IMO, i think stock looks the best overall.

 

That last pic came out really good. You can't even see the photographer in the reflection!

 

MacGyver....let me just clarify....the black car pic was just to make a point....this is NOT what I am after.......I am after the pic with the spa yellow with the yellow INNER tailight....the outside remains CLEAR. Thanks bro...see what you can cook up.

 

The firebird lenses are still red. A dark red, but it is still red. They light up red and get that color from the lense not the bulb. They also incorporate red reflectors in them. The S2000 you posted is illegal. You may be able to drive around like that for years without getting any trouble, but I have never understood why you would want to make your brake lights less visible to the driver behind you.

Here's some specific items from the California Highway Patrol website that are ALL illegal. I would be surprised if almost every other state didn't have similar rules.

Tail lights other than red (24600 VC).

Illegal brake lights. Brake lights on vehicles newer than 1979 must be red (24603 VC). (Vehicles older than 1979 may be red or yellow.)

Lack of rear reflectors. Two red reflectors are required on the rear of cars and trucks (24607 VC).

Incorrect color of turn signal. It must be white or yellow to the front, red or yellow to the rear (24953 VC).

Tail lights that incorporate a bulb with a red tint or coating. In general, custom tail lights that incorporate a clear outer shell and red inner lens are legal (24011 VC). If they don't incorporate reflectors, they must be added to the vehicle (24607 VC).

Tail lights that are too dim, washed out or show yellow, white or other colors (24600 VC).

 

Again...this is where MacGyvers genius comes in....he must find a way to have BRIGHT RED brakelights that are visible as much as stock from the same distance. This will require using the color mix spectrum....pink LED's for suzuka's (pink + blue = red i believe) BMW's have an aftermarket set of lights that are STREET LEGAL....they are entirely clear....but must hold red, and orange bulbs to make them legal. Here is another photochop....




Im just trying to maybee come up with a new product that might give your s2k a unique style. THis might not be everyones cup 'o tea, but worth a shot.
Maybee just taking out the reflector...and just like the ghetto silvervisions....give them 1 coat of body colored paint.....

And how many people here really have 100% legal cars??

Anyway....I think this would look mean as hell on Berlina, and probably silverstone.....

 

Making the red lense on the tail light match the body color would be sooo cheesy, it would be as bad as those altezzas I see on every other Civic.

On a side note, how does Lexus get away with having a clear tail light with absolutely no red lenses on their new RX330? If the law stated that the tail lamps must have a red lense, not just a red colored bulb, wouldn't that technically make those tail lights illegal?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DouglaS2000

 

Because it has red reflectors in the rear and red rear lights on the bumper.

 

Cops in my area, know the law like I know atomic fission. If I get pulled over, and show them it turns red....theyll think its the way it came. I mean cops are clueless with parts. I have gotten pulled over for HID's. The cop told me to stop being a smart ass because he "knew" honda's dont come with HID's .

 

Did you have to show him your owners manual or a brochure to get out of that one?

If you want to be entirely legal, you could probably do the UK rear "fog light"