Stock Taillight Appreciation Thread

[Texas BRZ]

Originally Posted by Rampage

I really like the stock tail lights. I find it funny that so many people mod them. Especially the guys that red them out because back before the Altessa style got popular in the late 90s and early 2000s most of the tail lights were all red. All the modders back then would switch out the all reds to aftermarket Altessa style tails. Now the twins come with a similar style to the Altessa and modders are redding them out or tinting them to look different. To me it looks 80s or early 90s.

I have honestly not seen an aftermarket tail that looks better than the stock factory units. I guess people just like to change stuff to make it different.

I simply could not agree with you any more.

[Andrew025]

Originally Posted by Rampage

I really like the stock tail lights. I find it funny that so many people mod them. Especially the guys that red them out because back before the Altessa style got popular in the late 90s and early 2000s most of the tail lights were all red. All the modders back then would switch out the all reds to aftermarket Altessa style tails. Now the twins come with a similar style to the Altessa and modders are redding them out or tinting them to look different. To me it looks 80s or early 90s.

I have honestly not seen an aftermarket tail that looks better than the stock factory units. I guess people just like to change stuff to make it different.

Altezza style always have and always will be ugly.
Even though they have a similar style to altezza, I wouldn't call them altezza since they don't look quite as riceball as typical aftermarket altezzas.

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by Andrew025

Altezza style always have and always will be ugly.
Even though they have a similar style to altezza, I wouldn't call them altezza since they don't look quite as riceball as typical aftermarket altezzas.

Yeah, they aren't really Altessa. They are much better looking. I used Altessa as an example to illustrate my point. Modders pay big bucks and change stuff in an effort to be different but it is not always an improvement.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Wise

My car is also red. I agree the stock tails suit Red probably the best. Especially at dusk.

Throw a chrome plate frame on there and see how it ties it all together with the chrome on the tails!

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Rampage

I find it funny that so many people mod them. Especially the guys that red them out because back before the Altessa style got popular in the late 90s and early 2000s most of the tail lights were all red. All the modders back then would switch out the all reds to aftermarket Altessa style tails.

That's why people mod them now to have a "stock" red.

For a lot of us who are old enough to have seen the ricer trend grow, when we saw riced out econoboxes, even the ones that had a lot of money poured into them looked cheap and stupid. Then you had all the wannabe ricers who didn't have the money to do a full build on a car that would grenade in a few years anyway, so they would buy a used shitbox and put ricey garbage like unpainted body packages and clear/chrome tails on their cars.

When the manufacturers actually started copying the poor taste of the ricers and putting accents on the cars that looked rice, not all of us appreciated that. That's why I don't like the stock tails on this car. They're not that bad, but they almost look too much like something some ricer would do to the car to make it more flashy. That's great for people with a ricer aesthetic, but not so great for those of us who don't care for gaudy chrome paint on plastic.

Most of the aftermarket tails increase the rice factor even more. But the red lenses, the black mod I posted above and the Tom's tails all take that down a notch and subtly bring down the flashiness. This is a damned good looking car without a lot of bling on it. The car's lines already attract attention without the chromed plastic screaming "Look at me! Look at me!"

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

That's why people mod them now to have a "stock" red.

For a lot of us who are old enough to have seen the ricer trend grow, when we saw riced out econoboxes, even the ones that had a lot of money poured into them looked cheap and stupid. Then you had all the wannabe ricers who didn't have the money to do a full build on a car that would grenade in a few years anyway, so they would buy a used shitbox and put ricey garbage like unpainted body packages and clear/chrome tails on their cars.

When the manufacturers actually started copying the poor taste of the ricers and putting accents on the cars that looked rice, not all of us appreciated that. That's why I don't like the stock tails on this car. They're not that bad, but they almost look too much like something some ricer would do to the car to make it more flashy. That's great for people with a ricer aesthetic, but not so great for those of us who don't care for gaudy chrome paint on plastic.

Most of the aftermarket tails increase the rice factor even more. But the red lenses, the black mod I posted above and the Tom's tails all take that down a notch and subtly bring down the flashiness. This is a damned good looking car without a lot of bling on it. The car's lines already attract attention without the chromed plastic screaming "Look at me! Look at me!"

But....but...I LIKE "look at me"!!!!!!
Not in a neon under lights, 12 foot wing and graphics and stickers kind of way but in small amounts of tasteful chrome. The stock tails look great on the lava and I don't see tooooo much rice influence in them.

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

That's why people mod them now to have a "stock" red.

For a lot of us who are old enough to have seen the ricer trend grow, when we saw riced out econoboxes, even the ones that had a lot of money poured into them looked cheap and stupid. Then you had all the wannabe ricers who didn't have the money to do a full build on a car that would grenade in a few years anyway, so they would buy a used shitbox and put ricey garbage like unpainted body packages and clear/chrome tails on their cars.

When the manufacturers actually started copying the poor taste of the ricers and putting accents on the cars that looked rice, not all of us appreciated that. That's why I don't like the stock tails on this car. They're not that bad, but they almost look too much like something some ricer would do to the car to make it more flashy. That's great for people with a ricer aesthetic, but not so great for those of us who don't care for gaudy chrome paint on plastic.

Most of the aftermarket tails increase the rice factor even more. But the red lenses, the black mod I posted above and the Tom's tails all take that down a notch and subtly bring down the flashiness. This is a damned good looking car without a lot of bling on it. The car's lines already attract attention without the chromed plastic screaming "Look at me! Look at me!"

Yeah, I get what you are saying. It is a matter of taste and personal preferences. At 60, I have seen a lot of automotive trends come and go and I have modded a lot of cars. My taste have settled around OEM+ which is fairly conservative when it comes to visual changes.

I do not find the OEM tails gaudy at all but that is just my opinion. Changing them out would not even cross my mind.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Rampage

I do not find the OEM tails gaudy at all but that is just my opinion. Changing them out would not even cross my mind.

I don't really consider them gaudy as a package, but chrome paint on plastic under clear lenses has a tendency to lean that direction. I would gladly have lived with the clear/chrome tails if no better options had been available. Lucky for me the Tom's tails were designed pretty much exactly how I thought the tail lights should look.

I have the BRZ Limited. Right after I put the Tom's on, my mail carrier walked up one day and said, "You did something different to your car, but I can't figure out what it is. Is that wing new?" I knew I made the right choice.

[cys19]

Originally Posted by Mikko

You guys have better looking stock tail lights in US. You have the red part in the side of the light..






European lights are different, more disgusting chrome..

Arent the chrome taillights from the original Toyota 86 in Japan?

[CBRZY]

Originally Posted by Mikko

You guys have better looking stock tail lights in US. You have the red part in the side of the light..






European lights are different, more disgusting chrome..

Pretty sure we have to have the red on the side as a side marker. It would be illegal not to have it in the rear, at least in California.
Just like the clear sidemarkers in the front. In California it's illegal. We're supposed to have them amber.

[tigermack]

[VacantSky]

I'm not a fan of the diode dynamics mod.. to me it looks cheap not "modern". On cars that have it stock to me it looks like it was an after thought. Oh shit we forgot the turn signal... hmmmmmmm... f'it, we'll piggy back on the brake lamp.

I do like the stockers, it would have been nice if the turns were LED from factory but I can change that easily. Red out with a blank spot for the turn signal is what I show my love too.


Although the red Colins look great IMO

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by CBRZY

Pretty sure we have to have the red on the side as a side marker. It would be illegal not to have it in the rear, at least in California.

That's a US federal law. FMVSS 108 requires front and rear side markers on all vehicles. CMVSS 108 in Canada is almost an exact copy of the US regulations, so side markers are required there as well.

Originally Posted by CBRZY

Just like the clear sidemarkers in the front. In California it's illegal. We're supposed to have them amber.

Just to clarify, FMVSS 108 requires that the lamps be amber, but not the housing. So you can have clear side marker housings as long as you put amber lamps in them so that they don't shine white at night. California Vehicle Code Section 25100 follows federal law:

25100. (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (d), every
vehicle 80 inches or more in overall width shall be equipped during
darkness as follows:
(1) At least one amber clearance lamp on each side mounted on a
forward-facing portion of the vehicle and visible from the front and
at least one red clearance lamp on each side mounted on a
rearward-facing portion of the vehicle and visible from the rear.
(2) At least one amber side-marker lamp on each side near the
front and at least one red side-marker lamp on each side near the
rear.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but that says nothing about clear housings. So as long as you have an amber lamp in there so that it shines amber at night, I don't think California prohibits it.

Even though no cops in my neck of the woods would ever bother stopping me for white side markers, I'm running clear housings with amber lamps. Why? Because running white lamps in your side markers impairs the vision of other drivers and makes you an asshole if you do it.

Originally Posted by cys19

Arent the chrome taillights from the original Toyota 86 in Japan?

Sort of. The Japanese vehicle code does not require side marker lights. Based on the earlier post, I'm assuming Europe doesn't as well. So the tails with the chrome sides are just JDM tails installed wherever side markers are not required. I wouldn't characterize them as "original," because these cars weren't designed for a single market and then adapted to others.

[Midarete]