1957 was an interesting year for the US auto industry. This was the year that many (but not all) states began to allow cars to be sold fitted with four 5¾” headlights (with separate bulbs for low and high beams). Which states were still banning quad headlights in 1957? I was unable to find a definitive list, but anecdotally South Dakota, Nebraska, and Tennessee were among the last dual-headlight holdouts in 1957. Perhaps Daniel Stern can “enlighten” us. In any case, It wouldn’t be until 1958 before quad headlights were legal in all 48 states.
This left manufacturers on the horns of a dilemma for the 1957 model year, being faced with one of three possible choices:
- Continue selling cars with only single headlights for 1957, and risk being left behind on the latest automotive styling and lighting trends.
- Offer only quad headlights, and opt not to sell your car in states where quad headlights were not yet legal.
- Or if you were a really deep-pocketed manufacturer, you could design two different front ends, one with quad headlights, and one with single headlights for states where quads were not yet legal.
While all three approaches were employed by various manufacturers, it is the last option that is the most intriguing to me, and that I would like to take a closer look at. Designing and manufacturing two different front ends had to be an expensive undertaking, so it is not surprising that this practice was largely limited to more expensive brands and vehicles (No 1957 Chevrolets, Fords, or Plymouths had alternate single- and quad-headlight configurations – all were single headlamp only).
GM
1957 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham
GM was the lone Big 3 automaker who refused to offer alternate single and quad headlight front ends for any of their 1957 vehicles. Instead, GM largely eschewed quad headlights altogether in 1957, saving their quad headlight redesigns for the 1958 model year, when they could be applied across the board. The one notable exception was the 1957 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham, which along with the Nash Ambassador and Desoto Adventurer was the only other 1957 vehicle to be offered solely with quad 5¾” headlights. For what was already a niche low-volume vehicle, it didn’t make sense for Cadillac to make an alternative single-headlight front end, so likely just opted not to sell the 1957 Brougham in the few states where quads were illegal.
1957 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz
Note that the similar-sounding (but completely different) Eldorado Biarritz was single headlight only.
Chrysler
1957 Chrysler New Yorker
1957 was the first year of Chrysler’s “Forward Look” models, and quad headlights were a key part of that look. Chrysler couldn’t afford to not sell their cars in all 48 states, so they designed alternate dual and quad headlight front ends for all their cars.
Really, the extra cost for Chrysler was probably pretty minimal: The fenders appear to be the same in either case, with only the bezels being swapped out for a single 7″ sealed beam vs. two 5¾” units (along with a slightly different wiring harness). Quad or dual, the look on the 1957 Chrysler is a bit of a compromise: The opening had to be large enough to handle the height of the taller 7″ bulb, and the width of two 5¾” bulbs.
Either option got you the square peg in a round hole look, withs too much “white space” to the sides in the single-lamp bezels, and the dual-lamp bezels not filling out all the vertical space.
Imperial
While 1957 Imperials, in general, are rare cars, the single headlamp versions are downright scarce. When I first saw one a few weeks back on one of Paul’s Vintage Car Carrier posts (and the inspiration for this post), I expressed my revulsion in the comments. Upon closer examination, I have softened my stance somewhat. While I still think I like the quads better, the single lamps have a lot of detail work in form of the knurled housing that is missing from the quad lamp model, which places its lamps in a rather unadorned flat chevron-shaped bezel.
Different grilles were employed as well between the single and quad-light models as well, with the grille for the quad-lamp model wrapping all the way around to the fender. All in all, this was a lot of trouble (and expense) for Chrysler to go to, especially when sales of the single lamp models were limited to the few rural states where quad headlights were still banned, and therefore probably sold no more than a few hundred examples.
Desoto
1957 DeSoto Firedome
Desoto was the sole automaker that looked at the three options outlined at the beginning of my post and said “All of the above.” The entry-level, Dodge-based Firesweep was available only with single headlights. On the top end, the 1957 Adventurer (like the Nash Ambassador and Eldorado Brougham) was available with quad headlights only (it had a delayed launch and didn’t start shipping until the 1957 calendar year). The remainder of the lineup (the Firedome and Fireflite) were sold in both dual and quad lamp configurations, using the same interchangeable bezels that the Chrysler models used.
Dodge
1957 Dodge
No Dodges or Plymouths were available with quad headlights in 1957. To achieve the quad headlamp appearance that the “Forward Look” demanded while still being legal in all 48 states and without the cost of an alternate front end, a cheat was employed. On each side, a single 7″ headlamp bulb was fitted with an inner parking lamp, giving the appearance of quad headlights without using actual quad lamps.
Mercury
1957 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser
Of all the 1957 models available with alternate headlight setups, Mercury probably has the most detail differences. Alas, the single headlight Mercury suffers considerably in comparison to its quad-lamp sibling. While the quad-lamp variant got cool turn signal “brows” atop the headlights, the dual-lamp models got their turn signals placed in the grille instead.
Furthermore, the quad lamps are even with the fender line (and possibly even protruding a little bit), projecting forward in a confident manner. The single lamps, in contrast, are tucked under the fender, much like a regular 1957 Ford, and look downright homely.
This is easily the worst of all the alternate 1957 front ends, in my opinion.
Lincoln
1957 Lincolns are an interesting case. While at first glance their “Quadra-Lite” grille appears to have stacked quad headlights, in actuality they are just single headlights with a separate driving light designed to appear like a quad setup (similar to Dodge and Plymouth). The upper lamp is a standard 7″ combined low/high beam sealed beam bulb, while the slightly smaller lower bulb is just a “road” light.
Related Reading
Monday Funnies: Headlamp Hassles
This reminds me of the mid 1970s when square headlights were first allowed. It was said at the time that they would lead to lower front hood lines so that front visibility would be improved. Carmakers tacked the new square headlights onto their current cars. They stacked them like on the Monte Carlos and the Chrysler Cordobas which went from round headlights to stacked square ones. The rounded lights, I feel, looked better on those cars. I guess it is improving at the transition time and still using what you have.
I still wouldn’t kick a ’77 Monte Carlo (haven’t seen one of this generation on the street in ages) out of my garage when I woke up. They’re not even really at car shows either.
Arrrgg. To each his own, but I always felt they were absolutely garish, ostentatious, kind of baroque looking, large and consumptive on the outside, with little room inside. But were slow and handled badly. To my eyes, one of the worst styling exercises ever. Or course “other than that how did you like the play Mrs Lincoln…” My Dad did like the styling though.
IMHO.
I always thought that the only successful “stacked” quads were on the 1965 ’66 ’67 Pontiac GTO’s. It was an attractive and unique design.
1975 Cadillac was first, and exclusive that year, with rectangular sealed beams.
The 1975 Buick Electra and Oldsmobile Ninety Eight series also had rectangular headlamps.
It was all the C bodies then. I noticed that Imperial and Lincoln still had hidden round headlights for ’75. GM Guide must have been the first approved rectangular ones.
GM were at the spearhead of the push for rectangular headlamps, and it was their system that got a temporary, few-years-long exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard № 108’s requirement that cars have either one large or two small round headlamps on each side. NHTSA made a big, farcical production of shouting out loud that there was no guarantee the rectangular lamps would be permitted after the end of the exemption, and if they were, there was no guarantee that same GM system would be allowed on an ongoing basis (and in other news, nudge-nudge, the sun might start rising in the North instead of the East, wink-wink, and gravity might be reversed so stuff falls up instead of down. No guarantees, y’hear?!).
So GM had multiple big advantages over other automakers and lamp suppliers: they were in direct negotiation with NHTSA because they had petitioned for the exemption, while other makers could only go “Yeah, what they said” or “Hey, this other system would’ve been better, why didn’t you allow that?”. And GM, uniquely, had their own in-house supplier of sealed beams and related components. Other makers had to guess and gamble twice: would the rectangular lamps would be allowed long enough to pay back the investment required to make and use them? And would they have to tool up for new lamps once, or twice in case NHTSA changed the specifications?
Then there was the matter of less seeing and more glare compared to the round lamps. The whole thing smelled, and was not good for consumers.
Actually the stretched B Body GrandVille and Bonneville got them too for 75, as did the 3 E body cars (Toro, Eldo, and Riv). Finally, the new for 75 H-specials (Monza, Starfire, and Skyhawk)all had them.
The 1975 Pontiac Grand Ville also had rectangular headlamps…
And don’t forget the 1975 Monza/Sunbird/Skyhawk/Starfire quadruplets…
Sunbird didn’t arrive until ’76 actually – in return it had a distinctive front clip whereas the other three looked almost alike.
I’ve always felt that the Chrysler products and the Mercury looked unfinished with the single headlights, so I’d choose the duals if I indeed had a choice.
I would argue that the 57 Mercury doesn’t look particularly good with either treatment. Each treatment looks like a workaround, with a fender shape too wide for the single light but not wide enough for the duals. The single light version looks blah while the dual clearly doesn’t fit in the opening so was dropped and the side finished with a chrome pod that sticks out on the sides.
I had a ’58 Mercury. All ’58 Mercs had quad headlights which seemed much better integrated into the fender than the ’57. From the driver seat, the view over the ’58 fender tops looked too narrow to house quads. It reminded me more of the driver view over the front fenders of a ’57 Ford. Considering the major body differences between Ford & Mercury during that time, I always thought it curious the front fender tops created such a similar impression from the driver seat.
. Considering the major body differences between Ford & Mercury during that time, I always thought it curious the front fender tops created such a similar impression from the driver seat.
The difference between the Ford and Mercury bodies was not nearly as great as commonly perceived or presumed. The Mercury (and senior Edsel) bodies were a bit wider from the cowl back, and had a wider rear axle. But the front ends were essentially the same across all three brands. That’s how the Edsel used the same front end on both junior and senior versions. And that explains your similar impressions from the driver’s seat.
Considering the generally-overdone look of the ’57 Mercury’s styling, the headlights are the least of its worries! I prefer the simpler look of the single lights; as implemented, the dual treatment just looks too busy for me.
This piece answered a question I should have thought about long ago. Why did Dad’s 1957 Plymouth have the funny small “headlights” while his otherwise similar ’58 had the real things, which looked better?
An aside: he had back-to back years because the ’57 was t-boned and totaled while we were vacationing on Cape Cod. Dad was not hurt; he later took a train home and collected us in our grandmother’s ’55 Chrysler.
The strange thing is that Ford, twenty plus years into the future did the same thing on its down sized LTD only with square headlights instead. Some had big duals, some the smaller quads.
Yep, and to my eye the basic model with the single large rectangular headlamps looks a whole lot better than the de luxe model (and, after a few years, all models) with the quad small rectangulars.
The 79-81 LTD, unlike most of the 1957 models, looked right with either headlamp treatment because Ford invested in separate front clips for each, with different grilles, parking lamps, and turn indicators. Most crucial were the bladed front fenders with vertical lights and reflectors on single-headlamp models, a common styling element on 70s Fords. The quad-headlamp front by contrast used a more modern simple 90-degree endcap with the headlamps pushed to the outer edges and parking/turn lamps below, much like many GM products of the time. I much prefer the (relatively rare) single headlamp front treatment which fits the car much better. Either is better than the 1988 facelift that rounded off the contours on the front (and rear) which clashed with the still-square rest of the car which was unchanged.
Trivia: the single-headlamp cars were called Custom 500 in Canada, not LTD.
Style guide question: should the alternate headlamp treatments we’ve been discussing be called dual and quad, or single and dual? I’ve seen it both ways, which makes “dual headlamps” ambiguous because it’s used to describe either a single headlamp on each side for a total of two, or two headlamps on each side. That’s why I usually call them single or quad which is unambiguous, but also inconsistent which always bothers me a bit.
The answer is…yes. It’s one of those questions with no good answer, and your solution (single / quad) is also the one I find least objectionable, despite its internal inconsistency.
There are actually a fair number of these in the field of car lighting. “Lamp” is used primarily in Europe to refer to the light source; in North America it’s usually called a “bulb”, and in Australia and New Zealand a “globe”. But the word “luminaire” (proper name for what most people would call a “light fixture” in a house or building) is not used in vehicle lighting; the optical assembly that collects, amplifies, and distributes light from the light source is called a “lamp”, which means we use one word to mean two different
things: what kind of lamp does this lamp use? Then there’s “light”, which is formally used to describe the visible radiation emitted by the lamp (in both senses of that word); regulations and technical standards refer, for example, to the “stop light function” (a steady red light to the rear of the vehicle, used to advertise deceleration) and the “stop lamp” (a device providing the stop light function). But “light” is semi-formally used to discern between road-illumination devices such as headlamps (“lamps”) and signalling devices such as turn signals and stop lamps…er…lights. Then there’s informal usage thrown in, and…well…maybe it’ll work better if we all just revert to pointing and grunting.
Looks like we agree on the styling of both the first and last box Panthers, and I just now figured out one reason why I like the single-headlamp Ford so much better: it makes it look a lot less like a crappy copy of a Caprice.
Same here, quad light design reminds me even more of the 76 Oldsmobile front end. The duals has a more traditional Ford look with those bladed turn signals, it almost looks like an upsized Granada, which actually makes the entire design more cohesive
To press the point, I think the single-headlamp LTD would look even better without those extra parking lights set into the grille. They’re purely cosmetic, and I think they make the works too busy/fussy. Here’s my quickie photochop—I also closed up the bumper bar.
That looks so right it’s hard to believe it was made the other way!
Also the Fairmont, the standard 78s had large rectangular duals and the Futura had small quads
I think the single headlights look better in every example here, especially Mercury.
Are you, like me, someone who says only “single headlights” and “quad headlights” because “dual headlghts” can be either two or two-each-side?
I like the single-quad naming convention, and will probably update this post to reflect that, and use it going forward. While not consistent, it is the only way that is not ambiguous.
Really? Genuine thanks. I am much more a lurker here than the regular commentors; This may be my best blurb ever.
Late by a year comment. My dad bought new in June 1957, a Fairlane 500 with dual headlights. The bezel dipped down, covered the lower area where a single light would be exposed. Inside, that, a metal frame held both headlights and allowed for focusing. My uncle, concurrently bought a new 1957 Mercury with dual headlights. Be me my sister first car, then mine for nearly twenty years. Wish I kept the headlamp parts when we sold the car. Have old photos whenever anyone disputes that.
In agreement with you here. Especially the Mercury, almost as especially with the DeSoto (the single headlights flow with that oval bumper/grille better). The Chrysler is a toss-up either way, the Imperial looks better with the quads.
The quad-light Merc looks like something out of The Insolent Chariots, the single-light version looks like a period customized car.
It’s the horizontal-tube grille that makes it, though. There was a third style used on lower-series ’57 Mercurys with single lamps and the vertical-bar grille that doesn’t come off as well.
I’ve always had a thing for the dual light ’57 Imperial.
What’s astonishing to me about the Imperial is that it appears from the pics here that the dual light version had an entirely unique grill stamping. Or am I seeing that wrong?
I’m seeing the same thing. I hadn’t ever looked that closely.
Yes, I do believe you are correct.
I didn’t notice this at first, but the quad-lamp grille wraps around the front end, while the dual-light version does not, which gives it a less-finished look. Although the “gun barrel” look of the dual-lamp setup is definitely growing on me. It definitely looks more menacing.
This was certainly a lot of trouble (and expense) to go to by Chrysler for a variation that probably didn’t sell more than a few hundred units. I feel sorry for someone who is restoring a dual headlamp 57 Imperial and is in need of replacement parts.
Or if you were a really deep-pocketed manufacturer, you could design two different front ends, one with quad headlights, and one with dual headlight for states where quads were not yet legal.
Ford did the similar stunt in 1983 with Lincoln Mark VII. Ford wasn’t sure whether NHTSA would approve the form-fitting headlamps with replaceable bulbs or not. So, Ford prepared two headlamps systems with one being quad sealed-beam capsule headlamps just in case. Several spy shots showed Mark VII prototype with capsule headlamps.
Thankfully, NHTSA approved the proposal in time for the introduction, making Mark VII the first car in the United States to have the form-fitting headlamps.
I’m not too sure we should be all that thankful for NHTSA approving Ford’s thoroughly lousy replaceable-bulb headlamp specification, which saddled North American drivers with thoroughly lousy headlamps for many years.
Agreed. From what I’ve read, Ford, much more so than the other US manufacturers or imports, pushed NHTSA to allow form-fitting replaceable-bulb headlamps. But it seems Ford was only concerned with appearance and aerodynamics, not headlamp beam quality. Whose idea was it (Ford’s?) to come up with a new suite of headlamp bulbs (9004, 9007 etc.), retain the bumps on the lens to work with old headlamp aimers designed for sealed beams, and stick with soft-cutoff beams and lower lumen levels? It would have been easier and better to simply adopt the ECE spec used throughout the rest of the world, but NHTSA would have probably balked at that. Those aiming bumps also meant the headlamp wipers used in Europe rarely made it here. Anyway, instead of using updated headlamp laws to improve the lights, the manufacturers only cared about updating the appearance.
We’re going through the same thing again with antiquated US laws prohibiting LED variable matrix headlamps used elsewhere, which can continuously change the shape and brightness of the beam to maximize driver visibility and minimize glare to oncoming drivers, relying on GPS data, photosensors, lidar, and/or cameras. But US regulations are stuck in the incandescent light bulb era and mandate just a high beam and low beam.
There is much to write on this subject; I have to restrain myself at the moment because it really should be a post or two (or…five) on its (their) own.
For now: Not long before Ford petitioned NHTSA for replaceable-bulb headlamps, VW petitioned NHTSA for replaceable-bulb headlamps. NHTSA acted on Ford’s petition very quickly; within two years it was approved. NHTSA sat on VW’s petition for most of a decade before chasing it around the plate with their fork and hiding most of it under their mashed potatoes.
The HB1 (“9004”) bulb was Ford’s idea. Ford’s priority was to make the system as cheap as possible; Sylvania wanted a new bulb design so as to hog as much market share as possible (versus H4s flowing in from Europe and Japan), and NHTSA wanted headlamps that were hermetically sealed except when the bulb was being changed, so the 9004 bulb with its silicon rubber O-ring seal was more adaptable to that goal than any of the ECE bulbs (H1, H2, H3, H4 at that time) with metal bases; they all required separate, external seals.
These hermetic assemblies were a rotten idea from the start, and if it weren’t for the congenital inability to acknowledge good ideas from beyond the borders of the U.S., the knowledge gained by the Brits a decade earlier was readily available: hermetic sealing isn’t a good idea in a replaceable-bulb headlamp; controlled breathing with moisture and dirt exclusion is the way to go.
The lumen level (amount of light within the beam) is more or less equal, comparing a 9004 headlamp to a same-size/shape H4 headlamp. The 9004 low beam filament produces less light, but uses the whole reflector to gather and amplify that light. The H4 low beam filament produces more light, but uses only about 55% of the reflector to gather and amplify that light.
NHTSA and the US automakers were strongly allergic to the European sharp cutoff. Their reasoning on the subject was a mix of valid objections, faulty analysis, and “we’re right and the stupid rest of the world is wrong. Obviously. As usual”.
NHTSA and the US automakers also fumbled with regard to aim methods; as you say, they retained the mechanical aim system with the aiming plane formed by the three pads on the front face of the lens. There are reasons why this is a good aim method, but it imposes severe limitations on lamp design and technology. The aim pads had to go away due to design/style pressure; they messed with a complicated, unreliable VHAD system with failure-prone bubble levels built into the headlamps for a few years before eventually (1997) they did define low beam cutoffs to permit visual/optical aiming of US headlamps. The definition they settled on is problematic in numerous ways, some of which are going to make even bigger problems if and when ADB ever comes to the States.
All that said, with regard to low beams it is an error and a mythunderstanding to believe the UN (formerly “European” or “ECE”) headlamp specification is superior to the US standard—that is not the case, and never has been. Both standards have ample room for excellent low beams and excessive room for lousy ones, though the particular inadequacies differ.
That, however, is not the case with regard to high beams, and it is definitely not the case with regard to ADB (adaptive driving beam, the umbrella term for the variable-beam lamps you describe). What they are doing—or, more accurately, not doing about it is regulatory malpractice. I have a closer seat than most, and even if we disregard their 10-years-and-counting delay on allowing ADB of any kind, they are actively getting it wrong in every possible way; it is much worse than just “NHTSA’s regs are stuck in the past”.
Yes, I was implying that “thankfully” was for Ford who wanted the proposal approved in time for the “bragging right”. I know “thankfully” wasn’t for this type of headlamp design and such.
I don’t have a list of laggard states; all I can do is point here and here.
Holy yikes! You should have a warning about the six-eyed monster in the linked article.
That’s nightmare fuel there!
Oh, now you’ve gone and done it: inspired me to put together an article on…well, just you wait and see. MuWAAAAAAAhahahahahahaHAAAAaaa!!!
It’s been done with the later rectangular units on the Pontiac 6000 STE. Kind of like the 57 Dodges, Plymouths, and Lincolns, the fake headlamp was slightly smaller than the real ones which somewhat spoiled the effect.
That’s true, but you’re still way far from guessing my dastardly plan. I repeat myself: MuWAAAAAAAhahahahahahaHAAAAaaa!!!
It occurs to me that we have not mentioned the 1957 Nash – were those true quad headlights (and thus illegal in some states)? Or were they something else? The pictures online look like they are all the same size, but then there were never a lot of those made.
Yes, they are. I too have wondered how Nash handled sales of the 1957 Ambassador in those states that weren’t yet onboard with quad headlamps that year… a quick lookup revealed that they produced 10,330 copies of the Ambassador in ’57 (more than I thought), so I’m guessing that a handful got sold in said states and possibly hung up in red tape over their forward lighting. Wish I knew more…
Interesting article, Tom Halter !
Thanks for posting.
Looks like Studebaker was late to the party on this one. 1958 Champion, Commander and President had their headlights mounted in pods. Quads were optional on Champion and standard on higher levels. The 1958 Scotsman used the old ’57 fenders without pods as did the the Hawk.
The worst was the second-to-lowest-end Champion model, which used the headlight pods designed to graft quad headlamps onto fenders designed for a single 7 inch lamp. But instead of putting two headlamps into each pod, these have a grille piece on each side to adapt the pods to fit only a single lamp. So basically it uses an awkward trim piece to adapt a single lamp to fit into the awkward stick-on pods. It’s two layers of awkwardness stacked on top of each other!
The 1964-65 Lark also used single headlamps on low-end models that were adapted to fit a grille obviously designed for quad lamps, but there they were much less conspicuous than in the 1958 model.
Putting dual headlights into tacked-on headlight pods designed for quad headlights is definitely Studebaker goofy.
I agree. It reminds me of what GM did (and Chrysler, and Ford…) two decades later, putting stacked small rectangulars where single rounds were intended.
I never knew about this one — that is really crazy! Thanks for adding the picture, because I had trouble visualizing it.
Stylists at GM musta taken a shine to this styling (mis)treatment, as all 1962 Chevrolet pickups sported a similar wardrobe malfunction:
I much prefer the Mercury and Imperial seven inch lamps over the quad style on those cars.
Same here, on the Mercury in particular those brows over the quads give it a very surprised expression
If there was a vote, I prefer the dual look on the Chrysler models.
Well, DS, we’re waiting…
Yes, and so am I.
Attn DS: Taken –
http://bhavens.com/bigheadfred/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/truckster.jpg
When the “quads” were first hitting the road, everyone I knew refered to them as “double headlights”. I honestly never heard them called anything else back then. Anyone else remember this as being a common term?
Yeah, I heard double lights too. What I don’t understand is some of the earlier comments on this thread referred to them as “square or rectangular” lights. They were still round bulbs, just 4 of them.
So was it illegal to buy a quad-headlight 1957 model in a neighboring state and register it in one of the three states that didn’t allow them, or did the law only pertain to where it was sold? (and did it prohibit a used quad-headlight car being sold by a private owner, not the manufacturer, in those three states, or would it not pass inspection)?
I recall reading an article (think it was the Car and Driver March 1979 issue) pushing the US govt to legalize Euro-spec ECE halogen headlights with replaceable H1 or H4 bulbs; it noted that while it was legal in only a few states for a manufacturer to sell a new car with Euro lights, it was perfectly legal in most states for private owners to replace the sealed beams with Euro-spec lights from the likes of Cibie, Hella, or Marchal, which were sold mail-order from ads in car magazines and in some parts stores (for motorcycle or “off-road use only”. Not sure if the laws have changed since then, but if not, enforcement seems very low.
It’s a similar situation with rear-view mirrors; if you drive a car sold in Europe you may be able to find replacement aspherical mirrors (that bends outward for about the last inch on the outside of the mirror to eliminate the blind spot). These are (nonsensically IMO) illegal in the US at least for manufacturers to put on cars they sell, but again I’m pretty sure there isn’t a law that they can’t be sold by private sellers to private owners and installed on their cars; if it is illegal, again enforcement is almost non-existent since it’s rarely done and not obvious. I have them on both sides of my VW, one is UK market, the other EU market.
Anyway, NHTSA is still behind the curve on headlamp laws, banning the excellent LED matrix headlamps that selectively turn off individual LED elements (typically about 20 per headlamp) to effectively reshape and resize the light beam in real time, depending on speed, road curvature, the presence or absence of oncoming cars, and other such factors. It does this by employing GPS road maps and the same sensors that other driver-assistance features use, like cameras, light sensors, and radar/lidar. But our federal laws are still rooted in the incandescent lamp era, understanding only “low beam” and “high beam” and nothing in between. C/D I’m glad to see is still on the case:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a34881452/audi-adb-headlight-advances/
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/a33447381/why-is-america-stuck-with-bad-headlights/
Some imported cars with matrix LED lights, like the Polestar 2, actually do have the matrix LED lights on US-spec cars but the feature is turned off in software, ready to be turned on by an over-the-air software update if the law changes. Or if hackers on web forums figure out how to change it 🙂
Effectively, yes, it was, because the car would flunk inspection and then couldn’t be registered.
It was indeed the March 1979 issue, which contained a big, grossly misinformational article about headlamps as well as some less-sloppy related sidebars.
Objectively, this would not have made things better. A lot of people think it would have, but it wouldn’t have. It would have left things about the same in terms of traffic safety, just with a different mix of benefits and drawbacks.
It has never been legal for automakers to sell a new car with headlamps or any other equipment not conforming to the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempts any state motor vehicle standards. It was also illegal for noncompliant headlamps to be imported, and because no US makers produced European headlamps, all of them had to be imported. This led to a standoff between a few state legislatures and the Federal Government. NHTSA got US Customs involved to seize and destroy inbound shipments of European headlamps, but beyond that, those few states that legalised the use of European headlamps told the feds they weren’t going to enforce the feds’ rule, and if the feds wanted it enforced they’d have to send in their own enforcers, which obviously didn’t happen. Eventually most of the states that allowed European headlamps dropped that allowance from their vehicle equipment codes over the years.
True, because vehicle owners are not regulated parties under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. They are regulated by whatever state standards might exist (and might be enforced, which isn’t the same thing).
Yup, as described here
Correct on both counts.
Theoretically their hand is to be forced by the recently-enacted infrastructure bill (now law), which orders NHTSA to permit, within two years, Adaptive Driving Beam—as this technology is properly called—as defined in the SAE specification which is a whole hell of a lot better than the utter mess NHTSA’s own proposal was. My guess: we can add this 2-year deadline to the long list of other such deadlines NHTSA have missed.
I’m not; they’re still getting this stuff largely wrong.
…and then change it right back after learning it’s ill-eagle (yeah, hands up who believes that actually happened).
Well that was a more detailed response than I expected – thx.
I’m curious what your take is regarding IIHS’s headlamp evaluations. They will no longer award their highest overall safety rating to any car they deem to have bad headlamps, even if it does great in crash tests.
Hi, there; have we met? I’m Daniel Stern. 🙂
They’ve done more to improve headlight performance on American roads than anything NHTSA have done in at least thirty years.
They’re not quite as advertised, though, so they take some extra keys to unlock a true understanding of what they’re saying: IIHS promote their headlamp tests as testing the headlighting performance of whatever make-model might be at hand. However, part of the IIHS test protocol is that headlamp aim is checked, but not adjusted before the tests are done. This is in recognition of two facts: there is no requirement that new vehicles have correctly-aimed headlamps before being offered for first sale, and it is almost impossible (⬅︎that’s a link) to get a proper aim job in North America: the headlamp aim on most vehicles is never checked or adjusted, except it might get randomly cranked down in re “I’m getting flashed” or randomly cranked up in re “I can’t see”.
So that’s a reasonable decision on IIHS’ part, but it means what they’re actually testing is the headlight performance of just the individual vehicle they procured. Other examples of the same vehicle could very easily give different results.
To interpret the ratings usefully you have to look deeper than just the Good-Acceptable-Marginal-Poor grade. Fortunately, IIHS provides an unusually large amount of data: they give a graphic representation of the low and high beam seeing distance straight ahead on the left and right sides of the road, as well as in large- and small-radius left and right curves. They even provide the actual measurements!
A system that gives short seeing distance across the board (low and high beam, left and right curves + straight ahead) and no glare, those lamps are probably aimed too low, and would probably do better if the aim were raised.
A system that gives long seeing distance across the board and is flagged with “Glare”, those lamps are probably aimed too high; its performance would probably be more reasonable if the aim were lowered.
A system that gives short seeing distance and glare is probably a bad system.
Aim is by far the primary determinant of how well (or poorly) we see at night, and how much glare we’re throwing around. It’s more important than what technology the headlamps use. So much so that when a reputable researcher used IIHS’ aim measurements to virtually correct the aim of a batch of cars tested by IIHS, the number of cars getting an “acceptable” or “good” rating doubled!
The IIHS tests have put some heat on the automakers, who are now paying more careful attention to headlamp aim at the end of the assembly line…at least until IIHS rates the headlamps on a model, then American automakers, in particular, have been known to stop paying attention (“You knew what I was when you picked me up”, said the scorpion).
I wonder if it would have been an antitrust violation if the big 3 got together and said, fine, we’re not going to sell those cars in those 3 smallish states. And if they had done so, if the fire would have been to the feet of the legislators who didn’t allow what the other 45 did, or backfire?
Business is generally risk adverse, but I wonder who would have blinked?
I am not a lawyer but pretty sure that would violate their contracts to provide cars to their affiliated dealerships, who would have been first to complain.
I didn’t read all the comments, but I’m wondering… could it be possible that the quad headlights were federalized on 1/1/1957? That would explain why all DeSoto Adventurers had quad headlights, as I believe they weren’t offered until sometime in January of 1957.
The feds tend to do things like that, making a requirement take effect at the beginning of a calendar year, versus a model year. For instance, I believe it was 1/1/68 that front shoulder straps were made a requirement, so some early ’68 cars didn’t have them. Same for front headrests, which were 1/1/69, I believe? At least, I had a ’68 Dart that had shoulder straps, but no headrests.
I think this kind of stuff was also the reason for the “1970.5” Falcon. The existing Falcon wouldn’t pass the new side impact requirements that kicked in on 1/1/70. The Maverick did, but was only offered as a coupe. So, Ford offered a de-contented Fairlane/Torino as a placeholder for the last part of the ’70 model year to take over for the Falcon, until a 4-door Maverick was ready.
I always thought it was a shame DeSoto didn’t switch the ’57 Firesweep over to quads as soon as they could, or at least offer it both ways. The car was a bit awkward to begin with, because the DeSoto grille didn’t quite mate up to the Dodge fenders, and stuck out about two inches too far. But then the single headlights, mounted in the center of those wide fender bezels, just looked weird to me. I thought the ’58, with quads, looked a lot better, even though the bumper/grille still jutted out too far.
And interestingly way later as AMC the first gen Hornet did the 57 Plymouth treatment…..always thought had they done the current Dodge Challenger look (aka looks deceptively quad but actually is dual inner light is turn signal/running light) it would have looked much better way before the went to the Concord with the quad rectangular ones.
1955 was the first year for Virgil Exner’s/Chrysler’s Forward Look designs.
There are plenty of `55 Forward Look print ads and commercials on YouTube.