ERA round tail light layout/configuration
 

What is the ERA configuration for their dual round tail lights? Single upper light with lower reflector; or dual bulbs on each side (ie. upper brake, lower turn signal) with two cutouts for bulbs? If two cutouts, would anyone be able to provide size of cutout and spacing?

As I understand it, the original CSX cars that came with dual round tail lights were single bulb upper for both brakes and turn signals and the lower round light was just a reflector.

The reason I am trying to find out is because I want to confirm whether or not an ERA 427 car with dual round tail lights can be changed to rectangular tail lights without major 'glass work. In my search for an ERA 427 car, it seems like most of the ones for sale have the street light configuration and I don't necessarily want to pass on one that is close to what I want (ie. rectangular tail lights), if that is something I can change relatively easily.

In searching this forum previously, I did come across a a thread that said ERA uses a different mold for the rear section on the body of their comp and street configs and that the shape is slightly different; however, if memory serves, it didn't really say whether or not it could be done if a person is willing to accept the shape difference.

Any information on the above is appreciated.

The body shape is quite different between the rectangular and round rear lights. They can't be exchanged without considerable bodywork.

I don't believe it's accurate to associate the type of tail light with an SC car and a Street car. Early 3000 series carried over the rectangular tail lights from the 2000 series cars. At some point a change was made to the dual round tail lights. Fairly early Street cars had rectangular lights but eventually they ended up with dual round lights. So if trying to replicate a particular car, it's probably more of a matter of how early in model year and production number.

If I'm wrong on this I'm sure someone will quickly correct me.

Does the difference in body shape between the two physically prevent the rectangular light from resting on the "pad" on the "street" body; or, are we just talking about it not looking right, because the shape wouldn't match that of the original cars that came with rectangular tail lights?

Could you advise if there is a bulb in the lower of the two round lenses with a cutout in the 'glass; or, is it just a surface-mounted reflector held on with two screws?

If just surface mounted, my thinking is that the rectangular lense would cover the cutout of the upper round lense and the top screw hole of the lower round lense, potentially just requiring the lower screw hole for the lower lense to be filled/touched up. Please correct me if I'm missing something.

I'm unsure at which point the switch was made from rectangular to round tail lights on the originals either.

My reference to competition with rectangular and street with dual round tail lights is specific to ERA's default light configuration for their competition version and street version bodys, when ordering a 427 car from them.

The pad for the round lights is rounder at the top and wider too. The entire area is also taller.

The reflector-type units are no longer available, so we've been using the round lights on the bottom instead.

The profiles really don't match up very well. We've always molded in a new body section for the different-style lights.

Strictlypersonl,

thanks for the information. It is, unfortunately, not what I was hoping to hear...

It sounds like changing from round to rectangular tail lights would require a bunch of 'glass work - along with a re-paint of the car. I'm guessing that would add $10K to the cost of the car. That's too costly of a change for me.

I'll have to keep looking for one with rectangular tail lights that checks off all the other items on my wish list to become available.

What is your wish list in a potential car?

I thought about this when I was out in the garage this morning and studied the rear of my rectangular light car - the area definitely is too narrow to simply mount round tail lights. I hadn't realized there was that much difference in the fender shape.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...ps0fc08aad.jpg

I like both versions! Here is mine for comparison.
http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...280416bweb.jpg
http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...280347bweb.jpg

Maybe I'm over-estimating the diameter of the round tail lights as the pad for Troy's lights doesn't look much wider in the photo (if any) than the width of the pad for my rectangular ones. But, if Bob says it's different - it's different.

I have 3 sets of reflective round tail lens abailable at $50 a set. if anyone is interested.

Rick.

DanEC, 66gtk,

thanks for uploading the pics of your tail lights. There definitely is a difference in the shape of the pad between the two types. I can see where Strictlypersonl (Bob) says the profiles don't really match up.

From the pictures, it looks like the rectangular tail lights are about 5" long; whereas the dual-round tail lights pair looks to be about 7-1/2" from top to bottom of the cluster (I "guesstimated" from the 6" license plate.) That's a lot of space around a rectangular tail light, if you were so inclined to mount one on the pad that originally has round ones. It probably wouldn't look so great, IMO.

ERA (of course!) with FE (preferrably side oiler), comp set up (lights, dash, rivetted hood scoop, 6" remote oil cooler, etc..) 15" knock-offs,ERA custom IRS, trunk-mounted battery. Looks-wise, as close to original as possible. My only concessions would be a glovebox in the dash and a 5-speed, for highway cruising.

Good point - height of the flat pad is probably the biggest difference.