Those Lights Of America brand 65w mogul base CFL floodlights only draw 38w-40w. I was contracted to install 4 of these in place of existing 500w quartz halogen floods. After warming up they seemed still way too dim to be 65w. I proved the low power with a watt meter. The lamp is the mogul base (not self-ballasted) type with 4- U bend tube. The electronic ballast is housed in the fixture right under the mogul socket. The customer supplied these lights himself but was disappointed at the performance, I told him I would have originally recommended HPS floods but might be able to get better ballasts that actually drive the lamps to their rated wattage if he wanted to keep the fixtures. My question is, is there such a PL/CFL 65w HPF ballast that only has two output leads to lamp?

With these lamps it is not that simple as with e.g. HID or instant start ballasts, so it becomes nearly impossible to match different lamp/ballast combinations.
The difference is, the resonant capacitor, which is electrically an integral part of the ballast and it's capacitance has to match the ballast design. With these CFL's this capacitor is placed inside the lamp housing. So if you use a ballast designed for different lamp (make, model; even when the arc parameters are equal), it won't work correctly. The result could be either difficult starting, early ballast or lamp failure, EOL lamp killing the ballast,...
This is the reason, why there is no real standard governing these lamps: It would have to cover not only the lamp itself (arc voltage, current, ignition characteristics), but that capacitor and the eventual preheating PTC as well. And that is simply way too many restrictions for all the manufacturers to reach an agreement.

The reason why this capacitor is part of the lamp and not the ballast is two fold:
First it make it feasible to suffice with a two terminal socket.
Second, this capacitor is usually the component, which wear rather quickly (mainly at lamp EOL), if the ballast components are reasonably rated, so in this way it get replaced with each lamp.

But such mismatch would be a case for a warranty claim: The whole batch seems to me really defective (performance way below rating; I expect it is the same for multiple lamps). If it consumes 40W instead of 60W, it won't reach the designed tube temperature either, so I won't be surprised for the light output to be even way below half of the rating (so the lack of performance becomes visible - normally the 30% drop you wouldn't see unless you will have something for direct compare)
The lower output could improve as the lamp burns in, but only when the ballast power is correct, The too low ballast power won't improve...

those things will pop the cheap caps on the ballast come summer.
pure junk.its an loa tradition!
they should change their name to loc(lights of china)

Well, such problem (too low power delivered by the ballast) is really quite common for all cheepeese CFL's and even fluorescent ballasts of that "quality category". Very frequently yielding a ballast failure at the lamp EOL (due to the inability to blow the filaments of the failing lamp open circuit in time)...

By the way I have a "build in ballast" F40T12/F36T8 pair of sockets, where the real delivered power is about 10..15W (the ballast circuit there clearly can never deliver more), I wonder what will be the result when the lamp fails there...

Thanks for the info! I ended up contacting the vendor today who the client bought the lights from to get warranty info, the vendor (while still on the phone with me) called LOA or a representative of theirs, in the 3-way phone convo I explained the problem (how all fixtures are only consuming around 40w) and get this... The rep said "Thats actually normal, 65w is just a nominal wattage rating for those lamps, they are actually rated 55w/65w on our technical specs." He also said "Since the fixtures are brand new they take time to burn in and youll find after a few dozen hours or so theyll get much brighter." I didnt believe a word he said and felt he was just trying to justify the poor performance so we wouldnt return them.

"they are actually rated 55w/65w on our technical specs."
The 40W is still quite short of that spec...

"Since the fixtures are brand new they take time to burn in and youll find after a few dozen hours or so theyll get much brighter."
Literally he is right. But:
The vast majority of the actual burn in process (read it as: "All I have seen so far") happens within just few hours of operation. The standard says the parameters to be measured after 10% of the rated median life, but that is really necessary, when lawyers would be arguing about 99 vs 100 percent from the rated output.
Even when many lamps start at about 50% of their output, after two hours they are all more than 90% of the output at the end of the rated burn
in time, so practically negligible difference.

And I expect your installation already went through that few hours, so the expected further improvement is just few percents, but you are missing half (my guess) of the rated light output...

But your position here would be quite weak: You do not have any exact light output measurement in hands, he may just argue by different directional characteristics, so blame the "mismatch of the beam pattern with your application". It is clear for us that is nonsense, but you won't have any proof it is not true...

doesnt loa use some sort of skewed seeing power lumens rating?
filed next to chinese lumens,sears horsepower,pmpo,ect.
anyone here got an integrating sphere?
we gotta have someone who can test performance of lamps here like we do batteries on cpf and blf.
btw i have a loa "fluorex" fixture that claims 65w.
it has a big cfl with a cap in the base.
it does ok except in extreme cold with wind.
i got it free along with a few new bulbs because it popped the abovementioned caps.
they were some sam**** junk.
panasonic eb series replacements are still fine 3 years later.
note i would never buy new such a lightweight flimsy pile of plastic crap myself.

The LOA CFL's are "Fluorex" line on the packaging. Its rated 6000 lumens! Ha! I would assume that clearly false rating is simply a way to justify their claim that "this 65w compact fluorescent is a good replacement for 175w mercury lamps. Even if these piece of crap lamps actually ran at 65w that would be a lumen per watt efficacy in the 90's!

Needless to say the LOA fixtures are going to be removed next week and replaced by 70w Lithonia Metal Halide floods after some persuasion to my customer on my part.

Think ill take one of those CFLs home and run it on a 1000w pulse start ballast and see if it uses 65w then!