skid plate layout for bjf or where to order from?

[bren_bjf]

Hi,

I need a sturdy skid plate for some driving in the woods (however no serious rally or something like that). Anyone knows for shure if a GC Impreza's skidplate would fit my 1993 BJF 2.2 AWD N/A straight on? Or anyone did manufacture a plate by him/herself and have some instructions for me? Over here in Germany there aren't many choices left when it comes to this stuff.

Best regards
Stephan Brendler

[THAWA]

it should fit, after all the gc chassis is nothing more than a shortened bc chassis. But I don't know for sure.

[ultrasonic]

I have a front skid plate for a GC made by Primitive Racing. It appears that some of the front mounting bolt holes on the plate need to be drilled at a different location to mate up with the holes on the car. I have drilled and mounted yet.

In short, any GC Impreza plate you find -should- be able to be adapted to fit the BC/BF Legacy.

[bren_bjf]

Thank you guys, then I know what to look for.

Stephan

[THAWA]

and while we're on the subject of looking for stuff, how would you feel about looking for some headlights

[bren_bjf]

Tell me - what is so special about european headlights? Apart from the clear sidemarkers I can't tell a difference. And over here most people are happy when they get US-style sidemarkers...
But older Legacies are very rare over here, so finding parts is not anything near easy.
Today the right front air-strut went south, so I had a hard time finding good but cheap replacement. I know you guys often replace those bastards with conventionell struts, but in Germany you need an headlight-leveler (don't know if it's called that way in US) from 1990 on. So I have to keep those air struts.

Stephan

[ultrasonic]

Our headlight lenses are plastic and prone to developing a hazy oxidation- kind of like automotive cataracts. If I'm correct, the European lights are glass, and likely have better beam pattern.

[vrg3]

European lights are now permitted to be made with plastic lenses. I think it was some time around 1994 when that decision was made. Unfortunately, it's only now that they're actually suffering from it since it takes around 10 years for yellowing to become a big problem.

The big problem with most American headlights is the beam pattern. Stephan, if you were to come to the USA for a visit and had to drive at night you might feel the need to pull over and check whether or not your headlights were actually on, unless it was foggy or something. If it was foggy you'd wonder why your low beams cause as much glare as high beams should.

They shine light in all the wrong places, basically. Very little goes to the sides, too much goes to the foreground, too much goes upwards, et cetera.

Our high beams aren't very good either; there are restrictive limitations on bright they can be. That may have something to do with the fact that here people often feel the need to use their high beams when they shouldn't have to, due to their ineffective low beams.

Oh, and headlight levelers are only on a few models of cars here.

[bren_bjf]

Indeed - that's a point. I didn't know that they were made of plastic. I only know those glass-headlights. But why they also made a different light pattern is out of my imagination. If I can finde some european-style over here I keep you posted.
Stephan

[THAWA]

jawesome, which side of the street do you guys drive on?

[eastbaysubaru]

The right side. The only place in Europe that drives on the left is England.

-Brian

[THAWA]

damn brits!

jk anyone thats british

[vrg3]

Stephan - The reasons for the stupid American lights are mostly political.

The federal government of the United States is pretty much controlled by the various industries in the country. American automakers like headlights that are cheap to make, so they make the government allow them.

You can combine that with an old law that required all cars to use sealed beam headlights, where the entire light (bulb/filament, reflector, and lens) was a single assembly bought at the auto parts store. It effectively stopped all research and development on automotive lighting here, while European companies continued to improve on lighting technology.

It doesn't stop at beam patterns; there's much more stupidity in automotive lighting here. Many of our cars use their high beams as daytime running lights, in spite of the fact that that produces intense glare. Some actually use the front turn signals as DRLs! Then there are all those cars with their front turn signals mounted inboard of the headlamps. Some cars here still use a single red lamp to represent both turn signals and brake signals in the rear. It goes on and on.

[bren_bjf]

I understand that lighting not only is a convenience feature but also can improve safety alot. I'm a student and until two months ago I worked for a half year at Hella. I agree what you said about sealed-beam headlights, inboard mounted front turn signals and combined red rear turn signals. I can add another one. Those sideview-mirror mounted turn signals especially on higher-budget cars. Of course its an improvement over non-existing side turn signals but when you drive besides such a car in height of their rear passenger doors you can't see them. I understand that todays cars have to look trendy or high-tech but safety and usabillity have to come first.
Stephan

[vrg3]

Amen to that.

[BAC5.2]

Damn, someone just got on Vikash's A-List.

It seems that more and more cars are being made with inboard turn signals.

On another note, Vikash, you would have LOVED my mom's old Tiburon. Projector housings around H4 bulbs that has a line as sharp as an HID system, and brights that were on with the low beams, so you had a VERY good beam pattern. Plus, there was a good bit of light out to the sides. Enough that you could easily see out of the side windows at night for curbs, and enough on the right side to allow an evenly lit lane without "pits". Surprising light quality from a Korean car. I was pretty impressed. Roman's car has HORRIBLE lights though. Those fish cars suck, lol.

[evolutionmovement]

Are those Tauruses commonly referred to as 'fish cars'? That's funny. The designer for that came to my school and talked about how engineering ruined it for him and that it looks like a fish (I can't remember what kind of fish he compared it to). It was also supposed to beat the Neon to market to seem more like a design leader like the original.

Steve

[vrg3]

I've never experienced Hyundai lights at all... what year was it?

NIts to pick -- HID doesn't have anything to do with sharpness of cutoff (projectors are what make a very sharp cutoff possible), and having high and low beams together doesn't mean a good beam pattern. And I don't think they used H4s for two reasons -- projectors aren't generally usable with dual-filament bulbs, and you certainly can't illuminate both filaments of a dual-filament bulb. Parts America seems to sell H1 and H7 bulbs for a 2000 Tiburon application.

But it sounds like Hyundai used a DOT/ECE hybrid setup, like 92-94 Legacies. Pretty cool.

Roman's car, just like all 'murrican cars, has terrible headlights. I remember reading about a review in some European car magazine where they were comparing some family sedans, and on the subject of headlamp performance they said they were really disappointed with the Chrysler 300M (Imagine seeing a Car & Driver review actually mention beam patterns!). Even the Chrysler ECE lights sucked compared to the BMW/Audi/Volvo/etc ECE lights.

And my opinion is that it looks like a wounded carp . 'Course, it's more like a tuna in terms of performance.

Was the Taurus of that year sold overseas? He should try to get ECE lights for it if it's at all possible.