Not likely... they have allowed cars with three or more taillamp and/or brake
lamp bulbs since then... '81-83 Seville for one... I suspect motor vehicle
regulations had nothing to do with it.
As for cost, they had to re-do the rear harness for '68 anyway, since they
added the side markers, so maybe it was that. Maybe the total load of the 2
side markers plus the 6 taillamps plus the 1 license lamp plus the 6 brake
lamps would have exceeded some limit of the wiring or alternator. (Although
some uses of dual-filament bulbs are grounded such that the first filament goes
off when the second one lights.)
Maybe someone decided moving the "center of gravity" of the turn signals
further toward the outer egdes of the car more clearly indicated a turn. And
what Brad said about "contrast" makes sense.
But we may never know... so I'll just go love my '67 that much more (though
I've always loooooved this feature to the point of being jealous that I cannot
see the back of my own car when I drive it).
Chris in LA
67 Crown
78 NYB Salon
Original message attached.
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.
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network