"WindsorFox<SS>" <darkshado666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fvvc4o$lel$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> dwight wrote:
>
>> I hate to add to a disagreement. CFrog's appear to be some sort of
>> plastic laminate, perhaps 1/16th or even 1/32nd of an inch thick, glued
>> onto the lenses themselves. Without removing them, that's what it looks
>> like to me. The "louvers" do obviously stand off from the lenses, but
>> they cannot be separately removed. Still, they are not painted on
(i.e.:
>> flush with the surface of the lens). Given the manufacturing standards
of
>> 1993, I have to believe that the overlays (louvers) were painted
>> separately, then glued atop the lenses. There's no way that they could
be
>> painted onto the lenses with such precision.
>
> That looks identical to the ones I have. The reason I say it's
sprayed
> on is because if you scratch the colored part there is red lens
> underneath. I don't recommend you do that for proof though, the ones I
> have already have scratches. The ones I have came off a black car, I
> thought about swapping them for a while (still may FTHOI) and "Cabernet
> Red wasn't an option so black was the best choice. See here:
> http://www.shamikaserver.com/ssforums/showthread.php?p=80620#post80620
>
> Looking at mine it still looks molded into the lens and coated because
> trying to peel it off doesn't seem to work, but I think I could easily
> scratch it. Might call around and find a smashed one to look at.
>
>>
>> Of course, Reef Blue being such a SPECIAL color, perhaps mine were
>> manufactured differently from the run-of-the-mill colors. (Doubt it.)
>
> The biggest problem I have is the asshole attitude for petty
purposes,
> You know what I'm talking about.
Eh. I'm too old now to get riled up too easily. Wizened. Just words on a
screen.
>> Because you asked, I spent the last half hour taking and uploading a
>> couple of shots, which show how the louvers stand off from the lenses:
>> http://www.tfrog.com/digitals/daily/daily.htm
>> It's a good thing I'm on vacation with absolutely nothing to do. (Also,
>> while you're there, don't miss the beautiful flower shot on the main
page
>> www.tfrog.com That, actually, is the ONE thing I have to do - pull that
>> #*%$ out.)
>
> Saw that already :oP Mr. Mouse wasn't living in the vent was he?
I was actually referring to the beautiful photo of POISON IVY on my home
page. Hate that stuff, so I'm going to have to put on my HazMat gloves and
disposable clothing and rip it out this week. I've identified at least
four
growths that I "think" are poison ivy, but no one seems to have a
definitive
description of the plant - too many variants, too many morphs. Pretty
much,
anything with a three-leaf cluster is coming out, I don't CARE what it is.
One little nano-drop of ivy sap can ruin two weeks of my summer.
>> Also (a damn shame), it looks like you can find all kinds of LX-style
>> taillight assemblies in the aftermarket, but no GT cheese graters
(except
>> in Fox's junkyard). LX, Cobra style, or some really crappy Euro style
>> taillights, but no GTs.
>
> I noticed that, maybe that's why a set on eBay was going for $400.
Maybe
> I'll see if I can snag several pairs and sell them om the bay...
>
>>
>> According to 50resto, all 1983-1993 taillight assemblies are
>> interchangeable, so it looks like you could as easily go from LX to GT
as
>> from GT to LX.
>>
>
> Yes, the assembly is, but, can you take the lens off of an LX
assembly
> and put the GT lens on it? I'd assume so, but I never tried.
Just went out with my tape measure. The LX assembly is slightly (1/2")
wider, slightly taller. But there's enough clearance that they could
probably be swapped.
Personally, I would never want GT taillights on an LX or vice versa. Just
wouldn't be "proper."
dwight
www.tfrog.com
|
