Quality issues with 59 tail lights from Zip/Trimparts
09-19-2010, 03:27 PM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
Quality issues with 59 tail lights from Zip/Trimparts
As the tail light chrome on our 59 was ok, but not to the standard of the rest of the car, I spent some time researching the best place to buy new repro's. Finally decided on Zip Products who sells a repro made by Trim Products.
Although the chromed metal tail light housing is ok (still some differences compared to original in sharp definition of edges), I find the red external plastic lens ok, I find that the stainless trim "insert" as quite poor.
The problem is with the way the "insert" fits at each of its ends. Whereas the original has a slight angle downturn at the back end, the repro just continues straight out and just drops off, like driving off a cliff. This not only looks sloppy but is also a real towel/cloth "hook" when cleaning the car. The fit at the front is also very sloppy and there appears a big glob of glue just sort of hanging there from the metal across the gap to the lens itself.
The pictures with the green background are those of the originals.
Is this the best that I can expect on a repro part. The tail light kit was 620.00,,,,which by the way, in spite of their assertion that they would match pricing from other companies (less than 600.00 at Paragon) they did not.
I also had ordered up a compete lock set (doors, glove, ignition and trunk) so that I could get all locks to operate from a single key (as per stock). My glove box hold in place "ring" was a bit boogered before so this was an opportunity to also replace this. But instead of a chrome "ring" as the car currently has, I get a stainless "ring" instead, and it not even properly polished. Is chrome or stainless the proper "ring" for a 59.
I have not installed the lock set yet, so do not know if all will be well once in place. I would prefer a chromed "ring" and am considering sending the set back and rechroming my current "ring" if it is correct
Although the chromed metal tail light housing is ok (still some differences compared to original in sharp definition of edges), I find the red external plastic lens ok, I find that the stainless trim "insert" as quite poor.
The problem is with the way the "insert" fits at each of its ends. Whereas the original has a slight angle downturn at the back end, the repro just continues straight out and just drops off, like driving off a cliff. This not only looks sloppy but is also a real towel/cloth "hook" when cleaning the car. The fit at the front is also very sloppy and there appears a big glob of glue just sort of hanging there from the metal across the gap to the lens itself.
The pictures with the green background are those of the originals.
Is this the best that I can expect on a repro part. The tail light kit was 620.00,,,,which by the way, in spite of their assertion that they would match pricing from other companies (less than 600.00 at Paragon) they did not.
I also had ordered up a compete lock set (doors, glove, ignition and trunk) so that I could get all locks to operate from a single key (as per stock). My glove box hold in place "ring" was a bit boogered before so this was an opportunity to also replace this. But instead of a chrome "ring" as the car currently has, I get a stainless "ring" instead, and it not even properly polished. Is chrome or stainless the proper "ring" for a 59.
I have not installed the lock set yet, so do not know if all will be well once in place. I would prefer a chromed "ring" and am considering sending the set back and rechroming my current "ring" if it is correct
09-19-2010, 04:26 PM
#2
Racer
I think this is a common problem with repo lenses. I can't remember where (maybe Corvette Restorer?) but there was an article several years ago dealing with this problem. THe author took the stainless from originals (had to destroy the lenses) and used them on the repo lenses.
Rod
Rod
09-19-2010, 04:44 PM
#3
Racer
Member Since: Feb 2010
Location: West Los Angeles California
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think this is a common problem with repo lenses. I can't remember where (maybe Corvette Restorer?) but there was an article several years ago dealing with this problem. THe author took the stainless from originals (had to destroy the lenses) and used them on the repo lenses.
Rod
Rod
the article you might be referring to is in the "1958-60 corvette restoration handbook" by bob baird 259-261.
regards, xiaoman
09-20-2010, 10:26 AM
#4
Safety Car
All the repro lenses are made that way and have been for as long as I can remember. There is a reason that NOS lenses will fetch $300 a pair!
The housings, I am sure, are offshore made, as I do not believe that Trim Parts has ever tooled up to make the light housings. Last I heard, all the housings were being made in China.
Polish that stainless bezel and nobody will be able to tell it is not chrome plated.
Regards, John McGraw
The housings, I am sure, are offshore made, as I do not believe that Trim Parts has ever tooled up to make the light housings. Last I heard, all the housings were being made in China.
Polish that stainless bezel and nobody will be able to tell it is not chrome plated.
Regards, John McGraw
09-20-2010, 10:47 AM
#5
Melting Slicks
wow.. that looks bad.. Espcially since I just judged a 60 this weekend.. I don't know why we accept this crap... Either make it right or not... I know they have a us over a barrel but we should get the word out on parts that are just not acceptable.. They should either refund your $$ or pay you to get them done the correct way..
/jc
/jc
09-20-2010, 01:54 PM
#6
Safety Car
We accept this because that is all there is! There is no better alternative, and most people are just looking for something that is functionally equivalent. Repro parts will seldom pass for originals at judging, but there is always NOS, for those who just insist on parts that will not take a hit at judging.
We have really gotten spoiled on our Corvettes, as there is almost no part that is not available for them in the aftermarket. Try restoring a less popular car and see how few parts are available for some of them. I have been looking for a set of nice tail light assemblies for a 67 Chevelle wagon for over a year. I would kill for a set of repro ones, even if they were not perfect copies!
Regards, John McGraw
We have really gotten spoiled on our Corvettes, as there is almost no part that is not available for them in the aftermarket. Try restoring a less popular car and see how few parts are available for some of them. I have been looking for a set of nice tail light assemblies for a 67 Chevelle wagon for over a year. I would kill for a set of repro ones, even if they were not perfect copies!
Regards, John McGraw
09-20-2010, 02:07 PM
#7
Platinum Supporting Vendor
As the tail light chrome on our 59 was ok, but not to the standard of the rest of the car, I spent some time researching the best place to buy new repro's. Finally decided on Zip Products who sells a repro made by Trim Products.
Although the chromed metal tail light housing is ok (still some differences compared to original in sharp definition of edges), I find the red external plastic lens ok, I find that the stainless trim "insert" as quite poor.
The problem is with the way the "insert" fits at each of its ends. Whereas the original has a slight angle downturn at the back end, the repro just continues straight out and just drops off, like driving off a cliff. This not only looks sloppy but is also a real towel/cloth "hook" when cleaning the car. The fit at the front is also very sloppy and there appears a big glob of glue just sort of hanging there from the metal across the gap to the lens itself.
The pictures with the green background are those of the originals.
Is this the best that I can expect on a repro part. The tail light kit was 620.00,,,,which by the way, in spite of their assertion that they would match pricing from other companies (less than 600.00 at Paragon) they did not.
I also had ordered up a compete lock set (doors, glove, ignition and trunk) so that I could get all locks to operate from a single key (as per stock). My glove box hold in place "ring" was a bit boogered before so this was an opportunity to also replace this. But instead of a chrome "ring" as the car currently has, I get a stainless "ring" instead, and it not even properly polished. Is chrome or stainless the proper "ring" for a 59.
I have not installed the lock set yet, so do not know if all will be well once in place. I would prefer a chromed "ring" and am considering sending the set back and rechroming my current "ring" if it is correct
Although the chromed metal tail light housing is ok (still some differences compared to original in sharp definition of edges), I find the red external plastic lens ok, I find that the stainless trim "insert" as quite poor.
The problem is with the way the "insert" fits at each of its ends. Whereas the original has a slight angle downturn at the back end, the repro just continues straight out and just drops off, like driving off a cliff. This not only looks sloppy but is also a real towel/cloth "hook" when cleaning the car. The fit at the front is also very sloppy and there appears a big glob of glue just sort of hanging there from the metal across the gap to the lens itself.
The pictures with the green background are those of the originals.
Is this the best that I can expect on a repro part. The tail light kit was 620.00,,,,which by the way, in spite of their assertion that they would match pricing from other companies (less than 600.00 at Paragon) they did not.
I also had ordered up a compete lock set (doors, glove, ignition and trunk) so that I could get all locks to operate from a single key (as per stock). My glove box hold in place "ring" was a bit boogered before so this was an opportunity to also replace this. But instead of a chrome "ring" as the car currently has, I get a stainless "ring" instead, and it not even properly polished. Is chrome or stainless the proper "ring" for a 59.
I have not installed the lock set yet, so do not know if all will be well once in place. I would prefer a chromed "ring" and am considering sending the set back and rechroming my current "ring" if it is correct
Thanks
09-20-2010, 04:50 PM
#8
Pro
Thread Starter
I will send them off to you. If not good enough resolution, I will take more if you wish. I've considered doing a first class polish job on my old ones(the lenses are pretty good as is the stainless so should come out well).
Thank you for your interest.
Thank you for your interest.
09-20-2010, 05:25 PM
#9
Safety Car
I remember reading the same article. The author went to great pains to transplant the old stainless into the new lenses
09-20-2010, 06:04 PM
#10
Melting Slicks
Looks like that the repro stainless strip needs to be removed and then bent to the correct curvature so the tips will sit flush. A little buffing wouldn't hurt, either.
Last edited by Mike Geary; 09-20-2010 at 08:51 PM.
09-20-2010, 06:48 PM
#11
Drifting
FYI: Those stainless strips look too tall for originals, so I measured my originals: 0.110 taller than the lens at front and 0.140 taller than the lens at the rear.
I bought a spare lens from the dealer 30 years ago and it measures 0.150 at the front and 0.190 at the rear. I was surprised that the "NOS" part was so much different.
I bought a spare lens from the dealer 30 years ago and it measures 0.150 at the front and 0.190 at the rear. I was surprised that the "NOS" part was so much different.
09-20-2010, 10:58 PM
#12
Racer
Member Since: Feb 2010
Location: West Los Angeles California
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
We accept this because that is all there is! There is no better alternative, and most people are just looking for something that is functionally equivalent. Repro parts will seldom pass for originals at judging, but there is always NOS, for those who just insist on parts that will not take a hit at judging.
We have really gotten spoiled on our Corvettes, as there is almost no part that is not available for them in the aftermarket. Try restoring a less popular car and see how few parts are available for some of them. I have been looking for a set of nice tail light assemblies for a 67 Chevelle wagon for over a year. I would kill for a set of repro ones, even if they were not perfect copies!
Regards, John McGraw
We have really gotten spoiled on our Corvettes, as there is almost no part that is not available for them in the aftermarket. Try restoring a less popular car and see how few parts are available for some of them. I have been looking for a set of nice tail light assemblies for a 67 Chevelle wagon for over a year. I would kill for a set of repro ones, even if they were not perfect copies!
Regards, John McGraw
yes the above is correct, but until the vendors and we as a group ask for parts that are "really correct" nothing will change...but lets face it, many individuals are not as discerning as the members on this forum. there is also a very limited market for the restoration maintenance parts we desire and as a result some things cost an inordinate amount as there is a limited audience for resale..but the parts should still be right as we are paying for them.
it would/should cost very little more to do it right (get the tooling correct) the first time...the right fonts and proper details are available… it just takes the extra effort up front and a follow through on the q.c. to make sure it is right before it ships. in the beginning it might/will cost the manufacturer more, but after that all should be well.
perhaps people should also be paid by the hour and not by the piece so the incentive is on quality not it, pass the cost on...unfortunately this is not always the case in developing countries as well as some instances in the u.s.a.
any developing country/group can rise to the occasion if asked to. a few years ago "made in japan" was a bad phrase now many of us look for that phrase on the box our electronics come in...china is not the only place poor quality parts come from.
send the part back if you cant use it .
jm2c, xiaoman
09-20-2010, 11:04 PM
#13
Pro
Thread Starter
It is entirely possible that what I had on the car and have replaced was not original either(which would indicate other repro builders) as I'm not informed enough to know if they're real or if they're Memorex. But they look much better than the replacement units because as noted earlier they are real towel/microfibre cloth snaggers, and likely could do some damage to one's hands or fingers if not careful around them.
Some careful polishing of my originals will make them look almost as new.
To properly create this stainless and fit it correctly does not look as rocket science. Some subcontractor did it for GM 50 plus years ago with likely more primitive machine and likely at a cost of likely to GM at less than 3 bucks a pair and its not like they built 100's of thousands of them. You would think that someone who is building repros for a very critical audience and at 60 bucks or more per pair could have done better. I'm not a machinist but suspect that any decent one working in his garage could turn out a superior product for his own use.
I was at Goodguys a few weeks ago and Morrison Chassis had a big display there. I spent quite some time talking with Art Morrison,,,he has a really nice 60 resto-mod (likely the best there is) of his own and he had seen our 59 so we were talking C1's,,,.
http://jalopnik.com/238136/from-buck...o-gran-turismo
I remember him telling me how unhappy he was about how the front fender stainless spears (those that run the length of top of the fender) were almost impossible to fit (I think he said that he had tried like 10 pieces or pairs of them) to the headlight chromed bezels (C1 guys know all about this). Finally in frustration he ended up making his own out of I think brass and then chromed to get a perfect fit, far better than Corvette ever built.
Seems that taillight stainless would be a lot easier to do right,,,and if people are paying up to 300 bucks for NOS ones, there is likely a few bucks to be made for some that duplicates GM's 1958 to 1960 quality.
09-20-2010, 11:22 PM
#14
Racer
Member Since: Feb 2010
Location: West Los Angeles California
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bending would not make them sit like they should. The stainless at the back end has a slight taper angle that takes it down toward the lens itself. The front of the stainless just plain sits up to high with a gap between it and the lens itself.
It is entirely possible that what I had on the car and have replaced was not original either(which would indicate other repro builders) as I'm not informed enough to know if they're real or if they're Memorex. But they look much better than the replacement units because as noted earlier they are real towel/microfibre cloth snaggers, and likely could do some damage to one's hands or fingers if not careful around them.
Some careful polishing of my originals will make them look almost as new.
To properly create this stainless and fit it correctly does not look as rocket science. Some subcontractor did it for GM 50 plus years ago with likely more primitive machine and likely at a cost of likely to GM at less than 3 bucks a pair and its not like they built 100's of thousands of them. You would think that someone who is building repros for a very critical audience and at 60 bucks or more per pair could have done better. I'm not a machinist but suspect that any decent one working in his garage could turn out a superior product for his own use.
I was at Goodguys a few weeks ago and Morrison Chassis had a big display there. I spent quite some time talking with Art Morrison,,,he has a really nice 60 resto-mod (likely the best there is) of his own and he had seen our 59 so we were talking C1's,,,.
http://jalopnik.com/238136/from-buck...o-gran-turismo
I remember him telling me how unhappy he was about how the front fender stainless spears (those that run the length of top of the fender) were almost impossible to fit (I think he said that he had tried like 10 pieces or pairs of them) to the headlight chromed bezels (C1 guys know all about this). Finally in frustration he ended up making his own out of I think brass and then chromed to get a perfect fit, far better than Corvette ever built.
Seems that taillight stainless would be a lot easier to do right,,,and if people are paying up to 300 bucks for NOS ones, there is likely a few bucks to be made for some that duplicates GM's 1958 to 1960 quality.
It is entirely possible that what I had on the car and have replaced was not original either(which would indicate other repro builders) as I'm not informed enough to know if they're real or if they're Memorex. But they look much better than the replacement units because as noted earlier they are real towel/microfibre cloth snaggers, and likely could do some damage to one's hands or fingers if not careful around them.
Some careful polishing of my originals will make them look almost as new.
To properly create this stainless and fit it correctly does not look as rocket science. Some subcontractor did it for GM 50 plus years ago with likely more primitive machine and likely at a cost of likely to GM at less than 3 bucks a pair and its not like they built 100's of thousands of them. You would think that someone who is building repros for a very critical audience and at 60 bucks or more per pair could have done better. I'm not a machinist but suspect that any decent one working in his garage could turn out a superior product for his own use.
I was at Goodguys a few weeks ago and Morrison Chassis had a big display there. I spent quite some time talking with Art Morrison,,,he has a really nice 60 resto-mod (likely the best there is) of his own and he had seen our 59 so we were talking C1's,,,.
http://jalopnik.com/238136/from-buck...o-gran-turismo
I remember him telling me how unhappy he was about how the front fender stainless spears (those that run the length of top of the fender) were almost impossible to fit (I think he said that he had tried like 10 pieces or pairs of them) to the headlight chromed bezels (C1 guys know all about this). Finally in frustration he ended up making his own out of I think brass and then chromed to get a perfect fit, far better than Corvette ever built.
Seems that taillight stainless would be a lot easier to do right,,,and if people are paying up to 300 bucks for NOS ones, there is likely a few bucks to be made for some that duplicates GM's 1958 to 1960 quality.
regards, xiaoman
09-20-2010, 11:49 PM
#15
Pro
Thread Starter
hello,
yes the above is correct, but until the vendors and we as a group ask for parts that are "really correct" nothing will change...but lets face it, many individuals are not as discerning as the members on this forum. there is also a very limited market for the restoration maintenance parts we desire and as a result some things cost an inordinate amount as there is a limited audience for resale..but the parts should still be right as we are paying for them.
it would/should cost very little more to do it right (get the tooling correct) the first time...the right fonts and proper details are available… it just takes the extra effort up front and a follow through on the q.c. to make sure it is right before it ships. in the beginning it might/will cost the manufacturer more, but after that all should be well.
perhaps people should also be paid by the hour and not by the piece so the incentive is on quality not it, pass the cost on...unfortunately this is not always the case in developing countries as well as some instances in the u.s.a.
any developing country/group can rise to the occasion if asked to. a few years ago "made in japan" was a bad phrase now many of us look for that phrase on the box our electronics come in...china is not the only place poor quality parts come from.
send the part back if you cant use it .
jm2c, xiaoman
yes the above is correct, but until the vendors and we as a group ask for parts that are "really correct" nothing will change...but lets face it, many individuals are not as discerning as the members on this forum. there is also a very limited market for the restoration maintenance parts we desire and as a result some things cost an inordinate amount as there is a limited audience for resale..but the parts should still be right as we are paying for them.
it would/should cost very little more to do it right (get the tooling correct) the first time...the right fonts and proper details are available… it just takes the extra effort up front and a follow through on the q.c. to make sure it is right before it ships. in the beginning it might/will cost the manufacturer more, but after that all should be well.
perhaps people should also be paid by the hour and not by the piece so the incentive is on quality not it, pass the cost on...unfortunately this is not always the case in developing countries as well as some instances in the u.s.a.
any developing country/group can rise to the occasion if asked to. a few years ago "made in japan" was a bad phrase now many of us look for that phrase on the box our electronics come in...china is not the only place poor quality parts come from.
send the part back if you cant use it .
jm2c, xiaoman
Here is something that I've always found stunning. Some of these model cars are of outstanding quality not only in the way they appear, but the paint and the myriad of parts that go into them. And the price is like nothing,,,,and everyone from the designer, manufacturer, assembly labor, painting, shipping, all the in between people, retailer are all getting a small piece of the action. I happen to have all 3 of these models,,,,the 300 B came in red, white or black. And at 22 bucks,,,I think that one of them I paid 12 bucks.
http://www.amazon.com/2002-Special-C.../dp/B00004U5PL
Would appear to me that some of these repro parts builders that we pay hundreds of dollars for would do a bit better,,,,,particuarily considering how much more complex it is to build some of these model cars. And of course these Maisto models are near the bottom of the food chain, the better ones will cost a hundred dollars and often more, but the quality is correspondenly outstanding.
You are correct, it appears that too many are far too forgiving. It's the old 90/10 rule. 90 percent are satisfied with anything, 10 percent will bitch like mad, but net net, more money is made building to the 90 percent by cutting quality and saving costs. This applies almost everywhere in life.
Go figure>
01-18-2011, 10:49 AM
#16
Platinum Supporting Vendor
Update.
We do hear you. I approached Trim Parts about this and they were already aware of it and working on a solution. They have been fixed I am holding a set of lens that just shipped in here for the OP. If anyone here has a set of these that they purchased from Zip please contact me. If you did not purchase them from Zip you can still contact me and I will give you the information you need so you can get them replaced.
Thanks
Justin
We do hear you. I approached Trim Parts about this and they were already aware of it and working on a solution. They have been fixed I am holding a set of lens that just shipped in here for the OP. If anyone here has a set of these that they purchased from Zip please contact me. If you did not purchase them from Zip you can still contact me and I will give you the information you need so you can get them replaced.
Thanks
Justin
01-18-2011, 11:02 AM
#17
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Watkinsville, GA and Glen Cove, NY
Posts: 5,789
Received 855 Likes
on
626 Posts
Update.
We do hear you. I approached Trim Parts about this and they were already aware of it and working on a solution. They have been fixed I am holding a set of lens that just shipped in here for the OP. If anyone here has a set of these that they purchased from Zip please contact me. If you did not purchase them from Zip you can still contact me and I will give you the information you need so you can get them replaced.
Thanks
Justin
We do hear you. I approached Trim Parts about this and they were already aware of it and working on a solution. They have been fixed I am holding a set of lens that just shipped in here for the OP. If anyone here has a set of these that they purchased from Zip please contact me. If you did not purchase them from Zip you can still contact me and I will give you the information you need so you can get them replaced.
Thanks
Justin
Bill
01-18-2011, 11:15 AM
#18
Im really surprised this C1 repro taillight lens issue has been going on for so long (several years & counting) without finally getting fixed. Everyone you talk to thats purchased them complain about them, yet the distributors/mfrs do nothing. I truly hope it gets fixed this time and not just more lip service. Its frustrating to continue getting crap parts because nobody listens or gives a damn. 
01-18-2011, 11:18 AM
#19
Safety Car
Update.
We do hear you. I approached Trim Parts about this and they were already aware of it and working on a solution. They have been fixed I am holding a set of lens that just shipped in here for the OP. If anyone here has a set of these that they purchased from Zip please contact me. If you did not purchase them from Zip you can still contact me and I will give you the information you need so you can get them replaced.
Thanks
Justin
We do hear you. I approached Trim Parts about this and they were already aware of it and working on a solution. They have been fixed I am holding a set of lens that just shipped in here for the OP. If anyone here has a set of these that they purchased from Zip please contact me. If you did not purchase them from Zip you can still contact me and I will give you the information you need so you can get them replaced.
Thanks
Justin
01-18-2011, 03:21 PM
#20
Le Mans Master
Update.
We do hear you. I approached Trim Parts about this and they were already aware of it and working on a solution. They have been fixed I am holding a set of lens that just shipped in here for the OP. If anyone here has a set of these that they purchased from Zip please contact me. If you did not purchase them from Zip you can still contact me and I will give you the information you need so you can get them replaced.
Thanks
Justin
We do hear you. I approached Trim Parts about this and they were already aware of it and working on a solution. They have been fixed I am holding a set of lens that just shipped in here for the OP. If anyone here has a set of these that they purchased from Zip please contact me. If you did not purchase them from Zip you can still contact me and I will give you the information you need so you can get them replaced.
Thanks
Justin
As far as I can tell from Trim Parts web site, they only make the lenses. It appears that the light assembly itself is made elsewhere (translation China) and only uses the Trim parts lense to complete the kit.
Trim Parts mid year Tail light assemblies are excellent IMO, maybe they will develope their own 58-60 tooling and produce a complete part of equal quality for these cars as well.
Pilot Dan