Originally Posted by eat meat
The 8100 is a older release than the 8350...a PJ I have had considerable experience with. I used the 8100 primarily for it's Lumen Horsepower and Lens shift...not because it was a technically correct PJ "out of the box".
Fortunately, and I suppose one might attribute such to correct placement/installation, I never had a Bulb failure on any of the 15+ 8100s I was "acquainted" with. Evan's quote actually predates the release of the 8350, but both still have the same potential issues that revolve around heat production. But my experiences once again differed greatly with most every one else's complaints. Once again...as Evan noted, many who mounted "off the Ceiling" were placing the PJ too close and depending to overly much on Lens Shift, or Shelf mounting the units and therein restricting the flow of air into the rear located Filtered Air intake.
However the 8100 was NOT
the only PJ to experience premie Bulb deaths. The circumstances changed and instances rose in number with the release of the newer Epsons after the start of 2010. The 8100 simply had issues that predated Oct 2010 (...and Jan. 2010...) by many months, and as of yet were not addressed by Epson as being potentially a O.E.M. Bulb Mfg. issue.
The gross popularity of the 2010 line up, combined with a distinct rise on reported Bulb Failures made Epson take a hard look...and to prevent consumer backlash, they stepped up and made the offer they did, contingent as it was on finding a solution. It was NEVER stated as being "open Ended" and standard policy.
But a whole lot of people wanted it to be so, and those who did purchase during the last 6-7 month have the advantage of being included. Those who hemmed, hawed, or out of necessity waited to purchase now seem to be out of luck if the Serial number of the unit purchased is of a release date that falls after the determination by Epson that the new O.E.M Bulb supplier's product is fully up to spec.
I have a vested interest in being certain about this issue as I almost always beforehand suggested that people purchase a Bulb warranty. 90 Day isn't nearly enough time to ward off Murphy's interaction...and after all...these things are Light Bulbs. So I was glad for the concession while it lasted...and fully expectant of it's demise after "consumer' testing of the new O.E.M Bulbs and reported results by Dealers were collected, examined, and a decision made that things were back as they should be.
So OK...personally speaking...I was covertly hoping that other PJ Mfgs might follow suit and such a Warranty concession would become standard practice. But that was a vain hope, because quite frankly, between there not being a raft of similar failures across the PJ Mfg Board, and a general acceptance by all other PJ Mfgs that the Consumer...not they, should bear the brunt of Bulb replacement after 90 days, not a single PJ Mfg has followed suit.
So Epson might be missing a bigger promotional opportunity than they care to accept, but one would have to be very myopic indeed to not see that they must have certainly taken that into account and still opted to end the replacement program after a certain release date.