Chrysler # 3157 light bulb

I noticed that my Intrepid takes a #3157 bulb for tail light, brake
light, reverse, and rear turn signal. So I assume that 3157 must have
two filaments, high and low. But my second generation Intrepid has
amber rear turn signals, which wouldn't seem to require two filaments,
nor would the reverse light. Did they just specify a 3157 to keep a
common part number/less inventory and then just not use the low
filament? I'm just curious especially since it seems a budget concious
manufacturer would use a more expensive 2 filament bulb when a single
filament would do.

The front sidemarkers and turn signal use 3157NALL. I assume the A
stands for amber; what does the N stand for?

Also, are the LL ("long life") suffix bulbs just as bright as the
regular bulbs?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Greg Houston wrote:

> I noticed that my Intrepid takes a #3157 bulb for tail light, brake
> light, reverse, and rear turn signal.

You must have a '98-'01 model. In '02, the reverse lamp was changed to a
912 bulb.

> So I assume that 3157 must have two filaments, high and low.

Correct.

> But my second generation Intrepid has amber rear turn signals, which
> wouldn't seem to require two filaments, nor would the reverse light.
> Did they just specify a 3157 to keep a common part number/less inventory
> and then just not use the low filament?

That is exactly what they did.

> I'm just curious especially since it seems a budget concious
> manufacturer would use a more expensive 2 filament bulb when a single
> filament would do.

Economies of scale are at work he One socket, one P/N, one robot to
install the bulbs...

> The front sidemarkers and turn signal use 3157NALL. I assume the A
> stands for amber; what does the N stand for?

"Natural". "NA" = "Natural Amber", that is, a transparent amber bulb. This
"NA" designation was used when amber-glass bulbs replaced the old painted
"A" bulbs (looked like they'd been shot with school bus yellow paint) in
the '80s. Then Cadmium glass was banned and so most of these bulbs are no
longer made out of amber glass. Instead, they're dip-coated in transparent
amber polymer coatings. Some of these are better than others; you can see
a lot of cars running around with their amber-bulb-behind-clear-lens turn
signals giving off a brownish-white light; the coating bakes off. Some
manufacturers have kept the "NA" designation for these coated bulbs,
others have gone back to the "A" designation. And to make things
extra-interesting, Sylvania is now marketing very good dichroically-coated
signal bulbs under the "Silver Star" name. These give a better amber color
and the coating will never bake off or fade, but the bulbs are expensive.
(If you buy these, avoid the temptation to buy the Silver Star headlamp
bulbs as well; they're junk.)

> Also, are the LL ("long life") suffix bulbs just as bright as the
> regular bulbs?

The differences, where any exist, are too trivial to worry about. If you
want the longest possible bulb life, replace the clear 3157s with 4114K,
and the amber 3157NA with 5702KA. Both of those new bulbs come from GM
dealer parts counters. 4114K is the DRL bulb for an '02 Chev Silverado
pickup, and 5702KA is the park/turn/DRL bulb for an '04 Saturn Ion.

> signal bulbs under the "Silver Star" name. These give a better amber color
> and the coating will never bake off or fade, but the bulbs are expensive.
> (If you buy these, avoid the temptation to buy the Silver Star headlamp
> bulbs as well; they're junk.)

Nope! Stearn your still full of **** on this.

The Silver Star Headlights are great headlights (but short-lived, probably
1-2 years.) They produce about as pure white a light you can find in a
headlight, and their just as bright as Sylvania's XtraVision (which is a
little more yellow). Everyone who have SilverStar's (that I know) loves
them. (If you do buy them, get them off Ebay; I picked one pair for $18.)

If your not familure with these, here is the Sylvania website for both;
SilverStar:
http://www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProd...ar/default.htm
XtraVision:
http://www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProd...on/default.htm

Personally I say forget the SilverStar turn signals. Waste of good money
just for a turn signal bulb.

"Dennis" > wrote in message
news:0qV4f.6137$W32.2311@trnddc06...
>> signal bulbs under the "Silver Star" name. These give a better amber
>> color and the coating will never bake off or fade, but the bulbs are
>> expensive. (If you buy these, avoid the temptation to buy the Silver Star
>> headlamp bulbs as well; they're junk.)
>
> Nope! Stearn your still full of **** on this.


Actually, for a less money you can pick up GE's Night Hawk line of bulbs
which put out about 40% more light than the Xtravision line and last a lot
longer than the Silver Star line of bulbs. Don't get us started on a
discussion of "Pure White" (there ain't no such thing).

Richard.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Richard wrote:

>>> (avoid the temptation to buy the Silver Star headlamp bulbs as well;
>>> they're junk.)
>>
>> Nope! Stearn your still full of **** on this.

> Actually, for a less money you can pick up GE's Night Hawk line of bulbs
> which put out about 40% more light than the Xtravision line and last a
> lot longer than the Silver Star line of bulbs.

Quite right.

DS (I'm just as full of **** as everyone else, but on this particular
topic, mine is extremely well-informed and factually accurate **** 8^{D} )

Dennis wrote:
> > signal bulbs under the "Silver Star" name. These give a better amber color
> > and the coating will never bake off or fade, but the bulbs are expensive.
> > (If you buy these, avoid the temptation to buy the Silver Star headlamp
> > bulbs as well; they're junk.)
>
> Nope! Stearn your still full of **** on this.
>
> The Silver Star Headlights are great headlights (but short-lived, probably
> 1-2 years.) They produce about as pure white a light you can find in a
> headlight, and their just as bright as Sylvania's XtraVision (which is a
> little more yellow). Everyone who have SilverStar's (that I know) loves
> them. (If you do buy them, get them off Ebay; I picked one pair for $18.)
>
> If your not familure with these, here is the Sylvania website for both;
> SilverStar:
> http://www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProd...ar/default.htm
> XtraVision:
> http://www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProd...on/default.htm
>
> Personally I say forget the SilverStar turn signals. Waste of good money
> just for a turn signal bulb.

Hmm... looking at the links you've provided, if you go up one level
(click on the "silverstar products" link from the one page, and the
"xtravision products" link on the other) you can see pictures of the
products in question. The picture of the SilverStar H4 bulb is clearly
(heh) made of blue tinted glass, while the XtraVision appears to be
clear. The choice should be obvious.

nate

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, N8N wrote:

> The picture of the SilverStar H4 bulb is clearly (heh) made of blue
> tinted glass, while the XtraVision appears to be clear. The choice
> should be obvious.

Well, sure, unless you feel that the laws of marketeering trump the laws
of physics.

http://www.bmwcca.org/members/AM/Tem...6_Light&page=3

23% *less* peak light from a Silverstar bulb compared to a standard bulb,
17% *more* peak light from an Xtravision bulb compared to a standard bulb,
therefore 40% *less* peak light from a Silverstar compared to an
Xtravision.

And Xtravisions aren't even the best bulbs on the US market.

DS

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, N8N wrote:
>
>> The picture of the SilverStar H4 bulb is clearly (heh) made of blue
>> tinted glass, while the XtraVision appears to be clear. The choice
>> should be obvious.
>
>
> Well, sure, unless you feel that the laws of marketeering trump the laws
> of physics.
>

My guess is that Nate was saying that the CLEAR bulb (XtraVision) should
be the obvious choice... not the Toilet Duck colored Silverstar :-)

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Steve wrote:

>>> The picture of the SilverStar H4 bulb is clearly (heh) made of blue
>>> tinted glass, while the XtraVision appears to be clear. The choice
>>> should be obvious.
>>
>> Well, sure, unless you feel that the laws of marketeering trump the
>> laws of physics.
>>
>
> My guess is that Nate was saying that the CLEAR bulb (XtraVision) should
> be the obvious choice... not the Toilet Duck colored Silverstar :-)

Yes, of course he was. And I was agreeing with him.

Steve wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, N8N wrote:
> >
> >> The picture of the SilverStar H4 bulb is clearly (heh) made of blue
> >> tinted glass, while the XtraVision appears to be clear. The choice
> >> should be obvious.
> >
> >
> > Well, sure, unless you feel that the laws of marketeering trump the laws
> > of physics.
> >
>
> My guess is that Nate was saying that the CLEAR bulb (XtraVision) should
> be the obvious choice... not the Toilet Duck colored Silverstar :-)

am I that... transparent?

nate