Re: Ur-q tailight

[quk@isham-research.demon.co.uk (Phil Payne)]

In message <ed39d152.36c83412@aol.com> Autobahn01@aol.com writes:

>   Could the difference in light output be due to the two different tinted
> taillamp versions? Steve's numbers for the taillamps are the dual brake light
> bulb variety, and need matching backing plates to exploit this.
>
> backing plate/bulb holder p/n 855-945-221A and 222A.
>
> I just went through this for my car and opted for the above vs the earlier
> single bulb tinted lamps that used the original plates. I was concerned about
> the visibility factor also. Perhaps the older tqc owners who've had these
> lights for ages might be running the early style. For ref: p/n
> 855-945-217B/218B.

Aaargh! (Runs screaming from room)

Yes, this was a running change with different implementation dates
across Europe, and living proof that the damn cars were built in the
dark.

The ur-quattro got 'smoked' rear lights shortly after they were introduced
for the Golf.  However, after quite a while, someone discovered that
the rear side lights were not emitting sufficient lumens.  This was
when the doubling up occured.  Except it was fragmentary, and it's
impossible to tell from the VIN (within a nine-month period) what
lights are fitted to the car.

--
 Phil Payne
 Phone: 0385 302803   Fax: 01536 723021
 (The contents of this post will _NOT_ appear in the UK Newsletter.)