It looks nice, I like it!

Wonder if this would go well on a white car..

 

Wonder if this would go well on a white car..

I'm no expert with Photoshop, but here's a chop of them onto my '12.

 

Yes. I saw a white Charger with the tails blacked out. Looked great. I'd still leave some uncoated areas, but it did look good.

 

Here's a night shot. Not the best photo (it's starting to get a bit foggy), but as you can see, the lights shine through the VHT easily. If you look at the ends where the uncoated areas are, you can see a minimal difference between there and the areas where the lights are covered. You can also see that the lights are still bright enough to reflect off the rear bumper (around the trunk cut-out), even though that entire area is tinted.
FWIW, this shot was taken with a quality camera (Nikon), not a crappy cell phone picture. I have no safety, or DOT/ORC, concern about this mod.

 

Thank you Shots!

This does look like an interesting option...especially since I have the black spoiler now...

 

That looks really nice!
I bought the tint film and thought it looked bad so I took it off. Been looking for something else to try. Thanks.

 

Yeah, I considered using tint after seeing a thread where it was used. It looks good, but I had several concerns about that. Partly, that I couldn't control the darkness of the tint without selecting a different sheet of film, and I didn't want to waste a large portion of film just to find out it was too dark, or not dark enough.
I was also concerned about how it would look. Sure it's easy enough to lay on the flat parts, but would be a real bear to get wrapped around the edge and still look good. Plus to cutout around the lettering would likely prove to be a challenge (especially getting the film into the small ares inside the letters).

VHT seemed like a more practical solution. Not only that, but that's what it's made for, so I suspect it will be more durable than laying tint on the outside of a car.

 

I got one off eBay that was precut and I put it on the side markers and it honestly looked pretty good. But as I was putting it on the taillights I noticed it was matte. Im all about gloss.

 

Funny, because when I initially started to polish the lens I left is slightly matte. It didn't look so good, so I broke out the polish, buffer for the big areas, and elbow grease for everything else. Several hours later, and it shines real nice. Much better look IMO.

 

I sprayed my tail lights and corner markers... Came out gloss the first time, no buff, no polish.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

Here's a shot when they are dry before I took the tape off.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

That looks awesome. Can you do mine? lol

 

Just do it, man. It's easy as pie! Make sure the lense is CLEAN, tape off what you want. And lay down 2 even coats. Ba-da-bing.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

Mine were pretty shiny when I first sprayed them. After the clear coat though, they definitely needed polish. You may be able to skip the polish if you don't clear them, but I've always heard they fade after a while if you don't.

 

They sure do! They're much lighter now, they need another coat. But I drive mine all year round, rain, snow and shine.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

So here's more shots of it out of the garage.

 

I know this thread is a few months old.... But I wanted to ask about the process...

So you tape, then sand the tail lights, then put down a couple of coats with a clear coat to follow? I'd like to give this a try. I don't have a polisher, so if I could do it without a polisher it would be best. I really like how it turned out in the pictures!

 

Tape what you want to keep. I didn't sand mine, I just cleaned them well with alcohol, let the cleaner dry off the lens completely after wiping, then sprayed 2 coats. You can clear coat after the niteshades, it's really helps them not fade. You don't need to polish it if you don't sand first (in my experience), I have done about 12 sets in my lifetime; not just chargers but trucks challengers, mustangs and subarus.

 

Thanks to both of you guys for the info. Shots, thanks a ton for the complete how to. Hopefully that will help anyone else trying to do this as well. Considering how inexpensive this is, I may give it a go this weekend.

Shots- you said I don't need to sand prior to clear unless I have "orange peel".. what is orange peel?

 

Orange peel is when the finish of the paint has a texture similar to an orange. If you look at repair work from a poor body shop (usually entire panels of a vehicle such as the entire bedside of a truck) you can see a distortion in the paint, which is commonly orange peel. Normally this happens when the applicator applies a too much paint; usually in a body shop the "flow" will be up too high or the pressure down too low. Just keep your distance when spraying in even sweeping motions (this will help keep the finish consistent so you don't have one dark area and one light). 6-8" away is the normal recommendation.

If you mess it up with the VHT Niteshades, you can always wait a few hours and wet sand it out with 800-1000 grit and re-spray, then clear. Good luck!

 

@Shots, with you being a LEO, can you tell me if there are any legal issues with tinting headlights, fog lights, side markers, tail lights? Or does the law vary state to state like tint laws?

Thanks in advance

 

The law is State specific on what they'll allow you to do. Some states have laws that specifically say you can not modify them in any way, while others will allow you to do what you want, as long as it meets the Department Of Transportation's requirements. The gist of it is that you're reflectors must be visible from 300', reflecting red on the rear of the vehicle, and amber (orange) on the front. Taillights and brake lights must be red, and visible from 500'. Headlights are a little more complicated. There is a minimum, and maximum light output, though they also specify aim, which will affect the distance they project. In general, I would advise against tinting the headlights, but if you want to see how dark you can make them the specs are in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under section 108. Just be warned, it's a long read, just like most every other law, because they had to spell out everything including placement, size, additions, exceptions, etc.

 

FWIW, fog lights, you can tint however dark you want. They are not a required item to be installed, so their minimum brightness is not regulated. The only regulation is on a maximum brightness, and aim.

Oh yeah. Sorry about "orange peel". MoparRT explained it perfectly though. It just means the finish looks textured like an orange looks. And as he noted, you'll get that if you hold your rattle can too close, or spray to thick of a coat.

Well, I just don't want to run into problems with police over it. That's my main concern. I don't want tickets period, let alone for things like tinted lights. But if I do tint, I will do a light tint anyways, I'm not a fan of the dark black tinted lights. Thanks again for the info.

No worries on the orange peel, it gives a good visual description once it makes sense.

Thanks again for the help. I was considering doing this over the weekend, but I am going to get my windows tinted soon and may wait until I have that done to reconsider how it will look.

 

FWIW, fog lights, you can tint however dark you want. They are not a required item to be installed, so their minimum brightness is not regulated. The only regulation is on a maximum brightness, and aim.

Oh yeah. Sorry about "orange peel". MoparRT explained it perfectly though. It just means the finish looks textured like an orange looks. And as he noted, you'll get that if you hold your rattle can too close, or spray to thick of a coat.

 

I wish I could say I came up with the term, but orange peel is pretty much the standard industry description of it. I'm not a body man, so I don't know if there is an official technical term for it or not, but my buddies who do body work use shop lingo when we're talking which is how I picked it up.

Anyway, as for legality. Assuming your state doesn't prohibit modifications all together, you can always do something like I did, and leave an area of each component untouched. This will assure proper illumination and reflective capability.

If you want to look up the legal requirments for your state, check my Ask A Cop thread (AAC thread), and look at the bottom of the first post. There you'll find a link to a page that has all 50 states' laws (just click on your state), and another for Federal law. Unless of course you're in Ohio, in which case I can tell you specifically what the requirement is and which section of law it's found under.

 

Thanks, I'll check out your ask a cop page. I'm in Oregon, but I'm not sure about the laws. I do know window tint is 35% though.

As far as leaving part of the light untinted, I do like that idea. Although how much of a difference do you think it really makes?

 

Woops, post error. Check the next post by Ddaddy and this will make sense.

 

I just showed my wife the picture, and told here it was a brand new Hellcat. Her response...... "I hope he got the Gap Insurance". :rofl: :lol3005:

Ha ha!!!!! Wow, she's cold. Apparently been married to a cop to long.

Whoops, wrong thread Shots...:grin2:

 

Ha ha. Well crap. Thanks Ddaddy. You know what thread I'm going for though. Guess I'll put it there, Thanks.

 

I believe VHT was sued in Missori and settled.

 

And I've issued citations for them myself when they are too dark.

I don't promote, or condone modifications or driving habits in violation of law. Any modification you see on my car are legal, as are the recommendations I make, though I don't know every state's laws so I often caution people to check their local laws to be sure. You may disagree with this type of modification, but the fact remains IT IS LEGAL.

Yes, GA says the lights must be "plainly visible", don't mistake that for "the same as a factory new car". If that were the case, every 15-20 year old car would be in violation. To mirror your argument, put some of these new cars with tinted tails next to a 1985 Cavalier with factory lights, and the legally tinted light output will exceed those of the old car. Does that then mean every old car is not plainly visible, because the tinted ones aren't in your book? No.
That said though, I'm not an expert on GA law, so they may specifically prohibit modifying your lights all together. Some states do that, but some states allow alterations as long as they meet specific guidelines.

As for the FMVSS, if you keep reading you'll find very specific light outputs, angles, and distances for all lighting. And yes I CAN measure, and document such things at the scene of a crash. So "any half way decent officer" will documents the facts of the modification, not just that one is present.

".....Plus any half way decent officer will include the less safe modification in a crash report as a contributing factor. Then let the insurance company and lawyers figure out who is at fault for the damages......"

So you're saying any modification at all should be documented as a contributing factor, even if it is within the confines of the law?
Who's to say what's less than safe? The insurance company that doesn't want to pay out, or the lawyer who wants to make a bunch of money on a civil case? I thought it was the DOT who created regulations of what is deemed safe. If the lighting meets DOT requirements (plainly visible from 500 feet), what is less than safe about it? Is that not the same as window tint? If Ohio says it can be 50%, and a person gets in a crash, do we have to deem their compliant tint "less than safe" simply because it's not as clear as a factory new car? I'm all for documenting dangerous modifications, but if it's legal, I'm not going to call it less than safe. At best I'll document specifically what it was, how it measured, etc. As a crash reconstructions it is my job to determine who or what is at fault. This is not something that the " insurance company and lawyers figure out who is at fault for the damages", because they are not unbiased. They have a client who is paying them, and will do everything they can to side in favor of that client.

I see where you're coming from, and I don't entirely disagree. Some people go way to far, and make a legal modification illegal and dangerous. However, you can't blanket statement a modification that IS permitted by law by saying that it's less than safe, just because reckless people have overdone it (and are therefor NOT compliant/legal). Done properly this is a legal modification.


PS. What specifically was VHT sued for? They have a vast line of products (not just tint spray). How exactly would they get involved in a case about visibility of tint? They have a disclaimer on the can that says it's for off-road use, and also warns against spraying it too dark.
Regardless of that, and more specifically they wouldn't get drawn into litigation on visibility when that is directly controlled by the end user. I suspect any case they were involved with was something other than a traffic issue involving visibility.

 

And I've issued citations for them myself when they are too dark.

how did you measure and document the alleged too dark violation?

Yes, GA says the lights must be "plainly visible", don't mistake that for "the same as a factory new car". If that were the case, every 15-20 year old car would be in violation.

. In some cases the old car can be considered "less safe" becuase the lens has been damaged or faded. One example would be the 1990s plastic headlight lenses that become so sun damaged they block much of the headlights.

To mirror your argument, put some of these new cars with tinted tails next to a 1985 Cavalier with factory lights, and the allegedlegally tinted light output will exceed those of the old car.

. Good point. However the fmvss standards and safety has improved since 1985. Likewise you could place a 1914 Ford Model T in line up.

As for the FMVSS, if you keep reading you'll find very specific light outputs, angles, and distances for all lighting. And yes I CAN measure, and document such things at the scene of a crash. So "any half way decent officer" will documents the facts of the modification, not just that one is present.

. So you have all of the testing tools and time to perform thise lab controlled test on every front to rear crash? I doubt even SCRT has those tools readily available. Nor would the do the testing on a non-serious injury crash.

So you're saying any modification at all should be documented as a contributing factor, even if it is within the alleged confines of the law?

. In many cases, yes. Lifted Jeep swerved to avoid an alleged road rage vehicle. jeep yawed and then began to flip. Lifted suspension and tall tires would be listed as a contributing factor. Perfectly legal modifications other than mudflap code. But it raises the center of gravity which effected the stability in the alleged evasive move.

Who's to say what's less than safe? The insurance company that doesn't want to pay out, or the lawyer who wants to make a bunch of money on a civil case? I thought it was the DOT who created regulations of what is deemed safe.

this is pretty simple. When Dodge desgined the lights. Dodge said the lights were safe and within FMVSS. Billy Bob spray tinting would be decreased from the safe level of what dodge claimed.

If the lighting meets DOT requirements (plainly visible from 500 feet), what is less than safe about it?

keyword plainly. The OEM Charger next to the modified Charger loghts. One of those cars would be more visible than the other. One of thise cars would be less visible.

Next time your in thick traffic look for the tinted tails. Often the tinted brake light application will be about the same lumens of the non-altered taillights that are around them. So at 500' both would be visible and appear equal. But one would be taillight and the other brake lights.

Is that not the same as window tint? If Ohio says it can be 50%, and a person gets in a crash, do we have to deem their compliant tint "less than safe" simply because it's not as clear as a factory new car?

If the tinted windowed car pulled in front of a motorcycle and caused a death. And if the driver said I didn't think he was that close, then perhaps I would list the tinted window as a contributing factor. Not the sole or single factor but it would had contributed.

I'm all for documenting dangerous modifications, but if it's allegedlegal, I'm not going to call it less than safe. At best I'll document specifically what it was, how it measured, etc. As a crash reconstructions it is my job to determine who or what is at fault. This is not something that the " insurance company and lawyers figure out who is at fault for the damages", because they are not unbiased. They have a client who is paying them, and will do everything they can to side in favor of that client.

. It's different in Georgia. Officers don't determine "fault". Officers determine if any traffic violations occured to include spray tinting lights. Officers determine contributing factors. It's the civil court that would determine "fault". Typically for most normal crashes the insurance companies figure out "fault".

I see where you're coming from, and I don't entirely disagree. Some people go way to far, and make a legal modification illegal and dangerous. However, you can't blanket statement a modification that IS permitted by law by saying that it's less than safe, just because reckless people have overdone it (and are therefor NOT compliant/legal). Done allegedly properly this is a legal modification.

. Sir, I see where your coming from. Perhaps officers need better tools and better written laws.

PS. What specifically was VHT sued for? They have a vast line of products (not just tint spray). How exactly would they get involved in a case about visibility of tint? They have a disclaimer on the can that says it's for off-road use, and also warns against spraying it too dark.

. Notice that VHT doesn't dare even try to imply that it could even be close to being legal for on road use. I will try and find the link for the lawsuit. It was for tinted tail paint.

:biggrinjester:

 

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/midwest/2013/02/05/222396.htm

A lawsuit recently heard in St. Louis County highlights concerns about a range of products used to modify factory-issued taillights.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that Clayton Wood of Defiance, Mo., was paralyzed from the waist down after his motorcycle struck the back of Clayton Robinson’s 1978 Chevrolet pickup in 2010. The lawsuit alleged that taillight-dimming paint was a factor, and sought $28 million in damages from Sherwin-Williams, the maker of “Nite-Shades” that was used to tint Robinson’s taillights.


The jury ruled Thursday in favor of Sherwin-Williams. But Robinson and other defendants have already settled out of court with Wood for a combined $1.8 million, according to records.

The suit said taillight embellishments, such as tints, stickers, covers and paint, are becoming more and more common and dangerous, even if Sherwin-Williams said the tint is for off-road use only.

“The last thing I would want is for everyone to think this (verdict) is a green light – that it’s OK to black out your taillights,” Wood’s attorney, John Medler, said. “If anything, I hope this is a cautionary tale. If you black out your taillights, you could leave someone with serious bodily injury.”

Missouri law requires that a vehicle’s “tail lamps” be red and visible from 500 feet – a typical standard across the country. Robinson’s truck passed state inspection four days before the wreck on Highway 109 in St. Louis County. Medler argued the truck would not have passed if a friend of Robinson’s hadn’t approved it. (Or if the inspector had been fully and properly trained on this new trend. I doubt they inspected the car in all lighting conditions. The lawyer should sue the inspecting agency/company)

Medler sought testimony from a Sherwin-Williams company representative who acknowledged normal use of the product would reduce brake lights’ shine by 50 percent or more. The attorney for the paint company, Steven Holden, argued there was no was evidence the paint dims lights to an illegal level but sales materials include warnings to discourage on-road use.

Holden said Wood’s crash was the first (known) report of an accident related to the product in its 30-year history. (I added known. Becuase I've seen three in Georgia)

Lt. John Hotz of the Missouri State Highway Patrol said state inspection stations are instructed to reject a vehicle if the taillights are obstructed or are not the required color. But the law does not address the nuances of tinting products.

The shop Tint Tech in Maplewood is seeing increasing demand for the polyurethane film it sells and installs for taillights, said Amber Pulley, who owns the shop with her husband. But she wouldn’t trust customers to do it on their own. (I wonder if the tint shop makes the customer sign a off road use only waiver?)

“Even if it is a product designed for taillights, it can be used improperly,” she said.