RE: Lights

[Peter Henriksen <peterhe@microsoft.com>]

Where did the notion that the regular aero Euro lights have "compromised
performance" come from and what's the reference point? The step up from
the US lights to the Bosch Euro lights I now have was immense and was
finished off nicely by relays and 80/100 H4s and 130 H3s, thank you. All
this cost me more than what it would have from Metrix, but I didn't know
about them back then and it's still worth every cent.

How much would a complete setup of "better" lights cost, BTW?
- peter
  peterhe@microsoft.com - http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/1001
  91 200qw
  94 acura legend gs
  issaquah, wa, usa


>-----Original Message-----
>From:	QSHIPQ@aol.com [SMTP:QSHIPQ@aol.com]
>Sent:	Friday, January 03, 1997 9:11 PM
>To:	mannlaw@indy.net
>Cc:	quattro@coimbra.ans.net
>Subject:	Re: Lights
>
>In a message dated 97-01-03 21:01:06 EST, you write:
>
><< 	While Scott is right about the quad setup [cheap, tweakable, 
> etc.,] I put one side in my 200 wagon from a wrecked 5 car and, while I 
> don't much care what some things look like, it was ugly.  Too ugly, IMHO.
>  >>
>quads on the sleek 5k-200t/q's certainly look "dated" (substitute word of
>choice here) on the aero chassis for sure....  So is it cool and sleek but
>compromised performance, or correct and better, but compromising vanity?
> Tough choice...  Thank goodness the urq doesn't blare the ugly with it's
>quad fours....  I would think some bright chroming of the light assbly and a
>lexan cover bent properly would clean up the front end some....  The quad 5
>3/4 round setup would prolly look the best and still be correct, and not too
>hard a crack into the mirror when gandered.....  550USD is a lot of money to
>be blown away in performance by the 84 5k next to you lookin ugly & bright
>
>I sure expected the thoughts tho Bruce, the wallet is hard to pull out with
>the vanity thing, reason even the Igor recommended Matrix connection didn't
>motivate too many on this list....  
>
>Scott