Dissapointed in the Tail Lights

[Ferrarimk13]

and if there were two lights in the back, would you say thats a "toyota" staple or something? i think they look fine, and even if they dont, it wouldnt hold me back from buying one. Most cars have ugly rear lights, but you just gotta deal with it

[wullger]

You won't be looking at your own taillights anyway! That's for Mustang and ricer owners to see

[coolman]

Originally Posted by VenomZ302

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how you don't see the similarities. Look again.

Still don't see it . (Even with big numbers) the 68 is not seperated by the bumber like the 2010. When you take them out of a 68 they come out as one unit not two completly seperate pieces. the look is one tail light assembly vs two on the 2010(per side). I you want to compare it properly to a early car look at the 1970 in the post above.

[VenomZ302]

Originally Posted by VenomZ302

Uh, that's essentially what we have. That was my point...

Originally Posted by coolman

Still don't see it . (Even with big numbers) the 68 is not seperated by the bumber like the 2010. When you take them out of a 68 they come out as one unit not two completly seperate pieces. the look is one tail light assembly vs two on the 2010(per side). I you want to compare it properly to a early car look at the 1970 in the post above.

Essentially: adverb - in a fundamental or basic way; in essence

I didn't say that it's exactly the same. My response was to the statement that the lights should look like those in the late '60s. Well, the tail lights look similar to those used on the RS models in 1968. And, yes, in essence, the taillights are the same design.

[coolman]

Essentially: adverb- in a fundamental or basic way: in essence

You drive an infiniti G35s. I drive a gt500. essentially the same thing, their both cars.

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by 2010SLVRBULIT

Tail lights are cool..just wish there was hidden headlights w/ covers for the RS option like previously posted..

Originally Posted by wullger

You won't be looking at your own taillights anyway! That's for Mustang and ricer owners to see

Don't forget the Dodge boys

[wullger]

I didn't forget them

[chevy 3]

ok lets get this strait. the difference is not just the lens. its also led on the rs and reg on all others.

[Matrix]

No retro for me pls. I LOVE my current RS ones!

[BlackCamaroSS]

I'm not crazy about the tail lights either; would have preferred more styling cues from the 1969. With that said, I don't hate them by any means.

And no, I don't see any similarity whatsoever between 2010 and 1968 tail lights. Not even a little.

[Treadstone]

Originally Posted by Hylton

Not sure why the tail lights must always look like older versions. I wonder if the guys who had the '70 Camaros freaked out because the tail lights looked nothing like the '69 tails. As long as it looks good and the car looks bad ass from the back (it does).

Heritage. Little cues like that are nice for the heritage of the car.

I remember when the vette guys were protesting over the removal of the pop up head lights.

[Logan-69-Camaro]

i see the comparison in 68, just think like for example on the main page with ther back of the summit white car on the line, tailights in that shape would look great in my own opinion!

[BlackCamaroSS]

^ Agree.

[dayvedayve]

Originally Posted by chevy 3

ok lets get this strait. the difference is not just the lens. its also led on the rs and reg on all others.

I dont think the RS are LED's. They just have a darker lens around the edges. The concept could be LED but I have not seen it in person or heard other wise. The non-RS has a consistant red all the way around.