Re: [FWDLK] 55 Chrysler tail lights

[Terry & Andree Hoeman <tehoema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

300s did not have the extra chrome on the Taillights.   They were an
exercise in minimizing chrome which was unusual for Chrysler.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Sealey" <mopar2ya@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [FWDLK] 55 Chrysler tail lights


> --- Timothy A Koah <talk4u@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I'm restoring a 55 Chrysler and I noticed for the
> > first time that one of the red tail lens has small
> > chrome strips attached to the lens going across
> > horizontally and the other tail lens doesn't have
> > any. Does any one know what happened here?
>
> I was always under the impression (possibly mistaken)
> that NYs/300s had the chrome and Windsors did not.
> (Terry? Can you help here?) They may also have fallen
> off over time, as the pips in '60 DeSoto taillights
> are notorious for doing.
>
> > As I look at other pictures of the 55 tail lights
> > I see that they do not have the additional chrome.
> > Could one of these lenses be from an Imperial?
>
> Definitely not. The '55-'56 Imperial had a round
> taillight mounted atop the fender, looks somewhat like
> an old radio microphone from the '40s.
>
> =====
> Mike Sealey, San Francisco CA
> '57 Plymouth Sport Suburban
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/