Alaric Darconville
Flashlight Enthusiast
My '01 Corolla uses them for the reverse lights. Surely there's something brighter than that that maintains the same filament placement so the beam pattern remains unchanged.
see if it's feasible to modify to a different bulb.
Failing that, it will be challenge to find much space for auxiliary backup lights on that car.
Nope.
How 'bout mounting some additional backup lights in the rear bumper fascia as kicked around here (scroll down)?
I have a '86 Chevy S10 that does that when you brake with the hazards on (combined rear stop/turn/tail).Another "awesome" idea would to be able to lock all four turn signals on steadily with a momentary button. Not road legal, of course. More of a musing on this last one...
I have a '86 Chevy S10 that does that when you brake with the hazards on (combined rear stop/turn/tail).
But as far as red directionals go, I'd rather have a combined brake/directional light than separate red directional and brake lights with no separation between them. Impossible to see the directional if the driver's stepping on the brake!
Agreed. I have never understood why manufacturer's spec red turn signals.I have noticed that on many cars with incorporated rear lamps that when the hazard lights are on, using the brake will also light the front lamps steadily.
This doesn't occur on the Corolla, as it has separate turn signals and stop lights, with the turn signals being amber (which is the way it SHOULD be). Incorporated turn, tail, and stop lights are not nearly as safe, both in terms of the implications of a failed bulb as well as the potential for misinterpretation of the signaling.
Same here. I take a little (very little) comfort in the fact that the rear signals are GIANT, and that the front sidemarkers are wired to flash with the turn signals as is described on Daniel Stern's web site (it was like this from the factory)I agree with you that amber rear directionals are safer, and so does NHTSA (finally!...but that doesn't mean they're necessarily going to stop allowing red). But as far as red directionals go, I'd rather have a combined brake/directional light than separate red directional and brake lights with no separation between them. Impossible to see the directional if the driver's stepping on the brake!
These people need to have some sense knocked into them. Although, I guess that with invisible brake lights and turn signals, that will eventually happen! I just can't understand their logic. Same with the people with blue, green, or any other color (besides selective yellow, done properly) headlamps.It does make it a little harder, and again, burned out bulbs add ambiguity. Things get worse when the red turn signals are inboard rather than outboard (regardless of color, I'm not a fan of inboard turn signals).
Then the ric^H^H^enthusiasts take it one step further and start to "black out" their taillights. The other day, I spotted a Crown Victoria with jet black taillights and I could barely see the amber turn signal flashing, let alone the brake lights lighting up.
I've been wondering if one would be better off with one of those higher power 194's....basically the same socket. It would depend on whether it threw enough light out the back and through the lens.
Wonder no more-- one is not better off with one of those. It might throw out a lot of light, but not in the right direction and not in such a way that the reflector can direct it as it can the proper filament bulb.
Mystery solved.
On a lot of cars that use the 921, the bulb isn't aligned with the centerline of the vehicle. They are mounted to the side so the filament gets full exposure to the reflector in the back of the light assembly.
For grins I checked my '03 Acura and it looks like the bulb comes in from the top...down at a 45 degree angle or so.
Why the same technology hasn't been applied to a 921 replacement, much like the 2886X is an upgrade from the 194, I don't know.
For the Acura, that LED bulb would be a poor replacement indeed.