legacycentral bbs

like these...super badass. and whats the purpose of the asymmetry is that a rear fog?

http://www.rslibertyclub.org/photos/alb ... ruise_5_35

Those are europe or australia specific, JDM tails are the same as ours. Perhaps someone on the RS Liberty forums can get them?

Aren't the JDM tails the same as the USDM 1992 Tails (with no amber)?

Or do they have both styles in Japan?

Yeah, they're same as USDM tails but they do have amber. Any ones without amber are most likely aftermarket.

91White-T wrote:Yeah, they're same as USDM tails but they do have amber. Any ones without amber are most likely aftermarket.

i was looking through some links in old threads to a bunch of liberty rs's. all the wagons had the same deal, all reds on the right and all red with the clear bottom on the left. i am gonna go out on a limb and say they arent aftermarket since every one had them...maybe ill go to the junker and get some spares to spray up with some testors transparent candy apple red...

91White-T wrote:Yeah, they're same as USDM tails but they do have amber. Any ones without amber are most likely aftermarket.

nonono, I mean the 92 tails that had the recessed amber, so they LOOK white from the outside with the lights off. The 93/94 lights have the amber visible from the outside with the lights off.

I thought the JDM sedan tails were the same as the USDM 92 tails. But I wasn't sure if the 93/94 tails were offered in Japan also.

Check Ebay, they come up every once in a while. There's a few things there now, I just don't have the links handy.. they are genuine JDM, though, sellers are out of Tokyo.

That's what makes me think the tails are the same. I saw that same auction.

Lol, I did the JDM tail light conversion!

What's weird though, is that the part number for the 92 US tail lights is the same as the part number for the 93/94 tail lights, even though they are CLEARLY different.

BAC5.2 wrote:That's what makes me think the tails are the same. I saw that same auction.

Lol, I did the JDM tail light conversion!

What's weird though, is that the part number for the 92 US tail lights is the same as the part number for the 93/94 tail lights, even though they are CLEARLY different.

are we talkin about wagons here? because i only speak wagon-ese bro!

Those aren't "all red." They have red tail/brake lights, amber turn signals, clear reverse lights, and red rear fog lights. Like any intelligent taillight setup.

Yes, that asymmetry is because of the rear fog light. Those wagons have one reverse light and one rear fog light.

Unfortunately, the rear fog light on that car is on the wrong side for left-hand-drive countries like ours. The rear fog light has to be on the driver's side of the car, to indicate the position of the car when the taillights are insufficient.

If you can source a pair from a country in mainland Europe, you can have the correct arrangement. But again, the turn signals are still amber, as they should be.

You can't just paint a reverse light red and call it a rear fog light. Please don't do that.

I think the rear fog light and frontal fog lights should be REQUIRED in this country.

It's not uncommon to have nearly blinding rain and fog, ESPICALLY on the coasts (like in the MD/VA area, and even in DC). I always enjoy seeing Audi's driving in blinding rain. I can actually see where they are, when you can't see their tail lights.

LedJetta wrote: i was looking through some links in old threads to a bunch of liberty rs's. all the wagons had the same deal, all reds on the right and all red with the clear bottom on the left. i am gonna go out on a limb and say they arent aftermarket since every one had them

Sorry, let me clarify. The JDM wagons had the same as ours, the aussie,(and probably European ones too) liberty RSs had the fog light.

vrg3 wrote:Those aren't "all red." They have red tail/brake lights, amber turn signals, clear reverse lights, and red rear fog lights. Like any intelligent taillight setup.

the "amber" section appeared "all red" in the picture i posted, as well as on every other car i saw on the site. i may still go ahead and paint a set like that, just to be unintelligent.

some of you guys have a really suffocating way of enlightening people.

It looked kind of reddish in the photograph, but it was amber.

I don't understand your criticism. Why do you want to cripple your car's signals?

vrg3 wrote:It looked kind of reddish in the photograph, but it was amber.

I don't understand your criticism. Why do you want to cripple your car's signals?

you come across smug to me. i am glad for help, but dont scold me for not knowing.

why get so bent out of shape about a random idea of what i want to do with my turnsignals. theres a lot of very stale people around here that get pretty rattled at the thought of some different ideas. goddamn you people are killing me.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound scolding or smug. I understand what you mean; I was making statements and kind of expecting you to either already understand them or to do your own research to figure out what I meant. Let me apologize, and try again.

Red turn signals are not as safe as amber turn signals.

Human perception is based on contrast. The contrast between a red taillight and a red turn signal is much smaller than the contrast between a red taillight and an amber turn signal.

Furthermore, there is a danger of ambiguity inherent in red rear turn signals. Without supplying nearly a half to a full second of attention, once cannot know whether one is seeing a brake light or a turn signal. In many traffic situations, this amount of attention cannot safely be spent on only one lamp of one car.

The original design of turn signals, developed the better part of a century ago, is completely inappropriate todays world, with the kind of traffic density and speeds we experience every day.

Nearly the entire planet agrees on this, and mandates amber turn signals. The notable exception is North America; North America has a terrible, terrible, track record when it comes to automotive lighting. American carmakers pressure the federal government into permitting outdated and/or poorly engineered standards, and win. The NHTSA defends the decisions with unsound logic. Pretty much all the real lighting engineering in the world is going on in Europe. Just try driving a Jetta III at night before and after the Vento headlight conversion.

While I think the idea of making your car's appearance more distinctive is a deserving cause, it seems to me absurd to trade away your safety and the safety of others. Wouldn't you agree? There have to be other ways to make your car unique that don't detract from its perforamnce. It will take more creativity, but that's what makes it fun. I for one have been eager since you first appeared on this BBS to see what kind of stuff you'd come up with.

The amber/white dealie is only for sedans. All wagons have the same taillights, assuming they're from the same country.

Also I was under the impression non-USDM post-facelift tail lights have the lights on the outside parts and just a panel on the inside/trunk lid.

But Hardy, are the outside tails the same for the USDM and all other countries? I don't know enough about Legacy's/Liberty's abroad to know if there is a difference in that portion of the light.

vrg3 wrote:I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound scolding or smug. I understand what you mean; I was making statements and kind of expecting you to either already understand them or to do your own research to figure out what I meant. Let me apologize, and try again.

thank you, i appreciate your sincerity. it just seems to me that unestablished people/different ways of thinking are met with some serious resistance here. i am not trying to piss on anyones parade, i just have my own way of doing things...and i have a pretty competent track record so far.

Red turn signals are not as safe as amber turn signals.

Human perception is based on contrast. The contrast between a red taillight and a red turn signal is much smaller than the contrast between a red taillight and an amber turn signal.

Furthermore, there is a danger of ambiguity inherent in red rear turn signals. Without supplying nearly a half to a full second of attention, once cannot know whether one is seeing a brake light or a turn signal. In many traffic situations, this amount of attention cannot safely be spent on only one lamp of one car.

The original design of turn signals, developed the better part of a century ago, is completely inappropriate todays world, with the kind of traffic density and speeds we experience every day.

this is very interesting information, i will definitely take this into consideration. i have however noticed numerous late model audis, and some lexus models that have used all red tails from the factory, and as far as i know, there have not been any huge problems with them causing accidents.

Nearly the entire planet agrees on this, and mandates amber turn signals. The notable exception is North America; North America has a terrible, terrible, track record when it comes to automotive lighting. American carmakers pressure the federal government into permitting outdated and/or poorly engineered standards, and win. The NHTSA defends the decisions with unsound logic.

this doesnt surprise me, and i guess it explains the audis.

Pretty much all the real lighting engineering in the world is going on in Europe. Just try driving a Jetta III at night before and after the Vento headlight conversion.

i have a good appreciation of this.

While I think the idea of making your car's appearance more distinctive is a deserving cause, it seems to me absurd to trade away your safety and the safety of others. Wouldn't you agree? There have to be other ways to make your car unique that don't detract from its perforamnce. It will take more creativity, but that's what makes it fun. I for one have been eager since you first appeared on this BBS to see what kind of stuff you'd come up with.

i understand your point of view and it is a totally valid one. but there are levels of comfort we all have, and it is obviously very subjective. the pursuit of aesthetics is important to me, but i wont risk it by doing something blatantly dangerous. i will elaborate a little; if i were to do this, it would be using transparent model paint, and a VERY thin coating. so when the light wasnt in use it would appear reddish, but the amber tint would still be apparent. when the lights were in use, they would shine clearly and obviously as amber. i do not personally feel like that would be taking a major leap, but i am sure others wouldnt feel as comfortable. to each his own.

i apprecaite the response, and to give you guys a little update i will tell you i have had a bit of an epiphany as to my subaru plans. i have been researching a lot and have come to the conclusion that its nonsense to go against the jdm grain with this thing. i have also come to realize the nutty performance potential. there will still be some fun things visually though...

What makes a rear fog lght? It seems like a dispersed pattern with a bright light behind it - like a brake light left on or maybe a little brighter. Could one modify a reflective portion of the unlit panel (crosspiece on the wagon, part/all of the trunk area on the sedans) to be lit by a fog light type bulb?

I've seen aftermarket units that mount under the bumper.

Steve

LedJetta wrote:it just seems to me that unestablished people/different ways of thinking are met with some serious resistance here. i am not trying to piss on anyones parade, i just have my own way of doing things...and i have a pretty competent track record so far.

To be honest, I'm pretty sure I would have responded the same way to any Legacy Central member; it had nothing to do with you in particular.

It really really irks me when people fail to show automotive lighting the respect it deserves, and when they presume to understand systems that are more complicated than they can even imagine. I become curt and borderline rude.

If you see me doing this again in the future -- to you or to someone else -- I'd appreciate it if you could just post a reply asking me to explain what I mean.

LedJetta wrote:this is very interesting information, i will definitely take this into consideration. i have however noticed numerous late model audis, and some lexus models that have used all red tails from the factory, and as far as i know, there have not been any huge problems with them causing accidents.

That don't make it right.

The first thing to realize is that, in general, you cannot homebrew lighting. OEM lighting has much more engineering behind it than simply what color things are. You can't compare something you did in your garage to something a gazillion-dollar-a-year carmaker does.

The second is that absence of collected evidence that there is a problem is not evidence that there is no problem. These things are especially hard to collect data on. I mean, say one car merges into another at 80mph on the highway at night, and one guy dies. How can you collect data about what the dead guy did or perceived just before perishing?

And how can you determine what did and didn't play a role in causing the accident? Was the driver tired? Was someone driving too fast? Was the driver's attention needlessly spent monitoring another car's signals? Did someone fail to signal properly? Was the driver squinting from glare from another car's headlights? Did a bug fly in through the window and land on the driver's face, distracting him? Even if you can come up with a cause -- like "he failed to yield on a left turn" -- you cannot know what all the contributing factors are.

This is the same flawed logic that American carmakers use to permit all kinds of things that are obviously stupid. Witness cars that have front turn signals inboard of both the headlights and amber parking lights. Or trucks with rear brake/turn lights so close together that from any significant distance you can't tell that they're actually two separate lights. Or headlights like the Jetta III's, that provide almost no seeing light for the driver while also being blinding to others. Or rear turn signals invisible from the side. Or, yes, cars with red rear turn signals. In every case, the carmaker (it's usually General Motors) goes, "This stuff is perfectly safe. Show us the pile of dead bodies that shows it isn't."

LedJetta wrote:

vrg3 wrote:The notable exception is North America; North America has a terrible, terrible, track record when it comes to automotive lighting.

this doesnt surprise me, and i guess it explains the audis.

Yep. When the NHTSA says that someone is legal, they indemnify the carmaker from any liability regarding its dangers. And so carmakers start to use turn signal color as a styling option. A lot of the time they change the rear turn signal color during some model year in the middle of the production run of a particular body style, as a way of facelifting the design.

LedJetta wrote:

vrg3 wrote:Just try driving a Jetta III at night before and after the Vento headlight conversion.

i have a good appreciation of this.
[image]

Nice.

LedJetta wrote:i understand your point of view and it is a totally valid one. but there are levels of comfort we all have, and it is obviously very subjective. the pursuit of aesthetics is important to me, but i wont risk it by doing something blatantly dangerous.

I don't understand your comment about subjectivity. Are you saying that the tradeoff between safety and uniqueness-of-style is okay to some people?

LedJetta wrote:i will elaborate a little; if i were to do this, it would be using transparent model paint, and a VERY thin coating. so when the light wasnt in use it would appear reddish, but the amber tint would still be apparent. when the lights were in use, they would shine clearly and obviously as amber. i do not personally feel like that would be taking a major leap, but i am sure others wouldnt feel as comfortable. to each his own.

In case I haven't been clear, I'll say it unequivocally:

Unless you fully understand what you're doing, do not modify your car's signals. There is much more to them than you can possibly understand, and you will almost certainly damage their functionality.

Your "minor leap" will still potentially be crippling your lights. Of course, they will shine less intensely because you're adding a light-robbing tint, which is an obvious decrease in performance, but there's more.

Let me reiterate the contrast issue: human perception really is primarily sensitive to contrast. We don't sense absolute stimulus but rather a change in stimulus.

So a turn signal needs to have a very large contrast between its on and off states under all driving conditions. That includes snowy pitch-black nights, completely clear and intensely sunny days at noontime, and everything in between. Furthermore, this contrast must be sufficient to provide adequate visibility at a variety of viewing angles -- taillights and signal lights do have a beam pattern that must be maintained. But this contrast has to be achieved without causing excessive rearward glare, and it needs to exist sufficiently even when viewed by the colorblind or partially colorblind. Signal lighting design is a hard engineering task!

You cannot predict how you will be changing that contrast with the change you're proposing. Nor can you measure it with the means at your disposal. You can't accurately describe the type of change you're describing as a well-thought out modification. I would call it "monkeying around." And it's irresponsible to monkey around with your car's safety systems.

Please try hard to understand what I'm saying and not dismiss it just because it goes against what you want to do.

LedJetta wrote:i apprecaite the response, and to give you guys a little update i will tell you i have had a bit of an epiphany as to my subaru plans.

Don't hold out on us! What do you have planned?

evolutionmovement wrote:What makes a rear fog lght? It seems like a dispersed pattern with a bright light behind it - like a brake light left on or maybe a little brighter.

Rear fog lights kind of look like brake lights, but the beam pattern is different. They don't shine off at wide angles like brake lights, since they only really need to be seen at a narrow range of angles behind the vehicle. They often look brighter than brake lights because of this, even if they use a similar light source to brake lights and have similar efficiency.

And of course, there's only one rear fog light, and it's mounted on the driver's side of the vehicle. It can be the same lamp/bulb as a taillight, but not a brake light or turn signal. And like all red automotive lamps, they must have red lenses and clear bulbs.

evolutionmovement wrote:Could one modify a reflective portion of the unlit panel (crosspiece on the wagon, part/all of the trunk area on the sedans) to be lit by a fog light type bulb?

You can't modify optics at home. If you have a lens and reflector designed around a certain filament geometry, you have to use a bulb with the same filament geometry.

On my old 93 BC, I did kind of rig up a rear fog light using the stock lights. The 92-94 sedans have two pairs of tail/brake lights -- one pair on the body, just like 90-91 sedans, and another pair on the trunk lid. I wired it so when I hit the rear fog switch (and the front fogs were on, of course), the bright filament on the passenger side trunklid-mounted light would shut off (irrespective of what I was doing with the brakes), and the bright filament on the driver side would turn on.

I also replaced all four tail/brake light bulbs with 3496 bulbs, which have higher output on the bright filament than the stock 1157 bulbs.

That wasn't really correct because brake lights and rear fog lights have different optics, but it was arguably better than nothing.

evolutionmovement wrote:I've seen aftermarket units that mount under the bumper.

Usually they're supposed to mount above the bumper, to better line up with the following drivers' eyes and to be better protected from stuff that can either break it or reduce its performance. I don't know what the regulations say though.

But, certainly, if you want to do your part in preventing the multi-dozen-car-pileups we so frequently suffer in this country, these are the best way to go.

vrg3 wrote: And how can you determine what did and didn't play a role in causing the accident? Was the driver tired? Was someone driving too fast? Was the driver's attention needlessly spent monitoring another car's signals? Did someone fail to signal properly? Was the driver squinting from glare from another car's headlights? Did a bug fly in through the window and land on the driver's face, distracting him? Even if you can come up with a cause -- like "he failed to yield on a left turn" -- you cannot know what all the contributing factors are.

yes, but not all accidents are fatal. when people survive an accident, they can usually elborate on a reason why it occurred.

Witness cars that have front turn signals inboard of both the headlights and amber parking lights.

my 91.

I don't understand your comment about subjectivity. Are you saying that the tradeoff between safety and uniqueness-of-style is okay to some people?

no, i am simply saying that you obviously are not comfortable with tinting your turn signals. i am saying i could probably sleep at night having done it. you have brought up several points i was never aware of, and which i am thinking about. its always good to have all the facts.

Unless you fully understand what you're doing, do not modify your car's signals. There is much more to them than you can possibly understand, and you will almost certainly damage their functionality.

Your "minor leap" will still potentially be crippling your lights. Of course, they will shine less intensely because you're adding a light-robbing tint, which is an obvious decrease in performance, but there's more.

Let me reiterate the contrast issue: human perception really is primarily sensitive to contrast. We don't sense absolute stimulus but rather a change in stimulus.

So a turn signal needs to have a very large contrast between its on and off states under all driving conditions. That includes snowy pitch-black nights, completely clear and intensely sunny days at noontime, and everything in between. Furthermore, this contrast must be sufficient to provide adequate visibility at a variety of viewing angles -- taillights and signal lights do have a beam pattern that must be maintained. But this contrast has to be achieved without causing excessive rearward glare, and it needs to exist sufficiently even when viewed by the colorblind or partially colorblind. Signal lighting design is a hard engineering task!

You cannot predict how you will be changing that contrast with the change you're proposing. Nor can you measure it with the means at your disposal. You can't accurately describe the type of change you're describing as a well-thought out modification. I would call it "monkeying around." And it's irresponsible to monkey around with your car's safety systems.

understood and points well taken.

Don't hold out on us! What do you have planned?

coilovers hopefully, i am still on the quest for some interesting wheels. if that fails i think i am going to go with some 2.5rs 16s with a color change. have some performance ideas, but have to try and figure out what some of the shit you guys are talking about means first haha.

Your 91's turn signals aren't inboard of the headlights, they're below them.

Which rs wheels and which color change? Please not the 98's.

What kind of stuff did you need help with?

LedJetta wrote:yes, but not all accidents are fatal. when people survive an accident, they can usually elborate on a reason why it occurred.

They still can't adequately explain causes. Someone might be able to say they didn't see a turn signal, for example, but they cannot know precisely why. That kind of perception happens at a very low level of consciousness.

You can appreciate the difficulty of collecting useful data.

LedJetta wrote:no, i am simply saying that you obviously are not comfortable with tinting your turn signals. i am saying i could probably sleep at night having done it.

Heh... that to me sounds like a euphemism for having a weaker sense of responsibility and conscience.

LedJetta wrote:you have brought up several points i was never aware of, and which i am thinking about. its always good to have all the facts.

Agreed.

vrg3 wrote:coilovers hopefully, i am still on the quest for some interesting wheels.

Cool.

If you have the means, one thing I would be interested in seeing explored is the modification of aftermarket wheels to fit our cars properly. Our stock offset is much higher than other cars', so wheels meant for other 5x100mm hubs don't fit quite right. That causes handling problems, accelerated bearing wear, and tire scrubbing.

Many aftermarket wheels are designed with a very small or very negative offset, and then the surface that mates to the hub is milled down for the various offsets the wheel can be sold with. My brother bought four identical wheels for his Supra and the vendor prepared them with his specified offsets, which were different in the front and in the rear.

It seems to me that there are probably some wheel options out there that we haven't explored because they involve a little machining.

LedJetta wrote:if that fails i think i am going to go with some 2.5rs 16s with a color change.

Cool, those are nice wheels that are pretty lightweight but they can hold fairly wide tires and also clear fairly large brakes.

LedJetta wrote:have some performance ideas, but have to try and figure out what some of the shit you guys are talking about means first haha.

Hehe, yeah, like most automotive forums we kind of have a jargon of our own. If some searching doesn't yield a decent explanation, feel free to ask for one.

Vikash - Nissan actually converted from YELLOW turn signals on the 03/04 Altima, to red on the 05. They are stacked circles, red brake lights, red turn signals.

About the machining of wheels....

Do you think they could turn my +48 Rota's into +50's by machining off some of the material? With the new suspension, I could stand to tuck the wheel in a few more mm for clearance. I might even be able to swing a +53 on the 7.5" rim, and stuff a 235 on there... hmmm. The DMS coilovers are NARROW....