No, I tried the 89 and found it was just a tad too bright.
When you stand outside the car and look at the taillights, the
difference in where the hotspot is appears to be a lot more than
7/16"-- it is about 1 1/2" higher, visually. I'd have to take a photo
to prove it to you, but we're already splitting filaments.
The 67 is fine for now, but if anyone does find any 1095s, I'll buy a
few.
In terms of finding parts for old cars, no, this is not civilization
here. Even the place I usually go-- Wiggins, which has been in
business 40 years and usually has all kinds of oddball parts-- did not
have them. And they had some bulbs that looked like they had been
there since the store opened! But in general, the rule seems to be "if
it's not a common part for a common car, forget it."
Thanks everyone.
On Saturday, June 28, 2003, at 11:44 AM, Dick Benjamin wrote:
> The 1034 is the older version of the 1157. The specs are nearly
> identical - the only difference in the design sheet is that the
> estimated
> life of the 32 CP filament in the 1034 is 200 hours, while the same
> filament
> in the 1157 is rated at 600 hours.
>
> Now there is an even tougher bulb available, for which I do not have
> the
> design specs (it's too new for my data sheets); it is the 2157, again
> a
> substitute for both of the above, but much more tolerant of vibration,
> and
> much longer life. These are what is used in over-the-road trucks -
> they are
> TOUGH!
>
> Mark, I'm sorry the 67 didn't solve your problem entirely to your
> satisfaction. I take it you didn't try the 89 yet. The original
> 1095
> used an S8 bulb, which placed the center of intensity 1.25 inches up
> from
> the contact base, in a 2 inch total height bulb.
>
> The 67 has exactly the same electrical specs as the 1095, including
> candlepower, but uses a G6 bulb, which places the center of light
> intensity
> 13/16 inches up from the contact base, 7/16 of an inch lower than the
> original 1095. This moves the spot somewhat out of the focus point,
> apparently, thus the appearance of less intensity when installed in a
> 68.
>
> The 89 has the same base, but slightly higher candlepower (6 CP
> instead of
> 4 CP). The center of intensity is only 1/16 inch higher than the 67,
> but
> that plus the higher CP might make a very close match - give that a
> try and
> let us know how it works out.
>
> Next time I venture into civilization, I will ask in our NAPA store if
> they
> can still obtain the 1095 bulbs out here - if they can, I'll try to
> order a
> box. If that works, I'll make them available to members of the club at
> cost. I last bought them about 1 year ago. Our store has been in
> business
> for at least 25 years, so mine might have been old stock.
>
> Dick Benjamin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark McDonald" <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:08 PM
> Subject: Re: IML: bulbs for '68 taillights
>
>
> Dear John,
>
> Thanks, the FSM is always a good place to start. But my problem is not
> knowing what the correct bulb is. I already know what the correct bulb
> is-- it's a 1095. (That according to the FSM, and also that's what's
> in my 4 dr. hardtop.) My problem is, I can't FIND these bulbs, and no
> one can tell me a good substitute.
>
> After hearing from Dick B. and Chris H. that the 1095s are readily
> available in California, I went back to the NAPA store today and all I
> can say is, it must be great to live in California! Apparently you can
> walk into any auto parts store there and pick up items that are
> unavailable anywhere else (at least here in NW Florida, where a check
> of 5 local stores produced nothing). I can't even order them thru
> NAPA.
>
> Anyway, the guy at NAPA store called his supplier and, according to
> him, this bulb is discontinued. No longer made with no superceding
> number. So I'd love it if somebody in California bought me about 6 of
> these (no kidding), and I will pay you for shipping & your trouble.
> Contact me privately.
>
> The closest substitute, according to the man at Wagner, is the 93.
> However, I bought a 93 and tried it, and it's too bright. Dick B.
> suggested a 67 or an 89-- and the 67 is what is listed in the FSM as
> the correct taillight bulb for a 1968 Chrysler-- so I tried the #67
> bulb and it is pretty close in terms of brightness. Physically it's a
> smaller bulb, and because of that the hotspot, or main point of light,
> when you look at the taillights from the rear, is too high in
> comparison to the others, but at this point I give up . . . until
> somebody can find me some 1095s.
>
> Incidentally, the FSM lists the 1034 as the correct bulb for the tail,
> stop, and turn signal-- not the 1157. So that may be where some of the
> mismatch is.
>
> Anyway, I'm sorry to take up so much e-space with this one, but I want
> my car to look right at night!
>
> Thanks to all, Mark
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 08:21 PM, jsadowski wrote:
>
>> There must be a 68 owner on the list who either has a FSM or an
>> owners manual that can tell the person needing this info the correct
>> bulb size for all the locations. I've seen at least 20 responses to
>> this question & I didn't see one telling the owner to look in his
>> manual for the answer. All the bulbs should be easily obtained at just
>> about any parts store. All the sizes were used widely for 20 some odd
>> years.
>> John
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Mark McDonald
>> To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: IML: bulbs for '68 taillights
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Thanks, yes, that is what I meant: when you have the taillights on
>> and you
>> depress the brake pedal, both filaments light up. Perhaps I wasn't
>> clear. If
>> you are just driving in the daytime, with taillights off, then no,
>> both don't
>> light up. The problem I'm talking about occurs only when you have the
>> taillights on.
>>
>> Thanks again, Mark
>>
>> Stevan Miner wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mark,
>>> As you look at the two filaments, the larger one (it's not wound as
>> tightly)
>>> will light when you have your tail lights on. The smaller one is for
>> your
>>> turn signals and brakes lights which is quite a bit brighter. The
>> only time
>>> both filaments should be lit is when the tail lights are on and
>> either brake
>>> or turnsignals are activated. If when you step on the brakes and the
>> larger
>>> element lights ( and you don't have your parking lights on) there's
>> either a
>>> ground problem or I've seen where someone has put in a single
>> contact bulb
>>> in a double contact socket. Hope I haven't confused you too bad-I
>> was always
>>> taught, electricity is lazy, it will take the easiest path to ground.
>>> Steve
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Mark McDonald" <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:21 PM
>>> Subject: Re: IML: bulbs for '68 taillights
>>>
>>>> Steve, if they don't both light, what's the point of 2 filaments?
>> Maybe
>>> I'm
>>>> missing something. What makes the taillights brighter when you
>> apply the
>>>> brakes?
>>>>
>>>> If there is a problem, it is a problem that is duplicated on all my
>>> Imperials .
>>>> . .
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, MM
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com -----------------
>> This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
>> reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
>> shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>> Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>>
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network