Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

As above, Anybody using PolarG Headlight bulbs? In particular the "Shining Wizard" 5000K ones? No problems with melting headlights or wiring?

Obviously won't last as long as a regular globe being of higher wattage and xenon filled, but are they complete crap? How's the light?

I tried MTEC ones ages ago and they were horirble, very dull.

Just looking for some user experiences if possible.

Thanks

Ryan

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/160960-polarg-bulbs/
Share on other sites

I put polarg on my mrs GTS and they seem pretty good, changed her headlights and fog lights over. Can't remember which ones exactly. Pretty white/bright for non xenon globes.... Only down side is one of the fog lights died in about 9 months.... still have to replace them.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/160960-polarg-bulbs/#findComment-2988670
Share on other sites

Havent tried the Shining Wizards myself, but I can tell you im still using my Polarg Miracle Whites. They seem quite reliable, been using these for at least 6-8 months, and had a set before that as well which lasted over a year.. but yes these are not 5000k.. slightly lower at about 4700 i think...

I agree with you though, the mtecs are crapola..

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/160960-polarg-bulbs/#findComment-2988775
Share on other sites

shit. waste of money. I've done many threads on lighting. do a search.

I've read what you have posted regarding lighting and it's not particularly relevant to my question at hand. I was only after experiences with the PolarG bulbs.

FYI; I've previously used Phillips Vision+ in my cars, which are supposed to be the ducks nuts of non HID globes, best output, yada yada and found them quite average. There were scorch marks on the actual glass on the globes after a couple of weeks usage and I didn't find the output to be much greater than a normal globe. Yes, they were installed correctly, on a new car, and No I didn't get my hands all over them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that cheapo "Xenon Look" globes are going to be shit and obviously blue filtering will cancel out a lot of the light. I know all this thus it's not the point of my thread.

I want my lights to look pretty without being dangerously low on light output and PolarGs seem to fit the bill, hence I ask for user experiences. They certainly don't seem to be a "cheapo" globe hence I am considering them.

Thanks to those who gave me their input.

Al-R33: How white is the light on the globes you're using??

Sounds like the life on them is good enough. Do you find the output is roughly the same as a standard globe??

Edited by d0p3y
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/160960-polarg-bulbs/#findComment-2991218
Share on other sites

Yeah mate to be honest I found it hard to see the difference with the light from a standard globe and the polargs... the light seemed to project the same distance, just a different colour... but in saying that.. I suppose it would affect visibility in the end..

To put it simply... it wasnt like jumping from HIDs down to Standard Lights.. the difference was far more minimal... I'd say best bet is to give them a try... and decide for yourself.

I know they are not cheap but I really think it comes down to personal opinion.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/160960-polarg-bulbs/#findComment-2991658
Share on other sites

I've read what you have posted regarding lighting and it's not particularly relevant to my question at hand. I was only after experiences with the PolarG bulbs.

FYI; I've previously used Phillips Vision+ in my cars, which are supposed to be the ducks nuts of non HID globes, best output, yada yada and found them quite average. There were scorch marks on the actual glass on the globes after a couple of weeks usage and I didn't find the output to be much greater than a normal globe. Yes, they were installed correctly, on a new car, and No I didn't get my hands all over them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that cheapo "Xenon Look" globes are going to be shit and obviously blue filtering will cancel out a lot of the light. I know all this thus it's not the point of my thread.

I want my lights to look pretty without being dangerously low on light output and PolarGs seem to fit the bill, hence I ask for user experiences. They certainly don't seem to be a "cheapo" globe hence I am considering them.

Thanks to those who gave me their input.

Al-R33: How white is the light on the globes you're using??

Sounds like the life on them is good enough. Do you find the output is roughly the same as a standard globe??

Hi Dopey

I didn't have time to snwer your question the other night, but i've got time now.

I'll first answer what you said about the plus 50s, then talk about the polarg.

Vision plus (plus 50) globes do output noticeably more light. Cars often come with plus 30 or even plus 50 globes, so the difference might not be noticeable sometimes. If you put a new standard bulb in one headlight and a new plus 50 in the other, you'll notice it. The thing is, they won't give you extreme light difference (not like hid v halogen), because ontrary to popular belief, plus 50 does not mean 50% more light output. It means a bit longer range, and 50% more light in the useable range (varies, but it's usually 50-75m).

The plus 50s are a tiny bit whiter, because they they are brighter, but they're still yellow in the scheme of things.

As you have said, you know that a blue filter reduces light. Good.

If you want pretty, that is, whiter, you need the filter. The solution to not having less light is to put out more light, so that after it's cut, it's still decent.

This is where bulbs like narva artic blue/phillips blue vision etc fit in. For all intents and purposes, narva/osram/hella/phillips bulbs are all very good quality, and in tests, they always perform almost identically. These bulbs can be described as white. Not blueish, but just white.

These bulbs utilise an overpowered filament (still 55watt, so it won't melt your housing)to output the plus 50 light which is cut back because of the filter. Quality of these bulbs is quite high, but because of the overpowered filament, life will be shorter than standard bulbs or even plus 30 bulbs.

Now, to answer your question. I have tested both 55 watt and 100 watt polarg bulbs.

The 100 watt polarg bulb, even after it cut back light, still put out quite bright light, because it was 100 watt. I would not run these though, because i've had to repair so many cars where 100 watt globes have destroyed things.

The 55 polargs were not anything standoutish.

My main reservation about the bulbs, is that bulb life wasn't any longer than the phillips/narvas. Nor was there notieably any brighter light. therefore, I can't justify the spend.

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/160960-polarg-bulbs/#findComment-2994316
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...