Slightly changing the discussion, but Consumer Reports just put out a couple of pages on HID lights as part of it's April auto issue. (By the way, the MDX did very well in all respects such as reliability, owner satisfaction, etc.)
They had some interesting things to say on HIDs:
- Owners tend to love them. A lot of that is because of increased light to the sides rather than to the front.
- Quite a few people are complaining about glare, and CRs conclusion is that there generally IS more glare due to several factors, including sensitivity to the blue color, the sharp cutoff causing a "flashing" effect for oncoming drivers, more wet weather glare from reflections, and extra glare from the extra lighting to the sides. It tends to be worse for drivers over about age 50.
- Not all HIDs provide better straight ahead lighting than stock halogens. They particularly noted that the Audi TT HID lights were pretty bad (200 ft. visibility on low beam, vs 400 with a lot of others), in the same range as the worst halogens (Chrysler Sebring, Pontiac Grand Prix).
- The best Halogens they tested were on the Mazda Protege5, with a 600 foot range and no glare problem. (Three times the range of the HID-equipped Audi TT).
- They didn't recommend HID conversions that use the stock headlight assembies. They aren't designed for the higher light ouput, may cause more glare, and results may not be as expected or desired. They are also illegal, technically. (Any HID bulb using a standard halogen base, to allow plugging in to a halogen socket).
- They weren't impressed with the concept of blue-tinted halogens. However, they didn't seem to investigate alternatives such as Silverstars.
- They didn't give results of all 41 vehicles they tested, or say what those vehicles were, other than pointing out the best/worst.