Steve,
I wondered about the amber also, before I tried it. What actually
happens is that the new light shines through the reflector and comes
through red, with a tinge of yellow to it. This is a very visible color,
unlike the dark, pure red of the existing lens, and from a car length
back it all combines into one large, red light source. The amber turn
signal is visible through this, so I think that the addition of the light
is all to the good. In any case, I would suggest that the addition of a
brake light would be worthwhile, even if the tail light were not added.
Bob
On Wed, 13 May 1998 08:49:11 -0500 Steve Bettencourt
<steveb5815@edgenet.net> writes:
>Mike and Ray,
>
>If the lower part of the tail light is amber is it really a good idea
>to
>run it as a parking light (or running light) on the rear? Other than
>the
>'69 and earlier lenses (all red) I thought they all had amber turn
>signals
>out back.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>At 08:07 AM 5/13/98 EDT, miker15 wrote:
>>
>>On Wed, 13 May 1998 07:50:06 -0400 (EDT) RAY WYGONIK
>><RWYGONIK@grove.iup.edu> writes:
>>>On my 74 B the lower part of the tail lights only appear to be turn
>>>signals.
>>>they do not come on when I put the lights on.
><<snip>>
>>Bob Howard posted a message a while back about how he wired in an
>extra
>>bulb for just this purpose. Ive seen it and its very effective- of
>course
>>i lost it - perhaps he will repeat it!!
>>
>>mike robson
>
>Steve Bettencourt
>'79 MGB
>Steve's HotRod World
>http://www3.edgenet.net/CruizinRI
>
|