Yes, CP is candlepower. By a coincidence, CP is very close to the wattage
for these bulbs.
I don't think the shape of the glass envelope is important (as you point
out, it is not reflectorized) but the location of the filament definitely
is. The correct bulb filament is positioned to make maximum use of the lens
design, any misposition of the filament will definitely affect the external
appearance.
I don't know that it is the same bulb for the 68, but I strongly suspect it
is, as there were very few bulbs this powerful in the simple bayonet type
base. Sealed Beam headlights were only 50 watts in those days!
Dick Benjamin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark McDonald" <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: IML: 1195 cornering bulbs and more
> Dick,
>
> Are you referring to candlepower? (I assume so.)
>
> Also, I don't really know how much difference this could make-- since the
lamps
> are clear-- but the shape of the 1156 is more of a traditional spherical,
or
> "bulb," shape. The 1195 is sort of conical, like a miniaturized
photoflood.
> (But the interior is not reflective, so I don't know what difference that
> makes.)
>
> The way the 1195 fits into the socket on my '71 the conical shape seems to
be
> the best suited (the socket is angled and the reflector forms a tight "V"
> around it).
>
> I'm wondering if these are the same bulbs for the 68s as well--?
>
> MM
>
> Dick Benjamin wrote:
>
> > 1156 is a much smaller bulb, and has only 32 CP. The 1195 is a 50 CP
bulb.
> > Yes, it would work, but it would look dim.
> >
> > Dick Benjamin
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ray Brown" <64imper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 7:35 AM
> > Subject: Re: IML: 1195 cornering bulbs and more
> >
> > > looks like an 1156 would work fine
> > >
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network