I knew that I wouldn't like them. I was right. LED's do not belong on a mustang. Especially ricer halos. YUCK!

 

Pass me the rice because I love them. Po-fri-ri!

 

I was hoping to see some signal action it was only reverse

Which looks crappy

 

Fly lyce?
Like the design in the day if the surround didn't light up and were just reflectors, I would say maybe but not digging them at all.

 

It's all good. I love my Cobra tails on the 2000. And I love my tinted 07 tails.

I never liked the candy canes. Never.


Too each his own.

 

I need some tinted tails on mine but undecided on headlights. Hate to lose any visibility.

 

I went with tinted headlights and then switched to a 7k HID kit and it pretty much equals out. Mostly drive it at night and visibility has been good.

 

Doesn't mean I have to like them. I think they need at least 4 but 6 would look best IN MY OPINION.

And Pontiac Grand Am's had 4 for years.

 

I've got HID and they work great. Really great visibility. Hate to lose any of it. Then again I guess I could always turn on the fogs too. I never use them.

 

I knew the reverse lights would have to work like this. When the vehicle is in reverse, the brake lamps must have the ability to light up when stopping in reverse. Because of this you cannot have all three light up white while in reverse. The red halos are only designed to glow at running lamp brightness levels.

 

they've had LED taillights for the past 3 years

__________________

^ as for the grand am comparison... no comment

.

 

heres a good one

www.youtube.com/watch?v=55XXIgRMK9k

 

Did you not read anything else in the thread? See post #5...

 

This would be much better. I've noticed that on newer cars (some Dodges etc), when you brake and turn signal simultaneously, many cars will turn off the brake light on the selected turning side, whereas with 09 and older stangs the turn-signal side stays normally lit if lights are on, but flashes the brighter brake lights for the turn signal. I prefer the older way of doing things, but does this have anything to do with safety? I guess it's more noticeable if the whole light turns off and on, but just not my thing.

Man what I wouldn't do for a '12 front and a '13 rear . The new rears are very futuristic, somewhat polarizing. Nice reverse light IMO. Gonna be weird when even a v6 base car has a shelbyish front end, HID headlights, and these futuristic tails standard. GT's are gonna have a tougher time differing from the pack.

 

Someone needs to make a video of these tail lights to "Wizard in Winter".

 

haha

 

Technically on a 09 and earlier Mustangs, when the brakes are applied, a turn signal action flashes the brake lamps on the turn signal activated side instead of keeping them steady lit. Turn signals and brake lights always use the bright filament of a dual filament bulb, while only the running lamps use the dimmer filament when the parking lamps and headlamps are turned on.

It has nothing to do with any US DOT safety requirement. It is just up to engineering to determine how they want the lights to light up. Some cars have a separate turn signal bulb from the brake lamp bulb and some are combined. Also, on some vehicles that are imported, the home market cars may have an amber rear turn signal section where the US versions may color the lens red for appearance since amber rear turn signals are not required in the US.

 

I like the new tails. It looks better than the current ones and remember it is an "evolution" to the mustang. ie: sat/nav, bluetooth, power windows, EFI...

 

Then you would have no brake lights in reverse. That would probably be illegal.

 

Theres a center brake light on the trunk, which would still turn red without issue.