 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Help LED headlamps |
 
|
|
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17342   
|
I don't know if they are any good or not, but I would make two observations:
1. They are very cheap to be good and legal (i.e., type-approved) lights, and 2. Not a single photo I can find online shows anything to suggest that they are actually DOT approved and legally E marked. There are pictures showing the marking "DOT SAE (E)" but these have no legal significance without a whole host of other markings. My suspicion is that these are not DOT approved and have no type approval, and that someone without scruple in the far east has simply put the "DOT SAE (E)" marking, in itself meaningless (but not actually illegal to put on the lens), on the product and is now passing them off as legal units. This is of course illegal. Before buying them I would ask your supplier to provide the full approval mark (see below) which legally must be visible on the lens of the unit. If the supplier won't, then buy at your own risk. A typical approval mark would read something like this: HCR PL 01 HCR PL A02 (E13) 17.5 13965 13964 -->
PL indicate a plastic (polycarbonate) lens The lights meet both the 01 and A02 series of amendments (E13) [noting that the brackets represent a circle] indicates that the approval was conducted in Luxembourg 17.5 is the peak luminous intensity The numbers beginning 13* are the approval numbers The arrow symbol indicates Left Hand traffic (i.e., UK, NZ, Australia, and the rest of civilised world) The markings above are actually taken from a Trucklite LED replacement light unit which is fully ECE compliant and legal. The bottom line is that if your replacement LED light units just have a mark reading DOT SAE (E-) where - is any number, and have no markings similar to the above, they are not legal anywhere in the world where UNECE type approval is mandatory irrespective of beam pattern. That is not to say yu won't get away with them, but they are not legal. |
||
3rd Jul 2023 11:43am |
|
| Mdm Member Since: 11 Sep 2013 Location: Sunny Lancashire Posts: 1589
|
i have used the bearmach version of these and i assume they are the same as the part numbers match on bay etc
they last well bearmach had 3 yr warranty on them and 2yr i think at bpart but do check that. you may get some radio interference but my set have been good and they pass mot no problem with a good beam pattern on the tester. |
||
|
3rd Jul 2023 12:44pm |
|
| GuJa Member Since: 03 Oct 2017 Location: Elsfleth Posts: 20  
|
Blackwolf, thank you for the information about labelling of headlights.
For further information this is what my LYNX lights are showing on the glass: HC/R PL (E13) 12,5 14356 RG I bought them 6 years ago and I'm still happy with them. No interference. Cheers |
||
|
3rd Jul 2023 12:52pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17342
|
Therein is the bizarre inconsistency with the MoT test (which highlights perfectly the very limited cognitive bandwidth of our legislators). You can have illegal engineered LED light units (illegal because they haven't been approved) with a beam pattern that passes the alignment test, and the MoT tester cannot fail them. Fit LED bulbs into H4 units and have a beam that passes the alignment test, and the MoT tester cannot pass them. In either case what you have is a non-approved light with a good and entirely safe beam pattern, but one is apparently OK and the other is a sin. Make sense of that if you can! It is also interesting to note that the law requires "levelling and cleaning devices" (which is probably not a screwdriver and wet sponge) if the output of your headlights exceeds 2000 lumens. Knowing if you're heading for theoretical trouble is not easy, since the peak beam intensity reference number as marked on the headlight (17.5 in the example in my earlier post) is an arbitrary relative scale based on candela and cannot readily be converted to lumens. It is however reasonably safe to assume that any HID or LED headlight exceeds the 2000 lumens threshold by a significant margin (a typical modern engineered LED unit is apparently around 15,000 lumens) and therefore levelling and cleaning systems become mandatory, even for upgrades. The MoT test requires that testers ensure that any mandatory levelling and cleaning systems are working correctly but does not provide any guidance on whether or not they need to be fitted. Such testers as I have spoken to all work on the basis that if the vehicle left the factory without a system a system is not required, which is a legally-flawed premise. Upgrade the lights above the threshold and you are required to fit levelling and cleaning systems. So the bottom line is that although fitting non-type-approved LED lights of any sort could land you in a world of hurt, it is very unlikely to do so unless you happen to cause some kind of incident as a result. Bottom line, probably nobody really cares, except probably your insurer who will always be looking for a reason not to pay out. |
||
|
3rd Jul 2023 1:26pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17342
|
Those are all good then (though not as high an output as Trucklites it would seem - 12,5 compared to 17,5 peak intensity). If the OPs units have the same marking, then they should be fine. |
||
|
3rd Jul 2023 1:28pm |
|
| Bluest Member Since: 23 Apr 2016 Location: Lancashire Posts: 4204 
|
My Tester wanted to fail my Tucklites a couple of years ago for having no cleaning system, but after a lengthy whinge from me he let begrudgingly passed them. There must be some nuance to the requirement for cleaning/auto-levelling as Vauxhall/Opel were selling cars with HID lights a few years ago with no such thing when at the time my Ford with similar lights did have to have it. My current Dacia has OE LED dipped beam and no cleaning system and just manual levelling switch. 2007 110 TDCi Station Wagon XS |
||
|
3rd Jul 2023 3:09pm |
|
| bunnyman Member Since: 29 May 2013 Location: herts Posts: 119  
|
Sorry for the late response but thank you all for your replies
|
||
|
8th Jul 2023 7:20am |
|
| bunnyman Member Since: 29 May 2013 Location: herts Posts: 119
|
Sorry for the late response but thank you all for your replies
|
||
|
8th Jul 2023 7:20am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
