RE: What is H3,H4, etc

[Peter Henriksen <peterhe@microsoft.com>]

I completely agree. Notice the source of the letter... The NHTSA. Enough
said? I think so. At least it's laudable that they're thinking about it,
but the ensuing discussion on the Swedishbricks list pointed out that
they'd probably be laughed out of whatever worldwide body they tried to
suggest their new "standards" to.

The stock lights on the 91 200q's were dangerously bad as well,
especially for a car capable of 140+ mph and such acceleration.
- peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	shields@tembel.org [SMTP:shields@tembel.org]
> Sent:	Saturday, September 06, 1997 1:09 AM
> To:	Peter Henriksen
> Cc:	'chlubb@hotmail.com'; 'quattro list'
> Subject:	Re: What is H3,H4, etc
> 
> In article
> <61CDD2C9A961CF11B6A000805FD40AA9045DBC80@RED-84-MSG.dns.microsoft.com
> >,
> Peter Henriksen <peterhe@microsoft.com> quoted:
> > "The U.S. beam pattern offers significant advantages to drivers in
> the
> [...]
> 
> I don't know if it's true or not that a well-designed US-spec
> headlight would be better under some conditions than a well-designed
> euro-spec headlight.  However, *Audi's* US-spec headlights, at least
> on the older models, are *very much* inferior to the euro-spec
> versions.
> 
> Maybe this is because the regulations in Europe specify a better beam
> pattern, or maybe it's just because Audi put more work into the
> home-market versions (entirely possible given the relative sales
> volumes).  But I wouldn't ever want to drive my Coupe again with the
> old DOT-legal 45/65W 9004s.  They were dangerously bad.
> -- 
> Shields.
> ['86 Coupe GT]