Smoked Taillights

[niklasios]

Hello guys

anybody did this to their A7/S7/RS7? My car is white, i'm putting black rims on it and i'm considering smoking the tail lights. Does anyone has any experience and how this can be done?

So far i've found this: http://www.headlightarmor.com/12-13-...light-kit.aspx

Not sure if this is the right way to do it

Thanks in advance!

[RS7-Dubai]

I have white rs7 aswell. The new facelift tail light (European version) would look alot better as they're smoked as compared to our current ones.

[airborne7]

http://www.lamin-x.com/Audi-A7-Headl...Bra-s/1365.htm

[niklasios]

I have white rs7 aswell. The new facelift tail light (European version) would look alot better as they're smoked as compared to our current ones.

Do you know if this will fit in our cars? thanks

[RS7-Dubai]

Yes it will. Confirm.

[yvnrg1981]

I did it to mine, along with roof and spoiler. Came out great. Had a local tint shop do it.



oh, they also vinylled the side markers white and that came out also great.

[niklasios]

Looks good. So do you know if they used the product in the link i've put or its some custom thing they do?
How much did it cost if you dont mind sharing?
Thanks

[lx4life]

How did they do your antenna? I heard a shop saying they would have to plasti dip it. What was the cost? I plan on tinting my taillights thsi weekend, I just order some film from online, I will post pics when finished.

[yvnrg1981]

The roof was 225 the lights were 75 the spoiler 85 the side markers 15 so 400 total. The antenna is hard. After about 4 months is peeled a little but they rewraped no charge.

[yvnrg1981]

Yes plasti dip was an option but wont match the roof. The taillights I believe he said he used some tint film and he custom cut it like for Windows. No issues in over a year.

[Josh Tolliver]

VHT makes a tail lens paint specifically for your tail lights u can go as light or as dark as you want just depends on how many coats are put on..stuff works great have used it on many many cars. ..can pick it up at any local auto parts store. ..I tint windows for a living and do car audio, custom painting ect...tint works great as well. ..just another option. ..

[SpinOSU]

I did it to mine, along with roof and spoiler. Came out great. Had a local tint shop do it.

oh, they also vinylled the side markers white and that came out also great.

Your stormtrooper s7 is drool worthy. Well done sir.

[Alex@TAG]

We actually smoke the lights using a clear coat. The Films sometimes tend to look a bit hazey after some time.

Here is a photo of an RS7 tail light we smoked a bit more than the factory RS7 Smoke....

Feel free to click any of the photos to check out the entire gallery for that build. Give us a ring for more information :)

[lx4life]

looks good Alex, how much do you charge for just the tails?

[Durwin@TAG]

PM'd you pricing.

looks good Alex, how much do you charge for just the tails?

[niklasios]

I would like them to be darker than that, almost black. Is that possible with the clear coat? Pm me pricing please

thanks

[Durwin@TAG]

I would like them to be darker than that, almost black. Is that possible with the clear coat? Pm me pricing please

thanks

We can go as dark as you would like. I just sent you a PM.

[lx4life]

here is the taillights i did using vinyl.

[DB22]

There is not a case of tinting the tail lights where there is not a reduction of luminous output. When you get rear ended and decide to sue the culprit then the defense lawyer will use it against you and win if your tail lights have been reduced in luminous output below the DOT specifications.
The tail lights on my car are to allow other people to see me, know when I'm indicating and know when I'm braking. Reducing other peoples ability to make those determinations is a safety hazard and is illegal. If you think that looking cool is more important than looking cold then do so at your own risk.

[S6Express]

There is not a case of tinting the tail lights where there is not a reduction of luminous output. When you get rear ended and decide to sue the culprit then the defense lawyer will use it against you and win if your tail lights have been reduced in luminous output below the DOT specifications.
The tail lights on my car are to allow other people to see me, know when I'm indicating and know when I'm braking. Reducing other peoples ability to make those determinations is a safety hazard and is illegal. If you think that looking cool is more important than looking cold then do so at your own risk.

DB22 makes a very good point. I like the look of tinted tail lights, especially on a white car. I choose not to do it because I don't want someone rear ending me and blaming it on me. If I rear end a car with smoked tail lights, you bet your a$$ I'm going to use that against him.

They look so good that Wheels Boutique photoshopped them smoked on my car for the photoshoot, but not worth the risk IMO.

[OmaHahn]

DB22 makes a very good point. I like the look of tinted tail lights, especially on a white car. I choose not to do it because I don't want someone rear ending me and blaming it on me. If I rear end a car with smoked tail lights, you bet your a$$ I'm going to use that against him.

They look so good that Wheels Boutique photoshopped them smoked on my car for the photoshoot, but not worth the risk IMO.

This would be extremely difficult to prove! Tinted taillights such as the ones from Lamin-x range from around 5% to 17% tint. Even with the darkest Charcoal 17% tint this still means that 83% light is available - AND.... if you have LED lights - it doesn't affect the light output at all! I have halogen tail lights and I installed Lamin-x Smoke at 12% and you could see the tail lights AND the brake lights without any problems what-so-ever, during day or night.

[lx4life]

Why do people blame other people for having tinted taillights, when its apparent that you must be following to close if you hit them. Also if you miss that big ass brake light on the rear window then you should not be driving. Not justifying tinted taillights but just saying, learn how to drive.

[OmaHahn]

Why do people blame other people for having tinted taillights, when its apparent that you must be following to close if you hit them. Also if you miss that big ass brake light on the rear window then you should not be driving. Not justifying tinted taillights but just saying, learn how to drive.

+1!!! Exactly!

[JB616]

Tinted I think with Lamin-X but I think this is way too dark for any car.

[S6Express]

Why do people blame other people for having tinted taillights, when its apparent that you must be following to close if you hit them. Also if you miss that big ass brake light on the rear window then you should not be driving. Not justifying tinted taillights but just saying, learn how to drive.

I agree with you, but once insurance companies and their lawyers get involved, I'll be glad I didn't have tinted tail lights.

[moosehead1]

I've got light smoked tails on an SUV, call it Cherry Coke. Just enough to get rid of the red stop signs, but not enough to look odd or to reduce luminosity noticeably. Plus I tend to be conservative, and also left the reverse lenses clear.

Not gonna touch the liability debate issue.

[DB22]

Why do people blame other people for having tinted taillights, when its apparent that you must be following to close if you hit them. Also if you miss that big ass brake light on the rear window then you should not be driving. Not justifying tinted taillights but just saying, learn how to drive.

So if the car in front of you had no lights on then it would be your fault if you hit them? Now use the same situation where visibility is reduced due to snow/fog/spray etc, is it still your fault if that car cannot be seen due to his lights having reduced effect?
Why do some cars (including Audi's) have rear fog lights? They are increased intensity and are to be used in conditions of reduced visibility. If you tint your lights then you have the opposite effect and reduce your ability to be seen by others.

Just stating "learn how to drive" is not relevant and naive.

[OmaHahn]

So if the car in front of you had no lights on then it would be your fault if you hit them? Now use the same situation where visibility is reduced due to snow/fog/spray etc, is it still your fault if that car cannot be seen due to his lights having reduced effect?
Why do some cars (including Audi's) have rear fog lights? They are increased intensity and are to be used in conditions of reduced visibility. If you tint your lights then you have the opposite effect and reduce your ability to be seen by others.

Just stating "learn how to drive" is not relevant and naive.

OK - regarding this statement I still have to agree with lx4life and people need to learn to drive! If there's fog/snow/spray then you need to drive slow and make sure you have a good distance between you and the person in front of you. If you're just tooling along in conditions like this and don't give yourself enough stopping distance then again you need to learn how to drive. Did you know many states have laws called, "contributory negligence?" So if you're just flying along in bad conditions and smash into someone you can be held at 50% fault.
Tinted tails don't reduce visibility especially with LED lights - I never once had issues with my Lamin-x smoked tails with my HALOGEN lights in 3 years and I drove in heavy traffic in Chicago, KC, Denver, and Omaha. I have no idea why this topic is always such a debate.

[S6Express]

I have no idea why this topic is always such a debate.

Because there have been cases in the US where one person has wrecked into the back of another with smoked tail lights and in court the guy who does the rear ending wins. Most notably one in St. Louis where a motorcyclist slammed into the back of a pickup truck with smoked tail lights and became paralyzed. The judge awarded him $18 million. Sherwin Williams (or whoever made the DIY paint kit he used) had to pay most of it even though the can said to use on "off-road" only. The owner of the truck was on the hook for $1.8M. I read the article last year, so my numbers may not be right, but I recall something similar.

Yes, you're right, a responsible driver will be paying attention and not wreck in the first place by simply judging proximity. Personally, I don't want the idiot that wrecks into my RS7 diffuser to have any chance of getting out of it. I'll keep the tail lights stock.

[DB22]

OK - regarding this statement I still have to agree with lx4life and people need to learn to drive! If there's fog/snow/spray then you need to drive slow and make sure you have a good distance between you and the person in front of you. If you're just tooling along in conditions like this and don't give yourself enough stopping distance then again you need to learn how to drive. Did you know many states have laws called, "contributory negligence?" So if you're just flying along in bad conditions and smash into someone you can be held at 50% fault.
Tinted tails don't reduce visibility especially with LED lights - I never once had issues with my Lamin-x smoked tails with my HALOGEN lights in 3 years and I drove in heavy traffic in Chicago, KC, Denver, and Omaha. I have no idea why this topic is always such a debate.

You sound like everybody else in the mass media who's only retort to accidents is "Slow Down". Speed is not the problem, bad driving and stupidity is. If I drive a dark car with no chrome and no lights on a dark street and I make a lane change in front of you when visibility is bad then I can probably get you to hit me. Is that your fault or mine? Stopping distance is not the only criteria for accidents. Being seen is a good idea, that is why there are standards for luminous outputs of various lights. To state that tinting tail lights doesn't reduce visibility because the source of the light is an LED instead of a bulb defies logic and physics.

[OmaHahn]

Because there have been cases in the US where one person has wrecked into the back of another with smoked tail lights and in court the guy who does the rear ending wins. Most notably one in St. Louis where a motorcyclist slammed into the back of a pickup truck with smoked tail lights and became paralyzed. The judge awarded him $18 million. Sherwin Williams (or whoever made the DIY paint kit he used) had to pay most of it even though the can said to use on "off-road" only. The owner of the truck was on the hook for $1.8M. I read the article last year, so my numbers may not be right, but I recall something similar.

Yes, you're right, a responsible driver will be paying attention and not wreck in the first place by simply judging proximity. Personally, I don't want the idiot that wrecks into my RS7 diffuser to have any chance of getting out of it. I'll keep the tail lights stock.

Agreed! That is a crazy story - but I can only imagine what PAINT would do to taillights and not just a film. So I would have to side with the motorcycle guy in this case. That's a lot of money!

[OmaHahn]

You sound like everybody else in the mass media who's only retort to accidents is "Slow Down". Speed is not the problem, bad driving and stupidity is. If I drive a dark car with no chrome and no lights on a dark street and I make a lane change in front of you when visibility is bad then I can probably get you to hit me. Is that your fault or mine? Stopping distance is not the only criteria for accidents. Being seen is a good idea, that is why there are standards for luminous outputs of various lights. To state that tinting tail lights doesn't reduce visibility because the source of the light is an LED instead of a bulb defies logic and physics.

Bad driving by another driver is a good point. But regarding defying logic and physics - once again the tinted film only goes up to 17% - so there's PLENTY of light still coming through. And it's physics that LED is brighter and faster than Halogen and I had Halogen with tinted tails and there was a ton of light output with both the tails and brake lights, never an issue. And as mentioned previously, if you still can't see the very bright 3rd brake light at eye level, then again you should question being behind the wheel. I do agree that some tails are painted way too dark or they use cheap thick dark plastic lens', etc. So it would be a case-by-case situation.

[S6Express]

Agreed! That is a crazy story - but I can only imagine what PAINT would do to taillights and not just a film. So I would have to side with the motorcycle guy in this case. That's a lot of money!

What you see on a lot of cars with smoked lights is actually paint. One coat is very light and it gets darker as you apply more coats. At the end of the day smoked lights are smoked lights, whether they have smoked clear paint or film. Most times you can't tell the difference between paint and film.