DOT/SAE lenses

[Archrms]

I have the round brake lights on the rear of my car. Neither these or the front parking lights have a DOT or SAE marking on them. The local DMV inspection station said they will have to have these markings to pass. Has anyone else had this issue come up during inspection, and if so, how did you deal with it?

[RodgerH]

I looked at your pictures. Did you special order your car with the two round lights on each side? Mine came with the single rectangular light.

Rodger

[Archrms]

Rodger, Yes I special ordered the car with the round lights.

[Yetiman]

The Lucas L691 and L692's are all marked E11 (European TUV accepted) as well as SAE.

I have red yellow and clears, all marked the same. I bought them from Finish line a couple years ago as the ones that were on my car (which were nabbed out of cars in junk yards in the 1980's) were getting hazy.

[Archrms]

Yetiman, I checked the lights last night again, and did not see any markings for SAE or DOT. I did see the "LUCAS" name on them and a "REGd" with a number after it.

Has anyone else had any experience with this issue? I have an inspection scheduled for Friday, and have now heard from 4 or 5 people that this will be a reason for failure. They are 2-1/2" round lights (parking and brake) that require a 1/4 twist to lock onto the housing that is attached to the car itself. I really do not want to remove the existing lights and install new ones, requiring drilling new holes and splicing wires. The car is brand new, and I would rather swap the lnses than replace the entire unit. Any suggestions?

[Yetiman]

Here is a photo showing the markings and their location on my lights:



L691 are single filiment lights (blinker) and L692 lights are dual filiment (tail/brake lights).

Other than the 1 and 2 they are marked Identically.

[Maricopa]

I took a look through your gallery and those don't quite look 'right' (ie, different from what I go on my FFR and what is available from other vendors) so I'm not sure what SPF is using. I'd look into returning them to SPF and getting something else.
Original street car:

Finishline unit:

The ones I got with my FFR look just like these and have all the markings that Yeti's do.

[RedBarchetta]

Maricopa, looking right and passing a DMV visual inspection are two things. I'd swap in the non-original, DOT approved lights for the inspection and then swap in the period correct ones after I get my registration.

Yetiman, great pics!

-Dean

[Archrms]

Thanks for the responses guys. The SPF round lights are made by Lucas, and do not screw into the backing plate as the lights you have Yetiman (thanks for the pics). They twist on/off with a 1/4 turn, and have four "fins" on the lens itself.

The screw on lenses, like the ones from Finishline, are the only ones I have found with DOT approval. I am trying to avoid buying all new light assemblies and making additional holes to mount them in a new car that has yet to be "street legal" . I am trying to find a lens that is DOT approved and a direct swap for my existing ones, (so that I can just replace the lens and not the backing plate, and leave the wiring alone) but I am begining to think that they do not exist.

[Archrms]

Dean,

You have it right. I intend to put the original lenses back after inspection, but I don't want to make any permanent modifications to the car to "temporarily" have the DOT approved lights installed for inspection.

[RedBarchetta]

One word...VELCRO.

[Archrms]

Don't laugh, if I think I can get it to work using Velcro, I'll try it

[Maricopa]

Red you missed my point. The ones that Finishline sells and are on my and Yeti's cars are DOT and look more correct than the ones on Archrms SPF. The twist-on lenses are normally used on the front turn signals only, not on the tail lights. It looks like SPF is just using front turn signals with red lenses as brake lights.
You might be able to find some replacements but swapping out the entire light assembly (if you have to) isn't that tough. I can undertand the reluctance however.

I included the orginal pics just for interest, the lower 'light' on the 427 street cars was only a reflector and had a flat lense.

[RedBarchetta]

Got it...thanks. All good knowledge.

[Yetiman]

Looking at the pictures in your (Archrms) gallery, your car appears to have Lucas L539 style lights, which have smaller lenses and were not a DOT approved light.

I believe (from past research as I remember it off the top of my head) that the early road cars and indeed the S/C's used the L539 style lights.

The 427 street cars and even some later small block street cars used the L691 & L692 lights which were SAE approved.

The main difference between these light styles is that the L539 do not have a large enough lens for the light to be visible enough from the side. The L691 has a shorter metal base and a deeper lens and the lamp is more exposed in the lens. This is important as there are no other side markers or turn indicators for cross traffic to see at night.

[Archrms]

Yetiman, that explains the difference between the two lenses, and what you say makes sense. However, it still leaves me with a non-approved lens. If what you say is correct, it may leave me with no option but to install the L691 & L692 light assemblies to get through inspection. Thanks for the additional info, it makes a little more sense, and expalins why I am having such a hard time finding DOT replacements for them (as they may not exist).

[JTD]

Hope you work it out they look great.

JTD SPF 1045

[thudmaster]

Find someone with a Triumph and borrow their lights for the inspection. Same lights same size and have the proper markings.

[Archrms]

Ed, thanks for the tip. Never would have thought of looking at a Triumph.

JTD, nice lights. I like the bright and dark red combo.