LED Taillights trend

I've noticed a lot more vicheals coming from the factory using LED taillights. Id imange this would have a few advantages.

1. Less power used
2. One goes bad the rest are still good.
3. Long lasting.

Trade off would be:

1. Higher cost up front.
2. Having to replace the whole unit.

Am I wrong on these assumptions?

I also think the LED unit is lighter than a comparative bulb and socket (although it is miniscule).

Plus, LEDs last forever I think.

From an ergonomic standpoint, I've noticed that I react faster to LED brake lights because they come on and off much quicker than bulbs without the "fade in/out" effect.

Plus, LEDs last forever I think
They sure dont. You have to replace the entire unit once they start to go. I've seen countless caddy's with thier center brake light only half lit.

I put LED's on the back of my 75 chevy short bed step side C-10...love them..low maintenance, no bulb breakage due to vibration or shorts due to water getting in lense. they are very bright. if you can get them your your application consider it. for me they were a good investment...

G

Just a guess, but I can't see an LED cluster being any lighter than a regular reflector and bulb, at least not with the number of LEDs most taillights are using. And with all those bulbs I can't see it consuming any less power either.

LEDs are great for indicators, where high light output is not a concern. But once you start needing higher candlepower their power consumption and heat output advantages versus incadescent bulbs is not as great.

LEDs are way better IMO.
They last a pretty long time, much longer than bulbs. And I think they look better and are more visible.
The only downside is the cost of replacement once they do go out, however that cost has come down alot.

Just a guess, but I can't see an LED cluster being any lighter than a regular reflector and bulb, at least not with the number of LEDs most taillights are using. And with all those bulbs I can't see it consuming any less power either.

LEDs are great for indicators, where high light output is not a concern. But once you start needing higher candlepower their power consumption and heat output advantages versus incadescent bulbs is not as great.

LED technology for forward-lighting applications (headlamps) is on the forefront of upcoming automotive technology. Hella has been able to achieve LED headlamps capable of producing 1000+ lumens of white light at considerable less energy than a conventional headlamp.

Led "bulbs" are not the same as conventional bulbs. Just because there may be 20 bulbs in a LED tail lamp assy, it doesn't mean it requires the same power as 20 incandescent bulbs.. I believe even Xenon headlamps are more energy efficient than conventional halogen headlamps, but require higher voltage.

There's all sorts of stuff related to LED headlamp technology...look on google. A draft has already been approved by the SAE, and if memory serves me correctly, they are still working on achieving the correct light spectrum for LED headlamps.

Just a guess, but I can't see an LED cluster being any lighter than a regular reflector and bulb, at least not with the number of LEDs most taillights are using. And with all those bulbs I can't see it consuming any less power either.

LEDs are great for indicators, where high light output is not a concern. But once you start needing higher candlepower their power consumption and heat output advantages versus incadescent bulbs is not as great.

LEDs are a lot brighter while using a lot less power than a conventional bulb.. it's a scientific fact.. even in large groups like seen in taillights these days.. they are a lot brighter than regular taillights and still use a lot less power, and last a lot longer...

LED's actually draw VERY LITTLE current, and if you just try to "plug one in" like you would a light bulb, they often don't work. You have to wire in a given amount of resistance into the circuit to bring the voltage down to the level that the LED actually requires. So overall, I guess they would use almost the "same" amount (given the fact of an in-line resistor) but the LED's themselves are almost negligable for power consumption :cool:.

I like them. :thumb:

I also think the LED unit is lighter than a comparative bulb and socket (although it is miniscule).

Plus, LEDs last forever I think.

From an ergonomic standpoint, I've noticed that I react faster to LED brake lights because they come on and off much quicker than bulbs without the "fade in/out" effect.

I'm not sure LED's "burn out" like regular bulbs do, but they don't last forever. Post '92 Ford Thunderbirds have what is still probally the largest LED assembly, and it's almost impossible to find any without spots where at least few LEDs have gone out. But in the case of my '93, you're still talking about a bunch of lights that are still burning after 14 years!


Question for those who know about such things:

The final version of the Lincoln Mark VIII (in addition to using HID lighting up front) used a Neon lighting tube as the full width tail light. Those things (for some strange reason) seem to cut through fog better than conventional lights. Why haven't that lighting technology caught on? What's the drawbacks? Serious question.

I've always wondered about that, and since we're on the subject, and I see at least 1 person who seems to be an expert on this.... ?

I have a few LEDs out in my 3rd brake light on the SS. So they do go out. It bugs me so I've been wondering how I can find a replacement for the board. Any ideas? :shrug:

I remember that big neon tail light on the Mark VIII cars. I'm thinking perhaps they can't make the neon burn bright enough to be a viable option for headlights? I'm no expert so I don't know.

Not as a headlight, but as tail lights?

Not as a headlight, but as tail lights?

Ahh, you said that the neons seemed to cut through fog better so I assumed you meant for headlights. Why do you need lights that cut through fog out back? Do you often drive in reverse? ;)

Ahh, you said that the neons seemed to cut through fog better so I assumed you meant for headlights. Why do you need lights that cut through fog out back? Do you often drive in reverse? ;)

To keep people from rear ending you. No one likes to take it from behind.

I don't like those 'neon' 3rd brake lights, as also used on Trail Blazers/Envoys, since it causes my Valentine One to go berzerker (same light spectrum as lazer).

I also can't stand driving behind cars with LED brake/tail/turn signals. It is almost blindingly bright on some cars. It's distracting when it's dark out, you get this bright flash in your eyes and it takes a minute to adjust. It could cause an accident...seriously...as much as aiding in avoidance. Maybe my eyes are too sensitive to sudden changes in brightness, but I relate it to a glance at the sun, you have the 'after-glow' and it hampers my vision for a few moments afterward...enough to be dangerous.
>end rant

The final version of the Lincoln Mark VIII (in addition to using HID lighting up front) used a Neon lighting tube as the full width tail light. Those things (for some strange reason) seem to cut through fog better than conventional lights. Why haven't that lighting technology caught on? What's the drawbacks? Serious question.

Neon - or cold cathode? The latter produces a nice bright white light (which is why it makes a nice LCD backlight), but it takes a high-voltage inverter to drive the lamp ($$$), and there are also concerns over the lamp's mercury content.

A properly-designed LED lamp should outlast the life of the vehicle. The usual cause of premature failure is moisture intrusion into the housing; otherwise, improper design (too much drive current or insufficient thermal dissipation) will also wipe them out prematurely. Judging the technology by its performance in mid-90s American cars ain't exactly fair ;)

LEDs are a lot brighter while using a lot less power than a conventional bulb.. it's a scientific fact.. even in large groups like seen in taillights these days.. they are a lot brighter than regular taillights and still use a lot less power, and last a lot longer...

Do you have any specs on the current draw of an LED cluster vs. a regular incandescent bulb? I know that obviously one LED draws a lot less power than one 1157, but my point was they use so many LEDs that the difference may not be as great as some people think.

As for their use in a headlamp, I haven't seen any automotive application comparisons. But I do recall where they were trying to design LEDs to replace spotlights (for movie soundstage lighting), and by the time they added enough LEDs and cranked up the power, they were having heat problems just like on a halogen bulb and drawing a lot of power. Which is why I said their considerable power consumption advantage will not likely be as great on high output applications. Not that it wouldn't exist, but that it wouldn't be like an order of magnitude.

The final version of the Lincoln Mark VIII (in addition to using HID lighting up front) used a Neon lighting tube as the full width tail light. Those things (for some strange reason) seem to cut through fog better than conventional lights. Why haven't that lighting technology caught on? What's the drawbacks? Serious question.
My mom had a black on black 1998 Mark VIII LSC for 7 years. Awesome car.
I always liked that tail light design on the Mark VIII.
It wasn't just really effective, it was really cool looking too. :)
My guess is price and power consumption is why it didn't catch on.

Now... what about the upcoming Dodge Challenger?
Isn't that a similar form of tail light?

Neon - or cold cathode? The latter produces a nice bright white light (which is why it makes a nice LCD backlight), but it takes a high-voltage inverter to drive the lamp ($$$), and there are also concerns over the lamp's mercury content.

A properly-designed LED lamp should outlast the life of the vehicle. The usual cause of premature failure is moisture intrusion into the housing; otherwise, improper design (too much drive current or insufficient thermal dissipation) will also wipe them out prematurely. Judging the technology by its performance in mid-90s American cars ain't exactly fair ;)

I just liked the glow of those neon tail lights on the Mark. Unless you get up close, you can't really identify a light source.

And Wilson, as mentioned, yes, the idea of having fog cutting tail lights is to keep from getting rear ended. Any intense white light from the headlights serve to do nothing but blind you. The only way to see in fog is to have something ahead of you illuminated, instead of you trying to light it up. Plus, the human eye is most sensitive to the red spectrum... which is enhanced by neon's aparent ability to be more visible in fog than other lights.

It's just with the Mark's tail lights, I'd expect it to catch on as much as LEDs did. :shrug:

Why don't they just make all the bulbs the same type that they use in the instrument panels. My cars are 10 and 14 years old now and all the gauge lights are still working. ;)

Why don't they just make all the bulbs the same type that they use in the instrument panels. My cars are 10 and 14 years old now and all the gauge lights are still working. ;)



Those are LED lights.

Do you have any specs on the current draw of an LED cluster vs. a regular incandescent bulb? I know that obviously one LED draws a lot less power than one 1157, but my point was they use so many LEDs that the difference may not be as great as some people think.


I have a string of 70 LED christmas lights. The whole string is something like 5-9 watts.

I'm not sure LED's "burn out" like regular bulbs do, but they don't last forever. Post '92 Ford Thunderbirds have what is still probally the largest LED assembly, and it's almost impossible to find any without spots where at least few LEDs have gone out. But in the case of my '93, you're still talking about a bunch of lights that are still burning after 14 years!


Question for those who know about such things:

The final version of the Lincoln Mark VIII (in addition to using HID lighting up front) used a Neon lighting tube as the full width tail light. Those things (for some strange reason) seem to cut through fog better than conventional lights. Why haven't that lighting technology caught on? What's the drawbacks? Serious question.

I've always wondered about that, and since we're on the subject, and I see at least 1 person who seems to be an expert on this.... ?

I remember those cars...I did like that effect. Are you sure it was noen? I did a little looking into using neon lighting in an industrial vehicle applicaiton about 10 years ago and I seem to recall neon tubes and the assembly consistently reffered to as 'fragile'.

Now as to why they cut thru the fog I'd venture a guess it wasn't the bulb tech but the color of the light. Red's spectrum is different than white. Red is one of the better colors for night lighting application for numbers and letters because it doesn't dialate (sp?) your pupils, thus you can focus on it faster (i.e. BMW and Pontiac gauges). Plus, red light doesn't travel as far as white light. Ever wonder why all those military guys carry red flashlights? So I'd guess the red doesn't penetrate the fog in as much your eye can better focus and recognize it.

Yellow is another good fog light color I think. Seems I remember alot of 'fog lights' inthe '80s were yellow, including those on my Dad's '90 GP.

I know there was a study done with LED brake lights compare to conventional bulb tail lights. The conclusion was that the LEDs, even though a very slight advantage, light up faster and people responded faster in braking conditions compared to conventional incandescent bulbs.

With LED taillights now on Mazda 3s and Scion tCs, expect them to be the norm everywhere, like, well, tomorrow. People who buy old cars can now get used to $650 taillight replacement bills.

I tried a couple of styles of LED 1157s: some $10 cheapos, and then some $65/ea. "best in the industry" ones with 32 Ultra Bright LED's each I think, all parallel. The latter were very bright viewed from directly behind the car, but MUCH less bright viewed from off-angle. The conventional 1157's were overall a lot easier to see than the LED's. Now there are styles with LED's pointed in various directions - I would think they have a much better pattern, and would fill the taillight assembly with light better.

I switched back to the conventional ones, since my main need is for people to see the car at night from all angles and not run me over (very low homebuilt car). For normal applications the cheaper ones weren't worth it, but the $$ ones would improve visibility of the car dramatically from straight behind. They are so bright in a pretty tight beam that I am now using them as red headlights on a minibike. Current draw was around 30 mA per LED or about 1A per light as I recall. That's 12 watts in brakelight mode. But 130 bucks a set, cripes. I really needed to save some power or I wouldn't have tried them.

Has anybody found really bright ones for less, with good visibility from all angles?

I know there was a study done with LED brake lights compare to conventional bulb tail lights. The conclusion was that the LEDs, even though a very slight advantage, light up faster and people responded faster in braking conditions compared to conventional incandescent bulbs.

Yup, and to take a step further, Mercedes tested taillamps that had a special lens that matched the paint of the car and disappeared as soon as the tail lights were activated. According to their results, the reaction time was cut even further. I believe I read somewhere they were bring an 'X' number to the states for further testing and demonstrations to what ever agency certifies cars for the U.S.

I tried a couple of styles of LED 1157s: some $10 cheapos, and then some $65/ea. "best in the industry" ones with 32 Ultra Bright LED's each I think, all parallel. The latter were very bright viewed from directly behind the car, but MUCH less bright viewed from off-angle. The conventional 1157's were overall a lot easier to see than the LED's. Now there are styles with LED's pointed in various directions - I would think they have a much better pattern, and would fill the taillight assembly with light better.

I switched back to the conventional ones, since my main need is for people to see the car at night from all angles and not run me over (very low homebuilt car). For normal applications the cheaper ones weren't worth it, but the $$ ones would improve visibility of the car dramatically from straight behind. They are so bright in a pretty tight beam that I am now using them as red headlights on a minibike. Current draw was around 30 mA per LED or about 1A per light as I recall. That's 12 watts in brakelight mode. But 130 bucks a set, cripes. I really needed to save some power or I wouldn't have tried them.

Has anybody found really bright ones for less, with good visibility from all angles?

LEDs are rated at differnt viewing angles, although I haven't had to research LEDs for over a year. If you look hard enough you should find them.

Plus, the human eye is most sensitive to the red spectrum... which is enhanced by neon's aparent ability to be more visible in fog than other lights.


Actually, the human eye is most sensitive to green. The eye doesn't actually see red all that well, but red LEDs are very easy to make, and it's easy to make them very bright.

With regards to the current draw of LEDs versus incadesent lamps, keep in mind that it's not just a matter of steady-state current draw, but also inrush current. With the use of semiconductors to control body lighting, that becomes a very important distinction. But getting back to the point - LEDs are much more efficient at turning electrical power into light. LED taillamps still draw a fair amount of current, but they're also typically brighter than the equivalent incadescent lamp.

As far as thermal issues are concerned, it's two different situations with LEDs and incadescents. LEDs don't generate an enormous amount of heat, but that energy must be dissipated from the LED or else bad things happen (semiconductors gets rather dysfunctional above 150C or so). It's a matter of getting the LED to survive, and not so much a problem with melted down the reflector and lens. With incadescents, the problem is much different - the bulb generates enought heat to pose a threat to the surrounding components. And that leads into a huge advantage of LEDs that has not yet been discussed here is packaging - LED lamps fit into much less volume than the equivalent incadescent. That means more room for storage, crush space, fuel tanks, or any number of other things that consumers like to see done with vehicle packaging space.

LEDs also illuminate more quickly than conventional bulbs, which means a fraction of a second of extra reaction time for a driver behind you. :cool:

If you ever watch a car that has a mix of both types of lights, you can see the difference. For instance, I think some of the GMT800 pickups/suvs have arrow-shaped LED indicators in the side mirrors, along with regular bulb rear taillight/brakelight/indicator assemblies. You can see the arrow light up a bit quicker than the normal turn signal.

Turning into the most intresting & informative thread here in awhile.

Ever wonder why all those military guys carry red flashlights? So I'd guess the red doesn't penetrate the fog in as much your eye can better focus and recognize it.


Actually we used the red flashlights because the light didn't spread out and wasn't as visible at distance as white lights are. At sea on a clear night, the visible range of a cigarette lighter is 15-20 miles.

Eric, you're right about green lights (our night vision binoculars were green because of this). My reference to red should have been more specific.

Actually we used the red flashlights because the light didn't spread out and wasn't as visible at distance as white lights are. At sea on a clear night, the visible range of a cigarette lighter is 15-20 miles..

I thought one of the reasons was also that red does not spoil your eyes' night vision like white and other colours do.

Ahh, you said that the neons seemed to cut through fog better so I assumed you meant for headlights. Why do you need lights that cut through fog out back? Do you often drive in reverse? ;)


Actually some cars and SUVs have rear fog lights that are red. They are usually seperate from the taillights, and placed lower. The last generation of Olds Aurora had them, they seem to be somewhat brighter than the brake lights.

Red light better preserves night vision, but isn't much good at lighting up green things like grass and trees. Matching light color to subject increases effectiveness for objects of that color. For hiking in the woods, a green light would work great. If you're trying to find something red in the woods, use a red light.