12 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH996.1 hid retrofit in light housing
Leading reported evidence
Replace leaving this spare
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed · Original poster
OK, found a smaller non Canbus ballast in the garage from a previous car which popped one ballast so replaced both leaving this spare.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
Dammit: yes I was thinking of a spare set of Ambers to swop at mots maybe or failing that actually swopping the bulb is really only a couple of minutes also as nothing cut or changed from original to fit the hid
Leading evidence: 'Replace leaving this spare' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is '996.1 has reflector not projector light units' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace from original' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that suspect a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suspected cause
Problem is the 996.1 has reflector not projector light units so an eagle eyed tester might still see it.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
Dammit: yes I was thinking of a spare set of Ambers to swop at mots maybe or failing that actually swopping the bulb is really only a couple of minutes also as nothing cut or changed from original to fit the hid
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
You may be able to use them legally in the main beam position as they are not checked for a beam setting just that the lights will dip correctly.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Replace from original
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
Dammit: yes I was thinking of a spare set of Ambers to swop at mots maybe or failing that actually swopping the bulb is really only a couple of minutes also as nothing cut or changed from original to fit the hid
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
12 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
911uk: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T222516Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Tried fitting my 35w h7r Slim balast Canbus hid kit today but there is too much gubbins to cram into the light housing. I really don't want to drill a hole to put balast outside so I guess I need a smaller ballast kit.
The current kit is too big mainly because f the extra Canbus box and wires and the Slim balast being a bit too chunky.
Do I need a balast with the Canbus box? I can get a separate ultra Slim balast without an additional box so will fit in but will that throw up errors on my 99 996.1 without pcm?
Should I get 35w or 55w?
I wouldn't bother, all retro fit hid will fail an MOT from July according to new guidelines. I have 35w h7r in my car and they will be coming out. Shame as they work really well with a good bean pattern and no scatter.
I also have a HID set up and it is all installed in the headlight using slimline ballasts and as my car has headlight washers and you cannot actually see the bulbs I wonder if they will pass the MOT with the new regulations but it is easy enough to swap back to good old really dim halogen bulbs.
*
*
Del.
Problem is the 996.1 has reflector not projector light units so an eagle eyed tester might still see it. You might get away with it with a 996.2 if the ballasts are hidden.
Agreed the best bet is just to take them out once a year for the test!
Stupid rule if you ask me, what they should test is the beam scatter.
They just don`t keep pace with technology, the original H7 bulbs did not suit an open reflector but the shorter H7R stops scatter and gives the correct beam setting.
You may be able to use them legally in the main beam position as they are not checked for a beam setting just that the lights will dip correctly.
*
*
Del.
That's what I'm trying to work out! I don't think it does require a Canbus canceller/resistor job but I only have the lights this weekend, I can't test it with no bulb in to find out.
Dammit: yes I was thinking of a spare set of Ambers to swop at mots maybe or failing that actually swopping the bulb is really only a couple of minutes also as nothing cut or changed from original to fit the hid
I have a '98 3.4 with a non canbus hid kit fitted and I get no bulb out warning errors at all, I fitted my ballasts to the wheel arch liner behind the headlight so it's all out of sight.
To return the car to normal I'd only have to pop the headlight out remove the hid bulb and refit a h7 and move the original connector from the ballast to the bulb, the whole thing would take a few minutes at most.
chris
OK, found a smaller non Canbus ballast in the garage from a previous car which popped one ballast so replaced both leaving this spare. Yes it fits if you have a small enough ballast and no additional Canbus resistor box but by heck is it tight.
The back cover fits on..Just.. but it's simply not sensible to shove all these gubbins in such a tight hot hole that's asking for trouble.
I have resigned myself to drilling a hole and doing as chis and many others have and having the hot bits in the spacious cool wing..
A awful lot easier to swop the bulb if required for mot too. Took me 20mins just of rearranging the bits to get the whole lot in tight enough to close the door
i got mine fitted to the outside of the light and have a friendly MOT man ;-)
I really like HIDs and they give so much more light over the standard candles in there.
they did drill a hole in the back plastic so they could get wires through
the idea of orange lights as spares come MOT time is a winner as they are cheap and so easy to fit!
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.