HID aftermarket on 2002 Envoy

GMC FAQ » GMC Envoy » HID aftermarket on 2002 Envoy

Question:

>>Now suppose, instead of a piece of that vehicle falling off, that >vehicle changes lanes and unmasks a stationary obstacle (e.g. a >disabled or crashed vehicle, a piece of 18-wheeler tire tread, etc.) >ahead. >If they have time to swerve, you have time to swerve. Provided you >aren’t asleep, of course.

The difference is that the driver of the vehicle ahead may have had greater advance warning and been able to plan the swerve when there is no vehicle in the next lane; if you have less advance warning (by only seeing the obstacle when unmasked when the vehicle ahead changes lanes), you may not have time to check that the next lane is clear before swerving. It also means that it is a good idea to avoid driving where your vehicle is overlapping a vehicle in the next lane for long periods of time (i.e. pass or back off; don’t sit next to someone else). — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Response:

> If you can’t see the traffic in front of the truck in front of you because > you are blinded by the Big-Ass Tailgate then slow down and back off a bit so

The problem is, he’d have to back off far enough that inevitably, someone would squeeze into that spot. As you seem to be fond of quoting Mr. Murphy below, good odds that "someone" would be another fat-assed SUV. > If your ‘Bubble of Awareness’ is impaired then perhaps you should not get so > close to that Big-Ass Tailgate so you can’t see around it. If there is > something in the way then you should be aware then that there is probably > something in front of the thing that’s in your way and as with all things, > anything can happen at any time. Let me quote from Murphy’s Law.

Unfortunately, you’re slipping down a very dangerous slope here; sounding very similar to a certain troll we have on this newsgroup who’s name supposedly starts with ‘C’. Saying, "anything can happen at any time" is *precisely* why Krieger, and the rest of us who know better, want to see *through* your vehicle. Things don’t just *happen*. Crashes, animals, potholes, and pedestrians are all completely avoidable if drivers learn to expand their Bubble of Awareness. The vast majority of drivers don’t, however, and spend their driving time focusing 6-8 feet in front of their hood ornament. Those of us who’ve either been taught *correctly* by driver’s ed (har har) or spent any time on a race track know that watching the vehicle right in front of you is dangerous. Watching the vehicle half a mile down the road or more, is a much better thing to do. With an SUV in the way, it becomes more of a challenge. > It’s probably illegal, but I tend to show people like that my brake lights.

Well, you keep doing that. One of these days, you’ll be unpleasantly surprised NOT by being hit, but by someone who knows *precisely* when you’re going to hit the brakes and matches you, move for move. I won’t explain to you how certain folks know that, but spend some time on a race track and you’ll learn how to do it, too. jas — Jason Van Patten

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> What if they’re following a car? THEY GET THE SAME REACTION TIME AS > YOU, provided they have the same following distance. If you have > sufficient distance between you and them you’ll be able to avoid the > obstacle. If you don’t, it’s your own fault. Yes, I drive an SUV, > guess what, when you’re behind someone, no matter what kind of vehicle > you drive, you can’t see the road right in front of their vehicle, it > WILL block your vision. Why is it people started to complain just 1 > or > 2 years ago about SUVs? This kind of vehicle has been around for 30 > years (I think the full-size Chevy Blazer hit the roads first in 1971 > or > 1972), tractor trailers, which can pose an even BIGGER block to > vision, > have been around longer and full-size vans have been around a while as > well. NOBODY complained about them, why start now? > When there were a lot less of them out there, we could see a lot *more*. > Tell me you’ve never passed a semi so you could see better. If you do, > you’re simply too dull to understand or appreciate the rest, so you can > quit reading right now. > I still don’t see > how there’s a problem, if you’re in a car, behind an SUV, you at least > have a CHANCE to see under the truck. If you’re in a car, behind a > car, > there’s NO chance you’ll see ANYTHING under the car. > I look *through* any car (or cars) ahead of me so I can see what’s > happening ahead of *them*. If a whole line of cars is making the same > little ’swerve’ for no other apparent reason, I can be pretty sure > they’re driving around some kind of obstacle. If I can’t see through > your Big-Ass Tailgate (TM), I know nothing until *you* get there and > take your own evasive action. IOW, I’m partially *blinded* by your > vehicle. Back when that happened only occasionally, it wasn’t so big a > deal. Today, I can’t drive *anywhere* over a half mile away even in > this little burg of mine without facing the solid sheetmetal ass end of > somebody’s highly-rationalized ego gratification.

If you can’t see the traffic in front of the truck in front of you because you are blinded by the Big-Ass Tailgate then slow down and back off a bit so you can see around it. Then pass it when it’s safe. > As I said before, > if we all complained about this like you are, we’d all be driving > transparent cars! > Nice try. No; I’ll settle for good old automotive laminated glass > *windows* at my eye level, like all the other *cars* out there. Unlike > you, I look as far ahead as my vision allows. My ‘Bubble of Awareness’ > is *huge* compared to most people’s – as long as there’s not something > *in the way*.

If your ‘Bubble of Awareness’ is impaired then perhaps you should not get so close to that Big-Ass Tailgate so you can’t see around it. If there is something in the way then you should be aware then that there is probably something in front of the thing that’s in your way and as with all things, anything can happen at any time. Let me quote from Murphy’s Law. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. If there is a worst time for anything to happen it will happen then. The vehicle in front of you is traveling slower than you are. The fact that you want to see through my windows so you can see what’s in front of me doesn’t give you the right to follow me so close that you can’t stop in time to keep yourself from ramming into my bumper. There’s nothing I hate worse than someone that pulls up on my tailgate at 70mph on the freeway (regardless of whether I’m in my S10 Blazer SUV or my wife’s Taurus) so close that I can’t even see his headlights. It’s probably illegal, but I tend to show people like that my brake lights. They usually either back off or go around. In either case it makes them think about what they’re doing or it pisses them off and therefore gets them off my tailgate most of the time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> — > C.R. Krieger > "Don’t argue with ‘em, dear; they’re beneath our dignity." – W.C. Fields > — > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

> >The difference is that the driver of the vehicle ahead may have had >greater advance warning and been able to plan the swerve when there >is no vehicle in the next lane; if you have less advance warning (by >only seeing the obstacle when unmasked when the vehicle ahead changes >lanes), you may not have time to check that the next lane is clear >before swerving.

That assumes that the fellow *did* check for a suitable gap, rather than simply yank the wheel over and hope. >It also means that it is a good idea to avoid driving where your >vehicle is overlapping a vehicle in the next lane for long periods >of time (i.e. pass or back off; don’t sit next to someone else).

I *hate* being immediately alongside another vehicle unnecessarily. If I can’t yet get a clean run past into a safely large gap beyond a slower vehicle, I *far* prefer to hang back with my nose clear of his tail, so that if he *does* come sideways I can be on the brakes *before* he reaches my own path. > As long as you’re aware of what’s around you, if an SUV can make an > emergency maneuver, there is little chance that a car won’t be able > to.

Come off it, Brandon! The mere fact that the fellow in front of you can move sideways without notice is no indication at all that *you* can follow suit with any degree of safety. (Timothy, you write a lot of sensible stuff.)

Response:

> What if they’re following a car? THEY GET THE SAME REACTION TIME AS > YOU, provided they have the same following distance. If you have > sufficient distance between you and them you’ll be able to avoid the > obstacle. If you don’t, it’s your own fault. Yes, I drive an SUV, > guess what, when you’re behind someone, no matter what kind of vehicle > you drive, you can’t see the road right in front of their vehicle, it > WILL block your vision. Why is it people started to complain just 1 or > 2 years ago about SUVs? This kind of vehicle has been around for 30 > years (I think the full-size Chevy Blazer hit the roads first in 1971 or > 1972), tractor trailers, which can pose an even BIGGER block to vision, > have been around longer and full-size vans have been around a while as > well. NOBODY complained about them, why start now?

When there were a lot less of them out there, we could see a lot *more*. Tell me you’ve never passed a semi so you could see better. If you do, you’re simply too dull to understand or appreciate the rest, so you can quit reading right now. > I still don’t see > how there’s a problem, if you’re in a car, behind an SUV, you at least > have a CHANCE to see under the truck. If you’re in a car, behind a car, > there’s NO chance you’ll see ANYTHING under the car.

I look *through* any car (or cars) ahead of me so I can see what’s happening ahead of *them*. If a whole line of cars is making the same little ’swerve’ for no other apparent reason, I can be pretty sure they’re driving around some kind of obstacle. If I can’t see through your Big-Ass Tailgate (TM), I know nothing until *you* get there and take your own evasive action. IOW, I’m partially *blinded* by your vehicle. Back when that happened only occasionally, it wasn’t so big a deal. Today, I can’t drive *anywhere* over a half mile away even in this little burg of mine without facing the solid sheetmetal ass end of somebody’s highly-rationalized ego gratification. > As I said before, > if we all complained about this like you are, we’d all be driving > transparent cars!

Nice try. No; I’ll settle for good old automotive laminated glass *windows* at my eye level, like all the other *cars* out there. Unlike you, I look as far ahead as my vision allows. My ‘Bubble of Awareness’ is *huge* compared to most people’s – as long as there’s not something *in the way*. — C.R. Krieger "Don’t argue with ‘em, dear; they’re beneath our dignity." – W.C. Fields — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Now suppose, instead of a piece of that vehicle falling off, that >>vehicle changes lanes and unmasks a stationary obstacle (e.g. a >>disabled or crashed vehicle, a piece of 18-wheeler tire tread, etc.) >>ahead. >If they have time to swerve, you have time to swerve. Provided you >aren’t asleep, of course. >The difference is that the driver of the vehicle ahead may have had >greater advance warning and been able to plan the swerve when there >is no vehicle in the next lane; if you have less advance warning (by >only seeing the obstacle when unmasked when the vehicle ahead changes >lanes), you may not have time to check that the next lane is clear >before swerving. >It also means that it is a good idea to avoid driving where your >vehicle is overlapping a vehicle in the next lane for long periods >of time (i.e. pass or back off; don’t sit next to someone else).

As long as you’re aware of what’s around you, if an SUV can make an emergency maneuver, there is little chance that a car won’t be able to. — Brandon Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. <Ralph Waldo Emerson> (1803-1882) Remove ".gov" to e-mail

Response:

IMHO, anybody who drives 70mph at night, legal or not, on a two lane road demonstrates the driving skills and judgement of a 15 year old every time he does it. Sooner or later, he will run out of luck and find himself in a situation he won’t be able to get out of without serious injury or worse to himself or others. ‘Nuff said. George Z. Hello, Try driving at legal 70mph on 2-lane rural roads AT NIGHT. They’re often stocked with stray cattle and noctunal animals wandering about on the roads as well as dead vehicles on the side. I have done for three years commuting between north Dallas and Denton through the country every night. Henceforth, I fitted my former Chevrolet Celebrity with Hella ECE headlamp capsules and 100/130 H4 bulb and 100 H1 bulb. Saved my arse and my car several times, I’m telling you! Oliver PS Yes, Texas does have speed limit of 70mph on rural roads last time I drove there two years ago.

Response:

This obstacle you speak of would be on the GROUND, right? SUVs have more space under them (usually) and would be easier to see under than a car that sits lower to the ground. As R said, if the other vehicle had time to avoid the obstacle, you do too. Do you propose we all start driving transparent cars? Sounds like the best solution using your argument…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I disagree on this. You don’t NEED to know what’s going on in front of >the vehicle in front of you if you leave enough following distance, all >you need to know is that they’re slowing down. > Suppose you leave enough room behind the next vehicle that you can > stop if that vehicle stops using its brakes, but not enough room to > stop or swerve around if a piece of that vehicle falls off and stops > instantly in your path. > Now suppose, instead of a piece of that vehicle falling off, that > vehicle changes lanes and unmasks a stationary obstacle (e.g. a > disabled or crashed vehicle, a piece of 18-wheeler tire tread, etc.) > ahead.

Response:

>>I disagree on this. You don’t NEED to know what’s going on in front of >the vehicle in front of you if you leave enough following distance, all >you need to know is that they’re slowing down. >Suppose you leave enough room behind the next vehicle that you can >stop if that vehicle stops using its brakes, but not enough room to >stop or swerve around if a piece of that vehicle falls off and stops >instantly in your path.

The chances of a piece falling off and remaining stationary are somewhere between slim and nil. It still has inertia. >Now suppose, instead of a piece of that vehicle falling off, that >vehicle changes lanes and unmasks a stationary obstacle (e.g. a >disabled or crashed vehicle, a piece of 18-wheeler tire tread, etc.) >ahead.

If they have time to swerve, you have time to swerve. Provided you aren’t asleep, of course. — Brandon Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. <Ralph Waldo Emerson> (1803-1882) Remove ".gov" to e-mail

Response:

What I was saying has nothing to do with SUVs in particular. Why are you do defensive about driving an SUV? — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Response:

The ENTIRE thing started with someone making a comment about SUV’s making the roads unsafe for other drivers by blocking their view of the road ahead. I’ve been under the assumption that we were discussing this based on that comment. Now it comes down to me being defensive about driving an SUV because I admitted that I drive one? No more to say on the other suject, huh? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->What if they’re following a car? THEY GET THE SAME REACTION TIME AS >YOU, provided they have the same following distance. If you have >sufficient distance between you and them you’ll be able to avoid the >obstacle. If you don’t, it’s your own fault. Yes, I drive an SUV, > What I was saying has nothing to do with SUVs in particular. Why are > you do defensive about driving an SUV?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Now suppose, instead of a piece of that vehicle falling off, that >>vehicle changes lanes and unmasks a stationary obstacle (e.g. a >>disabled or crashed vehicle, a piece of 18-wheeler tire tread, etc.) >>ahead. >If they have time to swerve, you have time to swerve. Provided you >aren’t asleep, of course. > The difference is that the driver of the vehicle ahead may have had > greater advance warning and been able to plan the swerve when there > is no vehicle in the next lane; if you have less advance warning (by > only seeing the obstacle when unmasked when the vehicle ahead changes > lanes), you may not have time to check that the next lane is clear > before swerving.

In which case the car in front of you obviously left a larger following distance between him and the car in front of him than you left between yourself and car in front of you. > It also means that it is a good idea to avoid driving where your > vehicle is overlapping a vehicle in the next lane for long periods > of time (i.e. pass or back off; don’t sit next to someone else).

To me that’s just common sense. There is nothing more comforting than an escape path if you have to change lanes quickly. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> — > Timothy J. Lee > Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. > No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Response:

Are those lights blue? If they are, GOD I HATE THOSE! The blue lights may have a higher wattage but the actual output is lower since most of the light from incandescent bulbs is in the yellow area of the spectrum. Filter that out and you have LESS light. Go to the following sites to see an explanation of the differences. Bad blue bulbs: http://lighting.mbz.org/tech/info/bulbs/blue/bad/ Good blue bulbs: http://lighting.mbz.org/tech/info/bulbs/blue/good/ Robert, thanks for the brain thaw on the Daniel Stern site (I was having a brain freeze trying to remember it). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I got the el chepo version bulbs and swapped out the bulbs myself. > Mine were the 9005 & 9006, but I imagine that they are similar. I got > the 85w and they are a direct bulb replacement. They are only 35% > Xenon gas so they do not require the entire electrical upgrade. They > make 150w but I heard they can melt your headlamps so I stuck with the > lower wattage. I love the 85w and have them in both low beam and high > beam. I also have a set of 85w fog lamps with 60w driving lamps. I > got all the bulbs for under $50 and I love them. Much better than the > stockers. I have also never noticed oncoming traffic giving me the > finger or anything else dirogatory (sp) as they drive by. My wife has > no problem with me following her, but she is in a Tacoma, puke! > You can check em out here, but they usually sell on EBay much cheaper. > I have yet to pay more than $10 per set. > http://www.sweeteffects.com/ >I have a 2002 Envoy with 9006 low beam headlamps. I am very unhappy with the >low beam performance on the interstates. I feel like at 70 MPH I am grossly >overdriving what I can see. Yes I could slow down to 60 MPH but then I would >get run-over (:>). No one in NJ or NY drives at 55 or 65. I have taken the >truck back to GM and had the alignment checked but they have not been able >to improve the situation much. >I see there are several aftermarket conversion kits out there to install HID >lamps as replacements for the low beam bulbs. Before I drop $500 or so I >would like to find output if anyone has converted a 2002 Envoy to HID >lighting on the low beams and what the results where. >Specifically: >1. Did the conversion help? Can you see the deer grazing on the shoulder of >the road at 150 yards (or so). >2. Was it a PITA (pain in the rear) to align the lamps. Did you need to use >a special tool to crank the adjuster screws? >3. What did you do with the slotted hood that is over the lamp GM installs? >4. How about the Daylight Running Lights? Are they still functional? >5 .Did you have any problems doing the conversion? >6. Who did you buy from? >7. Is the conversion considered street legal? >8. What temperature bulb did you get? >9. Any problems after completed and you started to use the Envoy? >Thanks in advance…. Tim

Response:

>This obstacle you speak of would be on the GROUND, right? SUVs have >more space under them (usually) and would be easier to see under than a >car that sits lower to the ground. As R said, if the other vehicle had >time to avoid the obstacle, you do too. Do you propose we all start >driving transparent cars? Sounds like the best solution using your >argument….

No, the point was that a safe following distance means more than just being able to react to the vehicle ahead slowing down or stopping (with its brakes). A safe following distance has to take into account the possibility of the vehicle ahead going around the obstacle, which its driver can see ahead of time (to be able to plan a lane change when it is safe), but you cannot because your view is blocked by the other vehicle (whether or not it is a car, SUV, van, bus, 18 wheeler, etc.). — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Response:

What if they’re following a car? THEY GET THE SAME REACTION TIME AS YOU, provided they have the same following distance. If you have sufficient distance between you and them you’ll be able to avoid the obstacle. If you don’t, it’s your own fault. Yes, I drive an SUV, guess what, when you’re behind someone, no matter what kind of vehicle you drive, you can’t see the road right in front of their vehicle, it WILL block your vision. Why is it people started to complain just 1 or 2 years ago about SUVs? This kind of vehicle has been around for 30 years (I think the full-size Chevy Blazer hit the roads first in 1971 or 1972), tractor trailers, which can pose an even BIGGER block to vision, have been around longer and full-size vans have been around a while as well. NOBODY complained about them, why start now? I still don’t see how there’s a problem, if you’re in a car, behind an SUV, you at least have a CHANCE to see under the truck. If you’re in a car, behind a car, there’s NO chance you’ll see ANYTHING under the car. As I said before, if we all complained about this like you are, we’d all be driving transparent cars! Not very safe, plexiglass is SHARP when it’s been broken, imagine having a whole car of it shattering around you in an accident… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->This obstacle you speak of would be on the GROUND, right? SUVs have >more space under them (usually) and would be easier to see under than a >car that sits lower to the ground. As R said, if the other vehicle had >time to avoid the obstacle, you do too. Do you propose we all start >driving transparent cars? Sounds like the best solution using your >argument…. > No, the point was that a safe following distance means more than just > being able to react to the vehicle ahead slowing down or stopping (with > its brakes). A safe following distance has to take into account the > possibility of the vehicle ahead going around the obstacle, which its > driver can see ahead of time (to be able to plan a lane change when it > is safe), but you cannot because your view is blocked by the other > vehicle (whether or not it is a car, SUV, van, bus, 18 wheeler, etc.).

Response:

>I disagree on this. You don’t NEED to know what’s going on in front of >the vehicle in front of you if you leave enough following distance, all >you need to know is that they’re slowing down.

Suppose you leave enough room behind the next vehicle that you can stop if that vehicle stops using its brakes, but not enough room to stop or swerve around if a piece of that vehicle falls off and stops instantly in your path. Now suppose, instead of a piece of that vehicle falling off, that vehicle changes lanes and unmasks a stationary obstacle (e.g. a disabled or crashed vehicle, a piece of 18-wheeler tire tread, etc.) ahead. — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Response:

if the vehicle in front of you has enough room to avoid the obstacle, you should too, if you were following at a safe distance…..and for something that falls off the vehicle, well again, safe following distance……. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I disagree on this. You don’t NEED to know what’s going on in front of >the vehicle in front of you if you leave enough following distance, all >you need to know is that they’re slowing down. > Suppose you leave enough room behind the next vehicle that you can > stop if that vehicle stops using its brakes, but not enough room to > stop or swerve around if a piece of that vehicle falls off and stops > instantly in your path. > Now suppose, instead of a piece of that vehicle falling off, that > vehicle changes lanes and unmasks a stationary obstacle (e.g. a > disabled or crashed vehicle, a piece of 18-wheeler tire tread, etc.) > ahead. > — > Timothy J. Lee > Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. > No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Response:

I have to say, that would likely really piss me off if you were driving behind me. Trucks are bad enough with the higher light position without having lights in there that may not comply with the DOT specs, it’s just too likely to cause annoying or even dangerous glare for other drivers. — Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> While I agree with you that the conversions aren’t perfect, I think they’re > very worth doing. I have the Eagle Eye 9006 conversion in my Silverado and > it’s great. EXTREMELY bright light and they look wonderful. The downside? > They’re obviously too bright to other cars, but only when close (like when > you pull up behind someone and they look in their mirrors.) To oncoming > traffic it’s very bright, but not blinding at all. I think it was a very > good upgrade, with no real safety issues. > Bought an extra set to put in my 3000GT when the motor goes back in > — > jeff > ‘95 Mitsubishi Spyder VR-4 > ‘01 Chevrolet Silverado HD Duramax > Please remove the spam-busting z’s from my e-mail address to e-mail me. > Well, here’s what Daniel Stern has to say on the subject – I would tend to > agree, you can’t just stick HID tubes into the same headlight assembly and > expect to get proper/legal light output: > http://lighting.mbz.org/tech/info/bulbs/HID/conversion/ > — > Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada > Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/ > > I have a 2002 Envoy with 9006 low beam headlamps. I am very unhappy with > the > > low beam performance on the interstates. I feel like at 70 MPH I am > grossly > > overdriving what I can see. Yes I could slow down to 60 MPH but then I > would > > get run-over (:>). No one in NJ or NY drives at 55 or 65. I have taken > the > > truck back to GM and had the alignment checked but they have not been > able > > to improve the situation much. > > I see there are several aftermarket conversion kits out there to install > HID > > lamps as replacements for the low beam bulbs. Before I drop $500 or so I > > would like to find output if anyone has converted a 2002 Envoy to HID > > lighting on the low beams and what the results where. > > Specifically: > > 1. Did the conversion help? Can you see the deer grazing on the shoulder > of > > the road at 150 yards (or so). > > 2. Was it a PITA (pain in the rear) to align the lamps. Did you need to > use > > a special tool to crank the adjuster screws? > > 3. What did you do with the slotted hood that is over the lamp GM > installs? > > 4. How about the Daylight Running Lights? Are they still functional? > > 5 .Did you have any problems doing the conversion? > > 6. Who did you buy from? > > 7. Is the conversion considered street legal? > > 8. What temperature bulb did you get? > > 9. Any problems after completed and you started to use the Envoy? > > Thanks in advance…. Tim

Response:

>I have to say, that would likely really piss me off if you were driving >behind me.

Don’t worry about it – it’s not going to be too much longer before one of the drivers that he blinds smashes into him, then his converted vehicle will end up in the great wrecking yard in the sky. Hopefully both him and the other driver come out of it without injury. It’s the same sort of reasoning the SUV people have. They don’t care that their giant trucks make the road unsafe for other drivers by blocking the view of the road ahead – at least until they get rear-ended that is. I really get sick of them though because almost every night anymore the highway I commute on is slower than snot because of all the rubberneckers attracted by the latest SUV-sedan collision. Ted

Response:

I got the el chepo version bulbs and swapped out the bulbs myself. Mine were the 9005 & 9006, but I imagine that they are similar. I got the 85w and they are a direct bulb replacement. They are only 35% Xenon gas so they do not require the entire electrical upgrade. They make 150w but I heard they can melt your headlamps so I stuck with the lower wattage. I love the 85w and have them in both low beam and high beam. I also have a set of 85w fog lamps with 60w driving lamps. I got all the bulbs for under $50 and I love them. Much better than the stockers. I have also never noticed oncoming traffic giving me the finger or anything else dirogatory (sp) as they drive by. My wife has no problem with me following her, but she is in a Tacoma, puke! You can check em out here, but they usually sell on EBay much cheaper. I have yet to pay more than $10 per set. http://www.sweeteffects.com/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I have a 2002 Envoy with 9006 low beam headlamps. I am very unhappy with the > low beam performance on the interstates. I feel like at 70 MPH I am grossly > overdriving what I can see. Yes I could slow down to 60 MPH but then I would > get run-over (:>). No one in NJ or NY drives at 55 or 65. I have taken the > truck back to GM and had the alignment checked but they have not been able > to improve the situation much. > I see there are several aftermarket conversion kits out there to install HID > lamps as replacements for the low beam bulbs. Before I drop $500 or so I > would like to find output if anyone has converted a 2002 Envoy to HID > lighting on the low beams and what the results where. > Specifically: > 1. Did the conversion help? Can you see the deer grazing on the shoulder of > the road at 150 yards (or so). > 2. Was it a PITA (pain in the rear) to align the lamps. Did you need to use > a special tool to crank the adjuster screws? > 3. What did you do with the slotted hood that is over the lamp GM installs? > 4. How about the Daylight Running Lights? Are they still functional? > 5 .Did you have any problems doing the conversion? > 6. Who did you buy from? > 7. Is the conversion considered street legal? > 8. What temperature bulb did you get? > 9. Any problems after completed and you started to use the Envoy? > Thanks in advance…. Tim

Response:

This in one issue I must take a stand on. > It’s the same sort of reasoning the SUV people have. They don’t care that > their giant trucks make the road unsafe for other drivers by blocking the > view of the road ahead – at least until they get rear-ended that is. I > really

First of all, one legally roadworthy insured vehicle has as much right on the road as any other legally roadworthy insured vehicle. I drive an SUV, not an S10 Blazer a giant vehicle by any means, but it is an SUV. I have been rear ended several times. Twice in this vehicle, twice in the Silverado that I previously owned, and once in a tiny Nissan pickup that belonged to my employer (at the time). None of the instances were because I was blocking the view of the road ahead. In fact in my opinion the only thing blocking the view of those drivers was thier own rear ends which they had their head up. The reason I say this is that each time it happened was because the person that rear ended me was in a hurry or wasn’t looking or was following too close. In any case if one leaves proper following distance between his own vehicle and the vehicle in front of him one will usually never rear end another vehicle. I can honestly say that despite the number of obtrusively large vehicles on the road, I have never rear ended another vehicle.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I have to say, that would likely really piss me off if you were driving >behind me. > Don’t worry about it – it’s not going to be too much longer before one of > the drivers that he blinds smashes into him, then his converted vehicle will > end up in the great wrecking yard in the sky. Hopefully both him and > the other driver come out of it without injury. > It’s the same sort of reasoning the SUV people have. They don’t care that > their giant trucks make the road unsafe for other drivers by blocking the > view of the road ahead – at least until they get rear-ended that is. I > really > get sick of them though because almost every night anymore the highway > I commute on is slower than snot because of all the rubberneckers attracted > by the latest SUV-sedan collision. > Ted

Response:

>>I have to say, that would likely really piss me off if you were driving >behind me. > Don’t worry about it – it’s not going to be too much longer before one of > the drivers that he blinds smashes into him, then his converted vehicle will > end up in the great wrecking yard in the sky. Hopefully both him and > the other driver come out of it without injury. > It’s the same sort of reasoning the SUV people have. They don’t care that > their giant trucks make the road unsafe for other drivers by blocking the > view of the road ahead – at least until they get rear-ended that is.

I disagree on this. You don’t NEED to know what’s going on in front of the vehicle in front of you if you leave enough following distance, all you need to know is that they’re slowing down. Yes, it helps tremendously to know what’s going on up there, and it’s a smart way to drive, knowing what’s going on up there, but if you leave enough following distance you will not rear-end the vehicle in front of you, if you’re paying enough attention to them. The worst are tractor trailers, can’t see ANYTHING through or around THEM, why don’t people complain about THEM? Even worse, the minivans in the mall parking lots, with the privacy glass, can’t see through it to look for vehicles/people coming down the aisle, nobody complains about THEM! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I really get sick of them though because almost every night anymore the highway > I commute on is slower than snot because of all the rubberneckers attracted > by the latest SUV-sedan collision. > Ted

Response:

While I agree with you that the conversions aren’t perfect, I think they’re very worth doing. I have the Eagle Eye 9006 conversion in my Silverado and it’s great. EXTREMELY bright light and they look wonderful. The downside? They’re obviously too bright to other cars, but only when close (like when you pull up behind someone and they look in their mirrors.) To oncoming traffic it’s very bright, but not blinding at all. I think it was a very good upgrade, with no real safety issues. Bought an extra set to put in my 3000GT when the motor goes back in — jeff ‘95 Mitsubishi Spyder VR-4 ‘01 Chevrolet Silverado HD Duramax Please remove the spam-busting z’s from my e-mail address to e-mail me.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Well, here’s what Daniel Stern has to say on the subject – I would tend to > agree, you can’t just stick HID tubes into the same headlight assembly and > expect to get proper/legal light output: > http://lighting.mbz.org/tech/info/bulbs/HID/conversion/ > — > Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada > Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/ > I have a 2002 Envoy with 9006 low beam headlamps. I am very unhappy with > the > low beam performance on the interstates. I feel like at 70 MPH I am > grossly > overdriving what I can see. Yes I could slow down to 60 MPH but then I > would > get run-over (:>). No one in NJ or NY drives at 55 or 65. I have taken > the > truck back to GM and had the alignment checked but they have not been able > to improve the situation much. > I see there are several aftermarket conversion kits out there to install > HID > lamps as replacements for the low beam bulbs. Before I drop $500 or so I > would like to find output if anyone has converted a 2002 Envoy to HID > lighting on the low beams and what the results where. > Specifically: > 1. Did the conversion help? Can you see the deer grazing on the shoulder > of > the road at 150 yards (or so). > 2. Was it a PITA (pain in the rear) to align the lamps. Did you need to > use > a special tool to crank the adjuster screws? > 3. What did you do with the slotted hood that is over the lamp GM > installs? > 4. How about the Daylight Running Lights? Are they still functional? > 5 .Did you have any problems doing the conversion? > 6. Who did you buy from? > 7. Is the conversion considered street legal? > 8. What temperature bulb did you get? > 9. Any problems after completed and you started to use the Envoy? > Thanks in advance…. Tim

Response:

Well, here’s what Daniel Stern has to say on the subject – I would tend to agree, you can’t just stick HID tubes into the same headlight assembly and expect to get proper/legal light output: http://lighting.mbz.org/tech/info/bulbs/HID/conversion/ — Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a 2002 Envoy with 9006 low beam headlamps. I am very unhappy with the > low beam performance on the interstates. I feel like at 70 MPH I am grossly > overdriving what I can see. Yes I could slow down to 60 MPH but then I would > get run-over (:>). No one in NJ or NY drives at 55 or 65. I have taken the > truck back to GM and had the alignment checked but they have not been able > to improve the situation much. > I see there are several aftermarket conversion kits out there to install HID > lamps as replacements for the low beam bulbs. Before I drop $500 or so I > would like to find output if anyone has converted a 2002 Envoy to HID > lighting on the low beams and what the results where. > Specifically: > 1. Did the conversion help? Can you see the deer grazing on the shoulder of > the road at 150 yards (or so). > 2. Was it a PITA (pain in the rear) to align the lamps. Did you need to use > a special tool to crank the adjuster screws? > 3. What did you do with the slotted hood that is over the lamp GM installs? > 4. How about the Daylight Running Lights? Are they still functional? > 5 .Did you have any problems doing the conversion? > 6. Who did you buy from? > 7. Is the conversion considered street legal? > 8. What temperature bulb did you get? > 9. Any problems after completed and you started to use the Envoy? > Thanks in advance…. Tim

Response:

I have a 2002 Envoy with 9006 low beam headlamps. I am very unhappy with the low beam performance on the interstates. I feel like at 70 MPH I am grossly overdriving what I can see. Yes I could slow down to 60 MPH but then I would get run-over (:>). No one in NJ or NY drives at 55 or 65. I have taken the truck back to GM and had the alignment checked but they have not been able to improve the situation much. I see there are several aftermarket conversion kits out there to install HID lamps as replacements for the low beam bulbs. Before I drop $500 or so I would like to find output if anyone has converted a 2002 Envoy to HID lighting on the low beams and what the results where. Specifically: 1. Did the conversion help? Can you see the deer grazing on the shoulder of the road at 150 yards (or so). 2. Was it a PITA (pain in the rear) to align the lamps. Did you need to use a special tool to crank the adjuster screws? 3. What did you do with the slotted hood that is over the lamp GM installs? 4. How about the Daylight Running Lights? Are they still functional? 5 .Did you have any problems doing the conversion? 6. Who did you buy from? 7. Is the conversion considered street legal? 8. What temperature bulb did you get? 9. Any problems after completed and you started to use the Envoy? Thanks in advance…. Tim

Response:

> If you can’t see the traffic in front of the truck in front of you because > you are blinded by the Big-Ass Tailgate then slow down and back off a bit so > The problem is, he’d have to back off far enough that inevitably, > someone would squeeze into that spot. As you seem to be fond of quoting > Mr. Murphy below, good odds that "someone" would be another fat-assed SUV.

Then keep backing off, I do. Just in case you forgot I have just as many obstacles on the road in front of me as you do. In addition to that I’m blind in my left eye so I have to keep my bubble of awareness even larger. > If your ‘Bubble of Awareness’ is impaired then perhaps you should not get so > close to that Big-Ass Tailgate so you can’t see around it. If there is > something in the way then you should be aware then that there is probably > something in front of the thing that’s in your way and as with all things, > anything can happen at any time. Let me quote from Murphy’s Law. > Unfortunately, you’re slipping down a very dangerous slope here; sounding > very similar to a certain troll we have on this newsgroup who’s name > supposedly starts with ‘C’. Saying, "anything can happen at any time" is > *precisely* why Krieger, and the rest of us who know better, want to see > *through* your vehicle.

I don’t have a problem with you wanting to see through my vehicle, just don’t do it while riding my bumper. If you can’t see through my vehicle then adjust your following distance or go around. It’s that simple. > Things don’t just *happen*. Crashes, animals, potholes, and pedestrians > are all completely avoidable if drivers learn to expand their Bubble of > Awareness. The vast majority of drivers don’t, however, and spend their > driving time focusing 6-8 feet in front of their hood ornament.

Nobody ever said that things *just happen*, but they do happen and they happen quite often when you least expect it. On the freeway it’s usually because someone got stupid. Quite often in San Antonio (where I live) someone possibly changed lanes without making sure it was clear and took out the car next to it. Far too often when that happens people all around the two cars involved start hitting their brakes trying to avoid being hit themselves and get rear ended because someone was following too close. Thus causing a cascade reaction and a multi-vehicle collision. > Those of us who’ve either been taught *correctly* by driver’s ed (har har) > or spent any time on a race track know that watching the vehicle right in > front of you is dangerous. Watching the vehicle half a mile down the road > or more, is a much better thing to do. With an SUV in the way, it becomes > more of a challenge.

An SUV on the road in front of you should not be viewed as a challenge, but as another vehicle which has just as much right to be on the road as you do. Just because it is bigger than your vehicle does not make it any less legal on the road and should be treated as such. If you are put in a situation that you cannot be *Watching the vehicle a half mile down the road or more* then again, BACK OFF. If you can’t see what’s going in down the road in front of you the leave yourself a safe following distance. The freeway is NOT a race track. > It’s probably illegal, but I tend to show people like that my brake lights. > Well, you keep doing that. One of these days, you’ll be unpleasantly > surprised NOT by being hit, but by someone who knows *precisely* when you’re > going to hit the brakes and matches you, move for move. I won’t explain to > you how certain folks know that, but spend some time on a race track and > you’ll learn how to do it, too.

I never said I "hit the brakes". I only show them my brake lights. I can tap on the pedal and light up the brake lights without causing the brakes to engage (thus disengaging the cruise control if it’s on). If they don’t back off or go around after that I just slow down (without using my brakes) to the point they get tired of being behind me and go around anyway. All I want is for the car behind me to stay off the tailgate of my fat-assed SUV. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> jas > — > Jason Van Patten

Response:

> If you can’t see the traffic in front of the truck in front of you because > you are blinded by the Big-Ass Tailgate then slow down and back off a bit so

Response:

>I disagree on this. You don’t NEED to know what’s going on in front of >the vehicle in front of you if you leave enough following distance, all >you need to know is that they’re slowing down.

Response:

>I have to say, that would likely really piss me off if you were driving >behind me.