Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey

I have been reading many previous articles on people modifying original R32 Headlights to do angel eyes, LED etc but i have never seen if anyone has considered doing a HID modification to the original lights with 3D printing to mount the bulb and HID. Has anyone considered this and if so do they have the files that they would be willing to share? If nobody has i may be willing to put the resources to do it.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/483101-3d-print-r32-hid-light-mount/
Share on other sites

As above. The original lenses are crap. So replacing with a proper HID is the only sensible approach.

Also, 3D printing, in THERMOplastic, something which will hold something that gets very very hot, is not necessarily going to end well. You will note from the link that Josh put up that the adapter mounts are metal. And those aren't even very nice ones, compared to some other options. And all of this has been sorted out to a completely satisfactory degree for several years at least.

On 16/12/2021 at 11:26 AM, GTSBoy said:

As above. The original lenses are crap. So replacing with a proper HID is the only sensible approach.

Also, 3D printing, in THERMOplastic, something which will hold something that gets very very hot, is not necessarily going to end well. You will note from the link that Josh put up that the adapter mounts are metal. And those aren't even very nice ones, compared to some other options. And all of this has been sorted out to a completely satisfactory degree for several years at least.

 

Just gotta pick the right filament. PPSU has a Tg of 220°C, probably wouldn't be a bad choice. 

 

Agree though, there's enough kits out there for the 32 that it feels unnecessary to reinvent the wheel.

 

Also HID's are sooo 1992, go LED.

On 12/15/2021 at 7:53 PM, Unzipped Composites said:

 

Just gotta pick the right filament. PPSU has a Tg of 220°C, probably wouldn't be a bad choice. 

 

Agree though, there's enough kits out there for the 32 that it feels unnecessary to reinvent the wheel.

 

Also HID's are sooo 1992, go LED.

https://www.organizedgaragestatus.com/product-page/retro-quik-1989-1994-nissan-r32-gt-r-morimoto-m-led-2-0

From what I've heard the M-LED projector isn't as good as the Mini D2S. I've also heard that Morimoto projectors in general aren't awesome, at the key test points they're often no better than some OEM halogen projectors out there but with excessive foreground and lack of good "squirrel spotters" above the cutoff, in the US most projectors will have a tiny bit of light controlled above the cut line to illuminate signs and maybe stuff like animal tapetums.

I'd be worried about that crowd. They can't even get the description for the LED version to say anything about LED. It's all HID talk. f**king clowns.

From what I understand, the Morimotos are within cooee of the notional benchmark HID (the Accord) and even if they weren't they'd about 500% better than the stock R32 projectors, so there can hardly be any justification for complaints.

On 12/16/2021 at 2:14 AM, GTSBoy said:

I'd be worried about that crowd. They can't even get the description for the LED version to say anything about LED. It's all HID talk. f**king clowns.

From what I understand, the Morimotos are within cooee of the notional benchmark HID (the Accord) and even if they weren't they'd about 500% better than the stock R32 projectors, so there can hardly be any justification for complaints.

Curiously if you look at the M-LED rectangle bracket that mounts in the headlight it's metal, while the HID bracket appears to be laser cut fiberglass. So they probably have thought about things like the higher housing heating of the LEDs vs HIDs even if they half-assed the webpage. They're definitely better than the stock R32 projectors, I just wish the aftermarket had better options in general. A lot of weird priorities going on there.

Edited by joshuaho96

Yet another example of where the picture doesn't match the words. The HID page describes the mounting hardware as "water jet cut from T6". And yes, the picture looks like FG.

But at least FG isn't a thermoplastic.

Properly cooling LEDs in an R32 housing seems like an impossibility to me - at least if you want to close the back of it up, like you should. Probably still wisest to "settle" for HIDs. They're a known quantity.

If you're trying to put H3 HID bulb in the original projectors, you're going to have a bad time.

You don't even need the mounting brackets to change the shitty halogen projectors out for something decent. Just chop the original ones (I've done this). I also got the metal brackets from Lightwerkz, they were a pretty penny. I reckon you could get some locally cut for cheaper.

The Koito bi-LED is an excellent unit, only one I'd consider (or the low-beam only units, I have a bunch to try out). The Morimoto M-LED v2 looks good but haven't seen in person so can't say, but might suffer from strong foreground like most LED units. You are correct about the cooling GTSBoy, the housing isn't large. You could get away with some sort of one-way valve/vent. Otherwise, tried and tested D2S is the way.

I really should get around to experimenting with headlights again, have a bunch of OE LEDs and HID units to try out...

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello Guys and Girls 

My r32 headlights are just bright as candle 🤣

 

I don’t want to put only h1 xenon kit

I was thinking of building and modifying the bmw e60 lci projectors found in the garage

 

The only downside comes when the bulbs are d1s. So space needs to be done a lot of time and think about how to make the headlight waterproof

 

The lenses are original but the reflector is bmw

 

Here is few pictures my little Project. 

IMG_20210928_115922.jpg

IMG_20210928_115929.jpg

IMG_20210927_124727.jpg

IMG-20211226-WA0034.jpeg

Edited by TukeH

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...