LED and xenon are pretty similar, with LED having a wider dispersion pattern, so it throws the light out wider. However xenon has the advantage of being more penetrating. This means it can shine a further distance with the same amount of power. Makes it far better for high beams and is a big difference for people like me who live rural and use their high beams all the time.
However LEDs have several advantages for the manufacturer. Being a more common technology used in a lot of areas from touchscreens to cannabis growing, LED lights are much cheaper to manufacture. The same amount of inventory takes up less physical space due to being smaller, and the lack of needing a transformer helps with assembly costs also. BUT, LED lights run hotter...a lot hotter and heat is already a problem that is being ignored, so why no just keep doing it? LEDs are also a lot more fragile. Yes, I know they last forever supposedly.
That is in a lab.
In the real world there are two years old cars with LEDs that need new headlights, Bi-xenons, I have a first gen Audi TT still using the same bulbs...the real world use is that xenon outlast LED ten to one and that is cutting into repair profits. Changing out a light bulb is a very easy, high profit add-on job that luxury dealers have lost, but with LEDs they are getting it back...with a higher profit margin!!! YAY!!!
Fact is LED rely on being soldered to a circuit board to function. It is cheap and amazingly easy to manufacture however all those solders are a major weak point. Vibration is the enemy of LED light bulbs. Cars vibrate ALOT. 100% of the time they are running, they are vibrating. Causes failure with individuals bulbs, now since each light "bulb" is actually a circuit board with a bunch of individual LEDs wired to it, designed to function as one lamp so when just one of the 50 lights goes out it isn't a big deal - according to the LED manufacturers, it is a feature - the rest keep working, however it does make the light dimmer and the more that go out the worse it is. In the meanwhile as long as it isn't a majority of the bulbs, the manufacturer gets to look at you and laugh cause they aren't going to fix anything, to them nothing is wrong.
I type this looking at a 30inch widescreen ultra-sharp curved LED monitor, the highest resolution Dell computer sells. Cost over $1000. It has a cluster of dead pixels in the upper left corner, been dead for a year, monitor is 1 1/2 years old...want to guess what Dell did when I called to complain? Nothing, their warranty only covers pixels that turn on permanently causing bright spots. The warranty does not cover "dead" pixels that won't turn on. Always a loophole to the marketing jargon...always.
Bi-xenons are proven tech, LEDs are just a way for a manufacturer to save money while being able to feed the consumer a bunch of great marketing jargon that is only true in controlled situations...not the real world.
Now, I could believe that Alfa is going to LED not to save money, but to "keep up with the Jones's". The average consumer, newer = better, and there have been billions of dollars funneled into convincing people LEDs are the best thing since the light bulb was invented so there are ALOT of people who think LED...are the best thing since the light bulb was invented... Easier for Alfa to join the pack than fight it. Still I prefer xenon headlights. No argument in terms of LED being better than halogen though.
Please understand I am not talking out of my butt with this marketing stuff, plenty of phycology studies out there showing how for most people, on most subjects - especially ones the listener does not have a lot of personal experience with or knowledge of - someone hears something 3 times, they will accept it as fact. Marketers know this...it is why advertising exists. In a marketing class in college we were taught about toilet paper...blew my mind.
Toilet paper created the template for marketing as we know it today almost a century ago. Invented in the late 1800's it didn't become popular until the 1930's. It didn't become popular because people became convinced of the benefits...it became popular because Charmin started putting pictures of pretty ladies on the package which allowed them to run bigger ads in more prominent publications. Prior to this it was marketed as a medical device to help keep you from getting sick. Charmin advertised it as a way to keep yourself fresh and pretty. More advertising, using simplified arguments made by pretty people resulted in more sales and the product took off. No joke, no one would buy it for almost 50 years. The Scott brothers (Scott toilet paper) put toilet paper on a roll in the 1890's - before this it was a pile of tissues - but didn't take credit for it till the 1900's, because they were embarrassed by their own creation. Advertisers had Doctors talk about all the health benefits of toilet paper, no one bought it. Toilet paper was something no one talked about and were ashamed to use. Then pretty ladies got put on the package and full page magazine ads were run with even bigger pictures of pretty ladies, who said nothing more than you should buy this cause it's good, and within 10 years it was a staple in every American household, had it's own aisle prominently displayed in the grocery store and was gaining popularity in Europe. It isn't what you sell, it isn't what you say, it isn't how good your product is....it's how good you look while saying the same very simple thing over and over till people believe you. Marketing science since 1930. (please don't misunderstand...toilet paper is important and I'm glad it became accepted and not just a something for weird people. People can be gross, marketing to create popularity was a good thing in this case. Still kind of disgusts me how all this stuff works, and THAT is works - so consistently for generations - just sad IMO.)
Last edited by ALFAOFFROAD; 05-25-2019 at 05:55 PM.