Tail light louvers

WindsorFox<SS> wrote:


[ ... ]

> This troll is purposely combative for no apparent reason and just
> attempts to invalidate a reply from me out of petty bull****.

[ ... ]


Project much?

--
Frank ess

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 he
http://www.shamikaserver.com/ssforum...0620#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.

>
> 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 P Mr. Mouse wasn't living in the vent was he?

>
> 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.


--

"I've also noted that a couple of my regular spammers
have pretty much switched over to phishing and 419s
from pecker pills and sawdust tablets." - Bar0

"If it's from BRNIC, it's GOT to be blocked" - Buss Error

Frank ess wrote:
>
>
> WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> This troll is purposely combative for no apparent reason and just
>> attempts to invalidate a reply from me out of petty bull****.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> Project much?
>

Beg 'pardon?

--

"I've also noted that a couple of my regular spammers
have pretty much switched over to phishing and 419s
from pecker pills and sawdust tablets." - Bar0

"If it's from BRNIC, it's GOT to be blocked" - Buss Error

"WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
...
> 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 he
> http://www.shamikaserver.com/ssforum...0620#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 P 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

On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:16:06 -0700, jonezzzman >
wrote:

>Can someone tell me more about the tail light louvers for late 80's
>early 90's?
>
>I've seen them on 88 GT's. What do they mean? Are they an option or
>were they only on specific year(s)?
>
>Can I buy just the louvers or do I have to get the whole tail light
>assembly?
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Byron
I'd try auto salvage first. You can find some yards listed with
Hemmings (www.hemmings.com) which are all Mustang. Do a search for
your year model and the ads should pop up between ads for individual
cars (which was how I got an estimate for a Mustang I sold - I
compared mine to the ads... and it sold for exactly what I asked...
but you have to be careful of scammers making offers).

I have no idea if what you seek is in their catalogs, they are sorta
out of my 65's year group (except CJPony) but ....

Check out....

Moss Motors (www.mossmustang.com)
CJ Pony Parts (www.cjponyparts.com)
[CJPony has their own yard I believe]
Brothers Performance (www.brothersperformance.com)

"WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in
:

> 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 he
> http://www.shamikaserver.com/ssforum...0620#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.

Idiot. You're the one who keeps ranting on and on. You were wrong and
you still are. The lenses are not simply painted on as you first
claimed. Now STFU and go away, pest.


>> 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 P Mr. Mouse wasn't living in the vent was he?
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>

Spike wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:16:06 -0700, jonezzzman >
> wrote:
>
>> Can someone tell me more about the tail light louvers for late 80's
>> early 90's?
>>
>> I've seen them on 88 GT's. What do they mean? Are they an option or
>> were they only on specific year(s)?
>>
>> Can I buy just the louvers or do I have to get the whole tail light
>> assembly?
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Byron
> I'd try auto salvage first. You can find some yards listed with
> Hemmings (www.hemmings.com) which are all Mustang. Do a search for
> your year model and the ads should pop up between ads for individual
> cars (which was how I got an estimate for a Mustang I sold - I
> compared mine to the ads... and it sold for exactly what I asked...
> but you have to be careful of scammers making offers).
>
> I have no idea if what you seek is in their catalogs, they are sorta
> out of my 65's year group (except CJPony) but ....
>
> Check out....
>
> Moss Motors (www.mossmustang.com)
> CJ Pony Parts (www.cjponyparts.com)
> [CJPony has their own yard I believe]
> Brothers Performance (www.brothersperformance.com)

There's a few on eBay but the nice ones are very expensive, probably
due to as Dwight observed you can't seem to buy them from the regular
resto places.

--

"I've also noted that a couple of my regular spammers
have pretty much switched over to phishing and 419s
from pecker pills and sawdust tablets." - Bar0

"If it's from BRNIC, it's GOT to be blocked" - Buss Error

dwight wrote:
> "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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 he
>> http://www.shamikaserver.com/ssforum...0620#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 P 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.

Judging from the Google responses I got it definitely is, but I
think I'd opt for some broad leaf weed killer over gloves.


> 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."
>

That's why I never did. I considered it back when it was all the rage
for the GT owners to replace theirs with LX lights. Several people I
asked at the track said they changed because the cheese grater lights
reminded them of disco. Never figured that one out.

--

"I've also noted that a couple of my regular spammers
have pretty much switched over to phishing and 419s
from pecker pills and sawdust tablets." - Bar0

"If it's from BRNIC, it's GOT to be blocked" - Buss Error

Joe wrote:
> "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in
> :
>
>> 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 he
>> http://www.shamikaserver.com/ssforum...0620#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.
>
> Idiot. You're the one who keeps ranting on and on. You were wrong and
> you still are. The lenses are not simply painted on as you first
> claimed. Now STFU and go away, pest.
>

You're a ****in jackass troll. Prove me wrong, I dare you. Look at
the picture troll boy, go ahead. I was here before you came, and I'll be
here after you're gone you pathetic doucheweasel.

--

"I've also noted that a couple of my regular spammers
have pretty much switched over to phishing and 419s
from pecker pills and sawdust tablets." - Bar0

"If it's from BRNIC, it's GOT to be blocked" - Buss Error

"WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in news:g0069k$mnv$1
@posting2.glorb.com:

> Joe wrote:
>> "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> 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
he
>>> http://www.shamikaserver.com/ssforum...ad.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.
>>
>> Idiot. You're the one who keeps ranting on and on. You were wrong
and
>> you still are. The lenses are not simply painted on as you first
>> claimed. Now STFU and go away, pest.
>>
>
> You're a ****in jackass troll. Prove me wrong, I dare you. Look
at
> the picture troll boy, go ahead. I was here before you came, and I'll
be
> here after you're gone you pathetic doucheweasel.

LOL! Idiot. Now FOAD.