I have driven 1,200 miles in the first 21 days of ownership. Many of those miles have been at night, interstates, regular highways, streets in my neighborhood and back roads. 380 of the miles were 2 round trips to PA, 3 legs at night, 1 in the day.

I feel that I am driving with fog lights instead of headlights. There is such a sharp flat cutoff to the low beams. On the NJ highways there are hundreds of reflectors on the side of the road. You can see the cutoff right on the reflectors and when going downhill the cutoff can be below the reflector.

It's annoying but not as dangerous as when there are no streetlights or other cars or businesses. I spent a week in PA at a customer site and every night I used the same unlighted off ramp that is downhill with a relatively sharp left at the low point on the ramp. I am willing to say that if there had been anything, animal, pedestrian or a disabled vehicle to my left I would not have been able to see it until the ramp leveled.

I don't think these lights would light up a deer's eyes on the side of the road or 100 feet dead in front of you.

Am I over exaggerating? Opinions please.

At back roads or unlitted highways, it's better to use high beam. I actually like the sharp cut off of the low beam and its spread pattern. Very useful in urban area w/o blinding oncoming drivers.

At back roads or unlitted highways, it's better to use high beam. I actually like the sharp cut off of the low beam and its spread pattern. Very useful in urban area w/o blinding oncoming drivers.

Agreed about the high beams, but you shouldn't have to use them.

I have owned cars that have been able to handle a cutoff for the oncoming drivers yet still light up a reflective sign on the side of the road.

I also drive on dark roads in PA, such as major deer-risk areas on the very twisty 940. The Tribeca's lights do have that cut off, but I don't feel I'm losing any visibility. With the fog lights on I pick up anough ambient lighting and easily catch the eyes of a deer or dog. Like Foxbat, I usually switch to high-beams when possible. It tripples the range of vision and this is a technique that SHOULD be employed on roads like this. Finally, the Tribeca's cut-off is less likely to cause an accident for oncoming cars.


Robert B
Tribeca Limited

Agreed about the high beams, but you shouldn't have to use them.

I have owned cars that have been able to handle a cutoff for the oncoming drivers yet still light up a reflective sign on the side of the road.

did the cars have projector headlamps?

i thought the tribeca has phenomenal headlights :confused:

i thought the tribeca has phenomenal headlights :confused:

It does for what it was designed to do. Some ppl just want it point a little bit farther or not so well concetrated beams :D

It probably also has something to do with the higher position of the headlight and the angle of the beam.

thought the tribeca has phenomenal headlights >>>


Yep....very bright and crisp, lighting up a big square in front of the car. Flip on the fogs for more diffuse light, especially at the sides. Use the brights on the unlit twistys. Works great...and the thing handles well and is safer than just about anything, especially in snow and rain. Until the new MDX comes out, this baby is it. I do have a feeling that the new MDX will be a killer SUV.

RB
B9 Limited

did the cars have projector headlamps?

99 Volvo S70 both beams halogen
02 A6 halogen low, projector high

I don't think these lights would light up a deer's eyes on the side of the road or 100 feet dead in front of you.



Consumers Reports April 2003 Headlight testing: What we look for

Our headlight test course.


"Individual headlight Ratings will soon be a part of every car and truck test we perform. Here are the tests that will determine those scores:

"We modeled our 900-foot headlight test course, shown at right, after one used by Guide Corp. It currently includes a series of vertical flat-black posts at fixed distances, representing darkly clad pedestrians and hard-to-see objects. We measure both low- and high-beam performance, but stress low-beam lighting since that’s what drivers rely on most.

"1. Vehicles are parked at the same place at the beginning of the course. Tests are conducted on a moonless night, in good weather conditions.

"2. We rate low-beam lighting straight ahead using 10 posts up to 800 feet from the vehicle. The more posts a vehicle lights, the better. We put the most weight on this test because more distance ahead equals more time to react and brake safely. High beams are rated similarly, but account for less of the overall headlight score.

"3. We rate side lighting using 6 more posts on the left and right of the test course 100 feet ahead of the vehicle. The wider lighting typical for HID lights is helpful at low speeds in crowded urban areas. But it’s less useful than down-the-road lighting at higher speeds, where distance out front counts most.

"4. We also evaluate whether a vehicle’s low beams are likely to appear to be glaring to oncoming drivers from 200 feet away, as well as the evenness and intensity of the light and how smoothly low beams transition, or cut off, to darkness at the top of the beam. A sharp cutoff can distract the driver and cause glare as the light flashes in other drivers’ rearview mirrors and at oncoming cars."

The rating is Below Average for the Tribeca.

Wow. My parent's have the Tribecca and the lighting on low beam I would die for on my '05 OBS. Hmmm? To each his own. But the Tribecca low beams WITH the fogs on is the best lighting I have driven with since I had a 914-6 with 100 watts all around (fogs/lows and highs) and that was with my butt sitting on the ground! :banana: :banana: :banana:

I hate the headlights on my GF's Tribeca as well. First they are halogen projectors, second the sharp cut-off limits your ability to see unlit road signs. Why use projectors with a halogen lamp? :confused: