of a "better" response that would have avoided this is "I'm putting them in for now to test the actual cutoff & scatter for myself".
THAT would lead to useful discussion, even if much of it has been posted before it COULD be brought up again.
The cutoff pictures you posted show good results, the problem is with "scatter" - excess light going where it shouldn't to annoy or even make vision difficult for oncoming drivers. Much more difficult to post a good test on that problem.
To my eye, there's some lack of understanding of that, and of proper beam patterns for the high beams. High beams do NOT use a flat cutoff like low beams, your major complaint about the high beam results it appears.
I've no time now for a careful edit, and I'm not going to remove the whole argument entire at this time. Think about putting this back on track, or just leave it alone for now.
|02-03-2015 08:14 AM|
|RAF_S197||Now I know why the tittle of the tread says no arguing lol|
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|