Subject: Re: [Mgs] Yay Moss - lighting upgrade report

From: Max Heim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:49:48 -0700

Here's a preliminary evaluation of the lighting mods, based on a short night
run.

Headlamps
Were: standard sealed beam on factory circuit
Now: Lucas H4 Halogen on relay circuit
Verdict: previously described as "dim & yellow", now bright white. Massive
improvement.

Taillamps, brake lights, rear turn signals
Were: standard bulbs
Now: Moss red LEDs
Verdict: 2X, possibly 3X brighter

Front turn signals (white on my '66 B)
Were: standard bulbs
Now: Moss white LEDs
Verdict: insanely brighter, like flashing mini-headlights

And here's what went wrong:

Electronic flasher unit
First unit did not work out of the box.
Neither did the 2nd unit, until I tried reversing the polarity. This was not
mentioned in any instructions. My car was originally positive ground,
converted to negative ground, so I don't know why this should be necessary
-- the 3-prong flasher that this was specified as a replacement for was only
used on positive ground cars, but the LED lamp kit can only be used on
converted cars, so this should have been accounted for. (I'm pretty sure I
tried reversing the polarity of the first unit, so I think it really was
DOA).

Front marker lamps
I could not use the LEDs supplied. These replace the very small round bulbs,
but the LED is much longer -- not only is the "bulb" section about twice as
long, but the socket section is also longer (I have a photo comparing the
two, if you're interested). The result is that the lens immediately contacts
the tip of the bulb, so that as you tighten the lens-securing screws, it
depresses the bulb in the socket against the spring, until the bulb loses
contact. If you try this with the lights turned on, you can watch the bulb
go out as you tighten the screws. I can't see how they ever successfully
tested this application. Maybe they only tested it on later cars with the
slightly different lamp location. However, this is hardly a critical
lighting application -- they are scarcely ever used without the headlights.

Hope this is helpful.

--

Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Menlo Park, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires

on 8/22/13 10:58 AM, Ron King at [email-masked] wrote:

> Please let me/us know if there's improvement; have been considering this
> changeout myself.
> 
> Ron King
> '71MGB
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Max Heim
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:03 AM
> To: MG List
> Subject: [Mgs] Yay Moss
> 
> In response to some uncharacteristic nagging from my wife (to the effect
> that the MG's lights were too dim, and it was unsafe to drive at night), I
> invested in a major lighting upgrade, including a headlight relay kit, H4
> halogen headlights, and a complete set of LED exterior lamps. But one
> component, the last to be installed, turned out to be DOA out of the box --
> the electronic flasher unit. When I called Moss about it, they cheerfully
> said they would send out a replacement immediately, no return required. I
> thought that was jolly decent of them. So here's a public shout-out for
> their customer service.
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Max Heim
> '66 MGB GHN3L76149
> If you're near Menlo Park, CA,
> it's the primer red one with chrome wires
_______________________________________________

[email-masked]
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/mgs/[email-masked]

---

From: Max Heim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:31:31 -0700

on 8/27/13 12:49 AM, PaulHunt73 at [email-masked] wrote:

> The first thing to check is if disconnection of a corner stops the
> indicators flashing as it should, or whether the remaining lamp flashes on
> regardless, as I suspect it will.  This is a safety hazard, you will never
> know if one of the corners isn't flashing for any reason.  The fact that
> original flashers stopped flashing, and modern flashers start going at
> double-speed if one corner is out, is a deliberate safety feature.
> Typically LED flashers have to have a load resistor to be able to use the
> correct type of flasher unit, but even then the safety feature is only
> monitoring the load resistor.  As long as that is still connected both
> corners could be out and you would never know, till someone tail-ends you!
> Electronic flashers that don't need a load resistor have no safety feature
> from what I have seen so far, and this seems to include OEM usage as well as
> I nearly rear-ended a Range Rover that suddenly turned in front of me
> 'without warning', only for me to see his side flasher going as he turned.

It seems to me that the rate of flashing may have changed. I will check
this.

I don't think it's true that "you would never know" -- I often notice my
turn signal lamps reflecting off the bumper of the vehicle in front, or in
back when pulling out of a parallel parking spot. And regardless of "safety
features", I observe plenty of contemporary cars driving around with
burnt-out or disconnected lamps -- it's more a matter of driver awareness.
Some people pay attention to these things, and some are oblivious (and some
wouldn't know a turn signal stalk from a flugelhorn).

> 
> I'd also be concerned about tail lights being 2-3 times brighter, the
> reduction in visibility of following drivers at night in the rain would be
> considerable.  

Not at all. The comparison was to "dim". The modern cars you see on the road
with arrays of 12 or 18 LEDs are enormously brighter (and I have noticed
this problem with some of them -- they even cause purple spots in one's
vision). This is still a single-point light source, distorted and diffused
by a sharply-pointed lens.

> The other significant factor is whether there is enough
> differentiation between tail and stop lights to alert a following driver if
> they don't happen to be looking directly at the back of the car at the time.
> Some LED lights I've seen have very little differentiation.

This does not seem to be a problem. The stop lamp seems to be extremely
noticeable. This is probably the greatest single improvement.

I probably should have pointed out that all the bulbs I replaced were pretty
aged. I have a habit of dipping into my stock of used bulbs when one fails,
rather than buying new replacements. So it is possible, even likely, that
none of these bulbs were manufactured in this century. Perhaps the
difference would not have been so dramatic compared to new stock
incandescent bulbs.

> 
> PaulH.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----

--

Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149

[email-masked]

---

From: Max Heim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:31:34 -0700

They are part #170-905, listed in the MGB catalog as "bulb, front side
lamp", replacing a #57 bulb. But they are far too long, at least for an
original Mk.1 socket and lens. I notice Moss now only sells a replacement
lamp unit, which they say uses different mounting holes -- I suspect it may
also be different in other respects (in this case, depth).

Photo comparison here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvheim/9607011135/

Note how even the socket section is slightly longer. The bulb part is not
even close.

--

Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149

on 8/27/13 11:06 AM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:

> << On 8/26/2013 12:49 PM, Max Heim wrote:
> 
> Front marker lamps
> 
> long, but the socket section is also longer .... >>
> 
> Max, etal <G>:
> 
> I have NOT check the o/l catalog, but I find it hard to believe that they are
> NOT
> mark "For 'beehive lenses only' ?  ! ? !  [as fitted to Frogeyes, Sprite Mk.
> II,
> Midget Mk. I, & ALL Austin-Healeys except BJ-8 Mk. III Phase II]..
> 
> Perhaps MJB could pop-in here and advise on Triumph uses, if any ? ! ?
> 
> Perhaps Mr. Kelvin Dodds could pop-in here and advise on Total Uses or tell us
> if
> I have covered applications correctly <VBG> ? ! ?
> 
> Ed
> Please visit MY site at:    www.justbrits.com
> '63 A-H BJ-7 (Hortense THE Healey wearing ILL STD. plates     AH BJ 7 )
> [front CLEAR beehive lenses]
> '73 Black Tulip MGB (Murial wearing ILL STD. plates CINS73B )
> [ canNOT use beehives]
> '70 Black El Camino wearing ILL STD. plates 7 AH BJ 't')
> [canNOT use beehives] <VBG> !
> 
> Ed
> Please visit MY site at:     www.justbrits.com

[email-masked]

---

From: Max Heim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:45:33 -0700

One more factor I should probably mention: the front marker lamps are
supposed to have thick foam gaskets. Mine were totally decayed, so I cut new
cork gaskets, that are pretty thick themselves, and not very compressible.
But I don't think it can just be an issue with missing gaskets, because the
lens contacts the bulb before one even get the threads started on the
screws. If the gasket were supposed to hold the lens away from the bulb, I
would need longer screws.

on 8/27/13 11:31 AM, Max Heim at [email-masked] wrote:

> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Suggested annual donation  $12.75
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/mgs/[email-masked]
> 

--

Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149

[email-masked]

---

From: "PaulHunt73" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:24:56 +0100

On a different tack to bulbs:  The gasket is there to provide a seal against 
water ingress, and there is another one behind the lamp unit against the 
body.  I don't know how thick the originals were, but when I replaced my 
front parking lights as soon as I started fitting the lenses and chrome 
surround it was obvious that the edge of the chrome was going to dig in to 
my new paint.  I had to pre-fit a nut to each stud to space them out, which 
needed three gaskets on the back to fill the gap.  I've seen the car 
featured on the front of Clausager's book at a show and the edges of his 
chrome were dug into the paint as well, so it wasn't just mine.

PaulH.

----- Original Message ----- 
> supposed to have thick foam gaskets. 

[email-masked]

---

From: Max Heim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:09:43 -0700

Ah, mine didn't have any trace of the body gasket. There is a significant
gap around the perimeter of the lamp base, so that you can see right into
the wheel well, so it makes sense there should be some kind of gasket. It's
a little hard to see how it would have been secured, though.

Digging into the paint is the least of my worries, on this car. It seems to
me that the lens gasket also serves to space the frame away from the body,
although perhaps not enough.

--

Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149

[email-masked]

---

From: "PaulHunt73" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:14:58 +0100

164-750 here 
http://www.mossmotors.com/Shop/ViewProducts.aspx?PlateIndexID=29075#14

It's clamped between the two when the fixing nuts are tightened, and 
prevents muck coming from behind the lamp.  Both gaskets will tend to space 
the chrome surround away from the body, but the foam is highly compressible 
so the difference with and without is pretty marginal.

PaulH.

----- Original Message ----- 

[email-masked]