It *IS* worth it!!!

[Per Lindgren]

Ameer Antar wrote:

> They
> remind me too much of those huge Volvo lights.

Just remember that bigger units give more light! The Euro models of the early 90's
Chevy Van and Suburban used a H4 setup. The units are about 2"x3", hardly enough
room for the bulb in there, and of course the light sucks! This is the worst
example I could come up with!!


> Car makers designed the
> bodies w/ individual lamps, then when the US allowed the aerodynamic lamps,
> they still kept the same body.

Sorry, but I beg to differ! The type44 has always had flush, aerodynamic lights.
Types 43 and 81 too. Only the stupid light laws in the US made them put in those
4x5" 4-eye setups. The only Euro-Audis that used the square 4-eyes were 1980-82
Urq, GT some 4k and the T-43 200.

> Only till recently have auto makers started
> doing cool things w/ lights.

In the US yes. In the free world, headlights has been almost all different shapes
since the 70s. VW, MB, Renault and Euro-Dorf had oval headlights in the 60s, H4s
since the early 70s (it was even stock on my 73 VW type3 Squareback!)

> Most of them are oval or shaped into the body,
> not like those huge rectangular plastic lenses. I don't think 4x6's are bad
> at all, as long as they're aimed right, of a good design, and in good
> condition. my opinion.

They give adequate light (if they are of  H4 quality) but looks really cheap (or
American :-)

PerL
92 100 2,8q Avant