The Shaolin

iTrader: (5)

86 GXL. USDM.

After owning this car for 9 months or so, replacing every single brake component, I finally got to test the brakes and I was getting a warning light. I then realized it wasn't the brake warning light, it was the stop bulb warning light. All of my brake lights are on, except for the third one...




Further diagnosis revealed why.



At least it looks good from the outside.

I wonder if the previous owner just drove around with the stop light on. (He eventually blew the engine and the car sat for 6 years before I got it).

I'm assuming one or both of the plugs you see in the last picture are for the bulbs. Can I put a resistor in the plug to turn the light off?

whereiscarmensandiego

u can if i could only remember what kind i know u also have to put a heatsink on the resistor aswell but im not sure or not ..i dont think they last to long its easier to just go with how it is really

Rx-7fetish

Yeah but warning lights on for no reason are so annoying, they are there for a reason so if you can fi why there on its nice to know things are right, could you post a pic of the rear ed from further back, i would like to see how that looks, and now for my question that has something to do with this post.......................... why would you have to use a resistor, why not just find the third light off another rx that has one and plug it in and ziptie it up out of the way behind the spare tire or that area out of the way so the car still thinks its there, that way you know its all working right and dont have to do any extra work

My5ABaby

iTrader: (7)

It's kind of illegal to not have a 3rd tail light...

Pele

iTrader: (28)

Did someone...

WTF?

Did someone bondo and paint over the rear brake light?!

MidnightOwl

That looks like a piece of metal welded on, so it was done right at least. Should have been painted on the inside too though, it's rusting.

DragonRx7

I can't tell if that's a reflection in the first shot or if the paint is cracking around the patch.

alexdimen

iTrader: (13)

That's the dumbest ****...

Think about it. If you get rear ended without a 3rd brake light, you could be held liable for the damages. It's worth fixing.

Box_Man

If he was worried about that, he could retrofit a window mounted one from another car (84-87 CRXs had nice high window mounted 3rd lights) instead of hacking up the exterior of his car to undo something.

The Shaolin

iTrader: (5)

I don't have a whole lot of pictures of the *** end because this pile never leaves the garage...here's all I got.







I could just as easily do that...but the car is gutted and having bulbs just dangling around lighting **** up is kind of annoying.


Yes, but only barely. The rule is that if the car came with one originally, it has to retain it. Third brake lights became standard in the US in 1986. The Australian 1986 cars did not have high mount stop lights.


Yes, it was done correctly. Usually, when you buy a car you know nothing about, you can tell if the owner was a tard or not...this guy has tendencies for both sides, so I have no idea.

Absolutely not. I did not notice I did not have a light, or that it wasn't supposed to have a light, because whoever did a great job, as you can see from the other pictures.

My5ABaby

iTrader: (7)

How does the Australian cars not having one have anything to do with the United States? "Only barely" is enough to screw you in court. My recommendation: get one functional somehow.

Icemark

Actually 1987 was the model year of the third brake light requirement in the States. 1986 models didn't have to have them. Mazda just phased them in early for the 1986.

Kinda like the mouse belts in 1989. The regulation didn't go into effect until 1990 model year to have passive restraints, yet all the US model FC coupes got them on the mid model change of 1989.

That is why 'verts didn't get airbags until 1990.

cool_as_crap

Not quite.
If you have 2/3rds of your brake lights functional, you aren't held liable for anything.

I also found this:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/189-00/055.PDF

Edit: Although I may be wrong, and need to do more research first, but this was my previous understanding.

The Shaolin

iTrader: (5)

That makes it even closer to being legal...lol. Thanks for the info.

I think I was basing off what I said before about 1986 being the year from a search I did...I thought it was you who said it, maybe not.

alexdimen

iTrader: (13)

Yeah, but I wouldn't risk it. Even though your state law may say that, there are states with shared liability (like my shitty state).

Regardless, insurance companies will pursue every chance they see to avoid paying damages. This is one of those things where they could really **** you. I mean, they do it bad enough to people who drive 100% stock cars. What do you think goes through there head when they find out the person who filed the claim has intentionally modified brake lights?

That's a better idea.