Originally posted by Silvertown: That's what I'm talking about. Seperating the lense from the black frame that surrounds it After seeing a pic of the back side it could still be made in two pieces.but lens would have to be larger and welded to the frame. Then as previously mentioned paint over the lens to hide the weld unless you black out the lens edge from the back.
The lens itself is two pieces. The housing it mounts to is not welded to the lens. They are held together by tabs, and I think, a bit of silicone adhesive. See the how to thread I linked to previously, for how to take them apart.
The part of the lens itself, which provides the black, is welded to the clear plastic portion of the lens. You're not going to separate them with a dremel or a sonic punch.
The lens itself is two pieces. The housing it mounts to is not welded to the lens. They are held together by tabs, and I think, a bit of silicone adhesive. See the how to thread I linked to previously, for how to take them apart.
The part of the lens itself, which provides the black, is welded to the clear plastic portion of the lens. You're not going to separate them with a dremel or a sonic punch.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the original design is flawed although I have always loved the look and applaud pontiac for some of the best tailight designs of 80s. I think the solution here is to do a one piece snap into place. And if the installer wants the oem look that's up to them. The internals that hold everything together is another matter. I read slammedz thread and it would be great if that comes through or if the oem molds could be located if not destroyed. Otherwise I think this can work.
Originally posted by Silvertown: Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the original design is flawed although I have always loved the look and applaud pontiac for some of the best tailight designs of 80s. I think the solution here is to do a one piece snap into place. And if the installer wants the oem look that's up to them. The internals that hold everything together is another matter. I read slammedz thread and it would be great if that comes through or if the oem molds could be located if not destroyed. Otherwise I think this can work.
The OEM molds were destroyed when the company in possession of them went under.
A one-piece fiberglass moulding was once made available, though they seem to be out of production. The idea was supposedly that the installer would add alternative lenses, such as Corvette styles, to the tail panel and the end result is simply creating a new body panel. I feel like I described them poorly, but I've only ever seen one set available and it hadn't been cut or ever used. For greater possibilities, seek out delamination issues on the camaro/firebird forums at thirdgen.org. the 85 to 90 trans am tail lights were a grid style that were 3 pieces total and they suffered the exact same conditions that Fiero gt tails did. The 91 and 92 GTA trans ams received a redesigned 2 piece tail that utilized the same technology as well, and as such, suffered the same Ill delamination fate. The Fiero community, as awesome as we are, is seemingly smaller than the thirdgen community, so I would hope thirdgen owners may already have better solutions to the taillight issues. If you have the means to achieve a replacement option, I cheer you on. I am a little unclear of your intentions on an end result, though. Are you looking to produce a variation of the originals without design flaws, or is it evolving into a custom taillight idea? I would assume the former, but you mention various options that may sway quite a bit from the original design as far as appearances go.
A one-piece fiberglass moulding was once made available, though they seem to be out of production. The idea was supposedly that the installer would add alternative lenses, such as Corvette styles, to the tail panel and the end result is simply creating a new body panel. I feel like I described them poorly, but I've only ever seen one set available and it hadn't been cut or ever used. For greater possibilities, seek out delamination issues on the camaro/firebird forums at thirdgen.org. the 85 to 90 trans am tail lights were a grid style that were 3 pieces total and they suffered the exact same conditions that Fiero gt tails did. The 91 and 92 GTA trans ams received a redesigned 2 piece tail that utilized the same technology as well, and as such, suffered the same Ill delamination fate. The Fiero community, as awesome as we are, is seemingly smaller than the thirdgen community, so I would hope thirdgen owners may already have better solutions to the taillight issues. If you have the means to achieve a replacement option, I cheer you on. I am a little unclear of your intentions on an end result, though. Are you looking to produce a variation of the originals without design flaws, or is it evolving into a custom taillight idea? I would assume the former, but you mention various options that may sway quite a bit from the original design as far as appearances go.
I want to make the design better and less complicated and leave enough room for the guys that want to do it how they want it. I personally want to get rid of that middle seam with a carbon fiber overlay. Getting the thickness right without distortion will be the hard part. But they still need to be thicker. You might have to polish the lens to achieve good luminosity.
You did mention that today's products are made better, but any time I've seen modern taillight shards, they seem relatively thin by comparison to the gt's lenses. Thicker may prove more durable, but perhaps the sheer size of the taillights would be the real concern, since a piece so broad is surely to feel the effects of the car's body flexing on less favorable roads. The one piece idea to eliminate the center seem might create a greater chance of breakage. I've never handled carbon fiber, so I can't attest to its' flexibility. Maybe the answer lies behind the design of the newer dodge tails, and the idea of perimeter style LED's on my Fiero sure is enticing. I do think I recall dodge spending quite a pretty penny on making their current designs possible. 20 years ago, it was Buicks and auroras, and they all cracked too. Could we be safe in saying nothing is designed to last forever, in the first place?
You did mention that today's products are made better, but any time I've seen modern taillight shards, they seem relatively thin by comparison to the gt's lenses. Thicker may prove more durable, but perhaps the sheer size of the taillights would be the real concern, since a piece so broad is surely to feel the effects of the car's body flexing on less favorable roads. The one piece idea to eliminate the center seem might create a greater chance of breakage. I've never handled carbon fiber, so I can't attest to its' flexibility. Maybe the answer lies behind the design of the newer dodge tails, and the idea of perimeter style LED's on my Fiero sure is enticing. I do think I recall dodge spending quite a pretty penny on making their current designs possible. 20 years ago, it was Buicks and auroras, and they all cracked too. Could we be safe in saying nothing is designed to last forever, in the first place?
Carbon fiber is stronger than steel. And your right breakage is a bigger concern with plexiglass than polycarbonate. But I have the perfect testing facility in Nevada as far as heat goes so theyll be vetted thoroughly.
He brings up a good point about body flex leading to breakage. Cars seem like solid, static things until you start pushing their limits. There's probably a decent amount of flex around the tails under the right conditions. I really wish my GT was driveable this weekend. The last Autocross race of the season is going on and I might have been able to devise a test.
He brings up a good point about body flex leading to breakage. Cars seem like solid, static things until you start pushing their limits. There's probably a decent amount of flex around the tails under the right conditions. I really wish my GT was driveable this weekend. The last Autocross race of the season is going on and I might have been able to devise a test.
Polycarbonate is used in race car winshields. It takes more abuse than the tail lights would I would think.
I do like the "stronger than steel" claim, but in most applications, it's based on weight, isn't it? An absurd example would be 1 pound of steel is compared to 1 pound of carbon fiber. In this case, the size difference is astronomical. In the end, a pound of carbon fiber is far superior to a pound of steel. So while a steel taillight lens, theoretically an exact replica of the original lens, would easily weigh what, 20 pounds? A carbon fiber lens would weigh much less than the OEM lens. But of the three, the steel piece would withstand stress the best, by far. I'm not an engineer, but the industry claims are well known for being deceptive. Even true carbon fiber hoods get blown to smithereens upon impact. Kind of veering from the idea, but carbon fiber would still have to be rather thick to withstand regular flexing, or otherwise braced from behind with a steel frame like any hood is.
I do like the "stronger than steel" claim, but in most applications, it's based on weight, isn't it? An absurd example would be 1 pound of steel is compared to 1 pound of carbon fiber. In this case, the size difference is astronomical. In the end, a pound of carbon fiber is far superior to a pound of steel. So while a steel taillight lens, theoretically an exact replica of the original lens, would easily weigh what, 20 pounds? A carbon fiber lens would weigh much less than the OEM lens. But of the three, the steel piece would withstand stress the best, by far. I'm not an engineer, but the industry claims are well known for being deceptive. Even true carbon fiber hoods get blown to smithereens upon impact. Kind of veering from the idea, but carbon fiber would still have to be rather thick to withstand regular flexing, or otherwise braced from behind with a steel frame like any hood is.
If you don't want carbon fiber thats your choice. But its used by ferrari, lamborghini, formula one the zo6 . It with stands heat better it's lighter. It's in all exotics for its superior strength and lightness.
I do think carbon fiber is an excellent starting point, but I do question how well it (or any material, for that matter) will stand up to abuse if it makes it out as a one-piece design without additional support from behind. I like the idea of a solid carbon fiber unit with open holes for the lighted areas to accept an easily-replaced clear lens. Just like the GT sail panel scoops with cutouts that accept a small clear window (forgive me, I forgot who used to make them). The carbon fiber portion would vaguely resemble a giant pair or sunglasses with the lenses missing. In this case, the frame that supports the so-called lenses would be the obvious weak spot.
I do think carbon fiber is an excellent starting point, but I do question how well it (or any material, for that matter) will stand up to abuse if it makes it out as a one-piece design without additional support from behind. I like the idea of a solid carbon fiber unit with open holes for the lighted areas to accept an easily-replaced clear lens. Just like the GT sail panel scoops with cutouts that accept a small clear window (forgive me, I forgot who used to make them). The carbon fiber portion would vaguely resemble a giant pair or sunglasses with the lenses missing. In this case, the frame that supports the so-called lenses would be the obvious weak spot.
Build it yourself. You can do it then there will be two options to work with.
This can be verified? Why would anybody let them be destroyed? How depressing.
My understanding is, it was done for value of scrap. They probably asked the question "why would anyone value this?". If the company did in fact close, it was possibly done to reclaim debts.
Work on your project, there are always critics and loudmouths I despise them on internet forums. They cant do it, so they criticize every attempt for someone working on it. Even going as far as saying how you should do it, when they haven't done it.
Years ago I couldn't get past the high pitched vocals of Geddy Lee. Just because he's a fellow Canadian I didn't have to like him his voice.
However, for whatever reason I'm now better able to tolerate his vocals. No doubt about it though... Rushis a fantastic band. Their progressive-rock sound is second to none.
Years ago I couldn't get past the high pitched vocals of Geddy Lee. Just because he's a fellow Canadian I didn't have to like him his voice.
However, for whatever reason I'm now better able to tolerate his vocals. No doubt about it though... Rushis a fantastic band. Their progressive-rock sound is second to none.
Aw man I thought all Canadians supported their bands. Triumph?
Work on your project, there are always critics and loudmouths I despise them on internet forums. They cant do it, so they criticize every attempt for someone working on it. Even going as far as saying how you should do it, when they haven't done it.
Aw man I thought all Canadians supported their bands.
It's a large country, with a lot of quality bands over the years. I'm on the west coast. There was a golden era back in the 80's with bands based here in Vancouver.
quote
Originally posted by Silvertown:
Triumph?
I'm familiar with their hit songs, but no, I was never a big fan of them. Besides, they were a Toronto band.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 10-02-2015).]
I know the molds themselves are long gone, but has anyone ever tried contacting GM to get the drawings for the tail lights? I'm sure they aren't in CAD, as the car long predates that technology, but at some point these HAD to have drawings made to detail the light assembly, and the molds were constructed based off of those drawings.
Edit-- I just fired off an email to GM's customer service address regarding this. We'll see what they say.
[This message has been edited by Napoleon_Tanerite (edited 10-02-2015).]
I'm sure they aren't in CAD, as the car long predates that technology,
GM was using Unigraphics CAD in 1981, but no matter, there has been a bankruptcy since then, and all things PONTIAC have become the property of the non-operating entity. General Motors Company...(the one that is in business) has no property or authority.
I hate to say it but the Asian's make all kinds of tail light lens for numerous cars at very low prices. Last year a shopping car rolled into my 2013 Chrysler 300 and broke a tail light. The entire assembly, LED's, circuit board and all was $100. It was made in Taiwan. The Mopar one was $197 but that too may have been made in Taiwan. While I am always critical of quality, the replacement lens that I installed was as good as the original and a Chrysler 300 is also not a high volume production vehicle. Point is that new Fiero tail lights that replicate the original appearance can be made in Taiwan and because its a plastic part and machine made, the tail light is holding up fine. All GT's will need new tail lights. Its just a matter of time. The demand should be there. The Fiero Store has contacts over there and should know where to source.
------------------ " THE BLACK PARALYZER" -87GT 3800SC Series III engine, custom ZZP /Frozen Boost Intercooler setup, 3.4" Pulley, Northstar TB, LS1 MAF, 3" Spintech/Hedman Exhaust, Autolite 104's, MSD wires, Custom CAI, 4T65eHD w. custom axles, HP Tuners VCM Suite. "THE COLUSSUS" 87GT - ALL OUT 3.4L Turbocharged engine, Garrett Hybrid Turbo, MSD ign., modified TH125H " ON THE LOOSE WITHOUT THE JUICE "
Dennis, your right. GM must have these drawings somewhere's in a filing cabinet. And with a company like the fiero store, GM knows that they are trying to keep fieros or a GM product on the road. Somebody isn't trying had enough. No offence.
GM was using Unigraphics CAD in 1981, but no matter, there has been a bankruptcy since then, and all things PONTIAC have become the property of the non-operating entity. General Motors Company...(the one that is in business) has no property or authority.
Let me try to say this another way. General Motors has nothing to do with Pontiac any more....no parts, no tools, no CAD files. They got rid of all of it in order to re-organize and get money from the Feds. The NEW GM is worried about selling us more GMC Pickup trucks.
Originally posted by Gall757: Let me try to say this another way. General Motors has nothing to do with Pontiac any more....no parts, no tools, no CAD files. They got rid of all of it in order to re-organize and get money from the Feds. The NEW GM is worried about selling us more GMC Pickup trucks.
GM doesn't make Pontiacs, but they still own all the intellectual property. There are still Pontiacs new enough they have to be able to supply parts for as well. GM hasn't cared about the Fiero though, for a very long time, other than to maintain the trademarks and intellectual property rights.
GM renewed the copyright on the Fiero name fairly recently too. It was either right before or right after the bankruptcy. I know they're not in the Pontiac business anymore, but sometimes you'd be surprised of the records companies keep around. You can still get data on Colt guns from the 1800s, and that's after SEVERAL bankruptcies and buyouts.
GM was using Unigraphics CAD in 1981, but no matter, there has been a bankruptcy since then, and all things PONTIAC have become the property of the non-operating entity. General Motors Company...(the one that is in business) has no property or authority.
GM doesn't make Pontiacs, but they still own all the intellectual property. There are still Pontiacs new enough they have to be able to supply parts for as well. GM hasn't cared about the Fiero though, for a very long time, other than to maintain the trademarks and intellectual property rights.
This is the point I am trying to clarify. The bankruptcy process split the old General Motors into 2 companies...The new one is called General Motors Company and is what is running today. The other one is called General Motors Corporation and it took all the money-losing stuff that the new Company did not want, like Saturn, Pontiac, various parts makers, real estate under water, etc. etc. This way, the new Company does not have to deal with all the old problems while it tries to compete in the 21st Century marketplace. The Corporation will salvage what they can out of the discarded property, but it's just a bunch of lawyers and auctioneers trying to get 10 cents on the dollar....and they have no connection with the people who are building vehicles. What we see as post-bankruptcy General Motors does not own the intellectual property.
[This message has been edited by Gall757 (edited 10-03-2015).]
Originally posted by Gall757: This is the point I am trying to clarify. The bankruptcy process split the old General Motors into 2 companies...The new one is called General Motors Company and is what is running today. The other one is called General Motors Corporation and it took all the money-losing stuff that the new Company did not want, like Saturn, Pontiac, various parts makers, real estate under water, etc. etc. This way, the new Company does not have to deal with all the old problems while it tries to compete in the 21st Century marketplace. The Corporation will salvage what they can out of the discarded property, but it's just a bunch of lawyers and auctioneers trying to get 10 cents on the dollar....and they have no connection with the people who are building vehicles. What we see as post-bankruptcy General Motors does not own the intellectual property.
USPTO seems to disagree with you:
quote
Word Mark FIERO Translations "The foreign wording in the mark translates into English as proud." Goods and Services IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Decals. FIRST USE: 20020700. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20020700 Owner (REGISTRANT) General Motors Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE 300 Renaissance Center, P.O. Box 300 Detroit MICHIGAN 482653000
(LAST LISTED OWNER) GENERAL MOTORS LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DELAWARE 300 RENAISSANCE CENTER DETROIT MICHIGAN 482653000
It wouldn't make sense for them to have divested most of the IP they own, as it can actually produce revenue. I don't know how many trademarks and patents GM owns, but it's well into the tens of thousands, if not into the hundreds of thousands. Divesting that property that provides ongoing revenue, would make no sense, especially in cases where they would then need to license it back from the new owners, to produce anything.
I think anybody would save a few brand names......but not CAD files or tools on an 80s tail light. Beware of trying to figure out what happened by trying to make 'sense' out of it.
Just because he's a fellow Canadian I didn't have to like 
