Re: Re (2): IML: Fixing Govt mandated 68 bulbs
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re (2): IML: Fixing Govt mandated 68 bulbs



In a message dated 6/28/03 1:33:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:


I do know that I have lost my brake lights and still had taillights,
and vice versa.  Why the system on the '67 would be considered unsafe
and not the system on the '68, I don't know.  Personally, that's one of
the things about the 67s I prefer-- the way the whole side lights up. 
Aesthetically, I think it's nicer than the '68.



Brake and tail lights are generally on seperately fused circuits, therefore there should be no way one will cause loss of the other.  I assume the govt was stepping in in 68 to disallow the use of three bulbs working as brake or turn signals.

John -- atlanta


Home Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network


Copyright © The Forward Look Network. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
This site contains affiliate links for which we may be compensated.