MKT Personalization

[GT_IE]

About a month ago I bought my brand new, 2010 Lincoln MKT. Yes, you can still find a few in dealer inventory and with the 2012s soon to arrive, they are eager to give some really good deals. Forget paying below MSRP, you'll be paying well below invoice. I paid $54 for an airtran ticket and drove it home 280 miles, but saved $$$.

 

I've made a couple of Mods so far that I thought I'd share. I'd appreciate seeing anything else folks have had success with. I'm particularly interested in the wood dashboard trim kits. It looks like B&I and Sherwood are the 2 leading contenders, but I have 2 problems. First, should I do this at all or in 5 years will it have peeled, cracked and otherwise look like a big mistake. If I do go ahead, which kit? B&I or Sherwood??

 

First Mod I made was free and easy, de-badge the back end. I love the clean look. The lettering on the rear is just attached with 3M double sided table. You can "saw" it off with Dental Floss or Fishing Line. Then a little Goo-Gone (or WD40) to get off the residue. Finally a really fine polish and wax (I used Meguiars swirl remover, then polish, then wax) and you can't tell it was ever there.

 

Next, it was VHT Nite shades on the tail lights. First, a light scuffing wet-sand with 2000 grit and soapy water. Then I taped off all around it, over the camera, and over the chrome strips. On the reflectors down on the bumper, tape over the round plastic pieces, they are sensors for the reverse & blindspot detection. I taped over the clear reverse lights too. Then, a light coat of nite shades. Remove the tape over the reverse lights, and 2 more light coats of nite shades, so 3 coats on the red and 2 on the clear (too dark on the clear and you can't see when you back up). Finally, it was about 4 coats of clear coat. I polished that out 24 hours later, but wasn't entirely happy with the finish, so I taped it all off again and did 4 or 5 coats of Rustoleum Automotive ENAMEL clear. Since it is an enamel paint, this needs a good week to cure before polishing it out, so I'm still waiting.

 

Then, it was Plasti-dip spray over the chrome strip and emblem in the middle. Plasti-dip is awesome, completely reversible. Great for experimenting, but hardy enough to hold up for quite a while. (google "plasti dip wheels" for good examples) I think I like the chrome on the emblem, but not the horizontal strips so probably going to take the black off the emblem.

 

Then, smoked the exhaust tips with DupliColor Shadow.

 

Finally, on to the front where I hit the grills with plasti-dip. All in all, this is still less that $40 worth of materials.

 

 

[GT_IE]

Two mods I'm very happy with today. First, i unlocked the navigation so you can enter addresses while driving. I did this by installing a nufrd1 Navigation Unlock Interface from PAC Audio. It also unlocks the camera so you can view it while the car is in Drive. I have no real need for that part, but my kids like it. It would probably help if you are towing too.

 

Also from PAC Audio I installed an HDRT HD Radio receiver. You have to get their media gateway in order for that to work. You also have to get 2 antenna adapters (1 male to female, and 1 female to male) and a Y adapter

 

It all works exceptionally well. HD radio is great, and no more pulling over to enter an address.

 

You have to pull the radio to put it all in, but that wasn't too hard.

Edited October 4, 2011 by GT_IE

[akirby]

Seriously? Smoked taillights? I hope you're not planning to drive at night.

[GT_IE]

I hope you're not planning to drive at night.

You're kidding, right? It's translucent paint. Tail lights and brake lights are still CLEARLY visible even at 1000 feet and our state law requires tail lights to be visible at 300 ft.

[akirby]

You're kidding, right? It's translucent paint. Tail lights and brake lights are still CLEARLY visible even at 1000 feet and our state law requires tail lights to be visible at 300 ft.

 

They may be state legal but they're not DOT legal. And there's a reason for that.

[GT_IE]

They may be state legal but they're not DOT legal. And there's a reason for that.

 

What exactly is DOT legal? Does the DOT pass laws? Are there DOT police on the interstates now? Or, since that is a Federal Agency does the FBI handle it?

[akirby]

What exactly is DOT legal? Does the DOT pass laws? Are there DOT police on the interstates now? Or, since that is a Federal Agency does the FBI handle it?

 

If you don't think that tinting your taillights makes them less visible to other drivers and is therefore a safety issue (especially in the daytime) then you're extremely naive or you put looks above safety. End of discussion.

[GT_IE]

I don't think naive means what you think it means.

 

I don't use my tail lights during the day.

 

I am pretty confident that it does not reduce the visibility of my brakelights having actually studied the issue. Are you basing your statements about reduced visibility on any actual facts, or just a prejudice against smoked lights.

[LoveTaurus]

Just last month, I happened to follow an Accord with smoked taillights during day time. I slowed down to stay further. "Could anyone please cut in front of me." I thought. Because I couldn't see the brake lights ..........

[GT_IE]

Just last month, I happened to follow an Accord with smoked taillights during day time. I slowed down to stay further. "Could anyone please cut in front of me." I thought. Because I couldn't see the brake lights ..........

 

Seriously? Come on people. Here it is, 3 photos at High Noon from 43 feet away. Can you guess which one is with the brakes on? You have a 1 in 3 chance.

 

 

Bonus points if you can also find the one with just the tail lights on!

Edited October 5, 2011 by GT_IE

[GT_IE]

amazing how the trolls disappear when confronted with facts.

[akirby]

amazing how the trolls disappear when confronted with facts.

 

Amazing how the idiots continue to post when reasonable people try to avoid further pointless arguing.

 

You can't change the laws of physics. Tinting reduces visibility - period. Maybe it doesn't reduce it enough to be a big problem but that still doesn't make it a good idea.

 

But since I know you don't care and will do whatever you want and rationalize your decision, there is no point in arguing. Enjoy your MKT.

[akirby]

And since you're being so uppity about it, here is the GA LAW that makes it illegal.

 

Georgia State Code 40-8-23

 

(e) All lenses on taillights shall be maintained in good repair and shall meet manufacturers' specifications.

 

So it's ILLEGAL, it's LESS SAFE and if someone hits you from behind you would probably be found AT FAULT.

 

But hey, it looks cool!

[GT_IE]

so, are you a lawyer? It is original OEM equipment, so it meets specifications. When darkening is not allowed at all, such as on headlights, the law explicitly states such. When darkening is restricted, the law states such. For instance on windows it tells how dark they can be. Similarly, on tail lights it tells how dark they can be. It does so by specifying how many Lumens or Candelas the light must produce.

 

Georgia Appeals courts have also ruled that evidence discovered when the only probable cause for the stop was that specific statute, part e, was inadmissable. It basically came down to saying the officer had no idea what the manufacturers specs are so how could he possibly have cause to pull the person over.

 

edit: and by the way, the lawyer I consulted said "Oh, you need to look at the mfgs specs for brightness then see if tinting will take it below minimum"

 

edit, edit: the headlight law states "(d) The headlights required by this Code section shall be maintained in proper working condition and shall not be covered by any type of material," No such law for tail/brake lights. It merely states the visibility requirement.

 

Your judgement that it makes them "less safe" is completely baseless. anyone behind me at any distance where there is the remote possibility that they could hit me can CLEARLY see when the brakelights are illuminated. Clearly. Easily. Obviously.

 

I am glad you think it looks cool though, thanks.

Edited October 6, 2011 by GT_IE

[akirby]

so, are you a lawyer? It is original OEM equipment, so it meets specifications. When darkening is not allowed at all, such as on headlights, the law explicitly states such. When darkening is restricted, the law states such. For instance on windows it tells how dark they can be. Similarly, on tail lights it tells how dark they can be. It does so by specifying how many Lumens or Candelas the light must produce.

 

Georgia Appeals courts have also ruled that evidence discovered when the only probable cause for the stop was that specific statute, part e, was inadmissable. It basically came down to saying the officer had no idea what the manufacturers specs are so how could he possibly have cause to pull the person over.

 

edit: and by the way, the lawyer I consulted said "Oh, you need to look at the mfgs specs for brightness then see if tinting will take it below minimum"

 

edit, edit: the headlight law states "(d) The headlights required by this Code section shall be maintained in proper working condition and shall not be covered by any type of material," No such law for tail/brake lights. It merely states the visibility requirement.

 

Your judgement that it makes them "less safe" is completely baseless. anyone behind me at any distance where there is the remote possibility that they could hit me can CLEARLY see when the brakelights are illuminated. Clearly. Easily. Obviously.

 

I am glad you think it looks cool though, thanks.

 

You can rationalize anything if you think about it long enough. I used to do it myself before I realized I was only fooling myself.

 

But since I know you don't care and will do whatever you want and rationalize your decision, there is no point in arguing.

 

Thanks for proving me right.

[GT_IE]

i don't think rationalize means what you think it means.

 

rationalize: Attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true.

 

a ) I haven't tried to explain or justify my behavior or attitude. I've provided facts demonstrating that my behavior is neither illegal nor unsafe. I doesn't explain it, and there is nothing that needs to be justified.

 

b ) what have I said that is untrue? Are the pictures in full daylight, when you said they would be especially hard to see, "untrue"?

 

You are attempting to contort the Georgia Law to support your irrational assertions that this is unsafe and illegal. They are OEM parts, they meet manufacturers' specs. They are CLEARLY visible from 500 feet as the law requires. Hell, they are visible from twice that far.

 

And, yes, I that quote is actually from an attorney whom I asked specifically about this statute.

Edited October 6, 2011 by GT_IE

[GT_IE]

Oh my god AKirby, I just realized you are the same person who argued in another thread that

 

"The instructions say to "turn on the car". It doesn't specifically say "crank the car" or "start the engine". "

 

You really do grasp at straws to support your arguments don't you. As if any reasonable human would think that "turn on the car" means anything OTHER than "start the engine"

[akirby]

And, yes, I that quote is actually from an attorney whom I asked specifically about this statute.

 

Funny thing about attorneys. On average they're wrong half the time.

 

I'm not going to continue to argue with you because you can't be reasoned with. I say it's illegal and stupid and you say it's not. You're not going to convince me otherwise and I know you won't be convinced otherwise regardless of any evidence that might be presented.

 

So what's the point?

[GT_IE]

I can absolutely be reasoned with, you simply use no reason in your argument. You basically say "it is unsafe because I say it is"

 

You spew rhetoric. Ignorant, prejudiced rhetoric. Yes, prejudiced. It means pre-judged. As in, you made up your mind before considering any facts.

 

I have shown pictures, studied statutes, read case-law, and spoken to attorney. You have called me names like idiot and said what I do is stupid.

 

I challenge you to cite 1 accident where a person hit from behind was found to be at fault on the basis that their rear lights were tinted. One case. Anywhere. Ever.

 

You sir, are a troll.

 

troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community. Statements like...

 

"I hope you're not planning to drive at night. " IGNORANT

"They're not DOT legal" FALSE

"tinting your taillights makes them less visible to other drivers and is therefore a safety issue (especially in the daytime)" <--- NO EVIDENCE THEY ARE LESS VISIBLE

"idiots continue to post" INFLAMATORY

"GA LAW that makes it illegal." FALSE

"I say it's illegal and stupid" someone who just posts to assert things that are not true and call names like stupid is the epitome of a troll

[akirby]

I can absolutely be reasoned with, you simply use no reason in your argument. You basically say "it is unsafe because I say it is"

 

You spew rhetoric. Ignorant, prejudiced rhetoric. Yes, prejudiced. It means pre-judged. As in, you made up your mind before considering any facts.

 

I have shown pictures, studied statutes, read case-law, and spoken to attorney. You have called me names like idiot and said what I do is stupid.

 

I challenge you to cite 1 accident where a person hit from behind was found to be at fault on the basis that their rear lights were tinted. One case. Anywhere. Ever.

 

You sir, are a troll.

 

troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community. Statements like...

 

"I hope you're not planning to drive at night. " IGNORANT

"They're not DOT legal" FALSE

"tinting your taillights makes them less visible to other drivers and is therefore a safety issue (especially in the daytime)" <--- NO EVIDENCE THEY ARE LESS VISIBLE

"idiots continue to post" INFLAMATORY

"GA LAW that makes it illegal." FALSE

"I say it's illegal and stupid" someone who just posts to assert things that are not true and call names like stupid is the epitome of a troll

 

All you do is attack people who don't agree with you. I've been posting here over 5 years and visiting for almost 10. You just joined a few days ago. If anyone is acting like a troll it's you.

 

Do whatever you want. It's a free country. I made my point and I'm done.

[GT_IE]

All you do is attack people who don't agree with you. I've been posting here over 5 years and visiting for almost 10. You just joined a few days ago. If anyone is acting like a troll it's you.

 

Do whatever you want. It's a free country. I made my point and I'm done.

 

No, i don't just attack people. I respond to misinformation.

 

If you had simply said, "man, i think that is ugly as shit and makes it look like white trash drives that car" i would have responed by saying that you are welcome to your opinion.

 

But when you make baseless claims that it is illegal and unsafe i will refute them. And when you troll peoples threads and spout misinformation as fact, i'll call you on it.

 

Your opinion that smoking is ugly and i am an asshole are yours to own, good for you. Telling people this is illegal and unsafe and that i am stupid for not agreeing with you is ignorant and arrogant.

Edited October 7, 2011 by GT_IE

[akirby]

No, i don't just attack people. I respond to misinformation.

 

If you had simply said, "man, i think that is ugly as shit and makes it look like white trash drives that car" i would have responed by saying that you are welcome to your opinion.

 

But when you make baseless claims that it is illegal and unsafe i will refute them. And when you troll peoples threads and spout misinformation as fact, i'll call you on it.

 

Your opinion that smoking is ugly and i am an asshole are yours to own, good for you. Telling people this is illegal and unsafe and that i am stupid for not agreeing with you is ignorant and arrogant.

 

And all that you needed to say was "I know it's technically illegal and it may make it slightly harder to see the rear taillights and brake lights but I don't think it's enough to be a big concern."

 

Thousands of drivers get tickets for tinted tail lights every year. If they don't come that way from the factory then they're illegal. Period. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.

 

Don't you find it strange that nobody has jumped in to defend you on this?

[NickF1011]

There was a GIGANTIC thread about this same topic several months ago on another forum that went viral on many car forums. It concerned a guy who tinted his Pontiac G8 tail lights and he received a repair order for them afterward which he fought. After all the chiming in by gearheads, laymen, lawyers, U.S. diving team, and the Boy Scouts of America, he ended up finally admitting they were illegal, he paid his court costs, and everybody moved on.

 

Whether they are safe or not really isn't the issue. If done properly, the lumens really won't be affected too much, but in the end, altering the OE lights in ANY fashion is illegal pretty much everywhere.

 

Will you ever get in trouble for it? Realistically, probably not unless you are doing something else wrong to garner special attention. So hey, do what you want. I'm running aftermarket headlights and HMCSL on my Mustang. I know I could get in trouble for them, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. :shrug:

 

Now knock off the name calling both of you! :P

 

SIDE NOTE: I'm really digging the blacked-out grille.

Edited October 7, 2011 by NickF1011

[GT_IE]

And all that you needed to say was "I know it's technically illegal and it may make it slightly harder to see the rear taillights and brake lights but I don't think it's enough to be a big concern."

 

Thousands of drivers get tickets for tinted tail lights every year. If they don't come that way from the factory then they're illegal. Period. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.

 

Don't you find it strange that nobody has jumped in to defend you on this?

 

A. No it isn't weird. This forum is dead.

B. You are wrong. It is NOT illegal in GA. Find me 1 person from GA with a ticket. Tinting headlights is illegal, tinting tail lights isn't.

 

When you spout hyperbole like "if you get hit from behind you will be at fault" you are just plain, dead wrong. You are just trying to bring people to your side with false claims and rhetoric.

 

For example, which "law of physics" is it that you think applies here? Because in my year of physics at Georgia Tech, i don't remember covering one. You do realize don't you that there are materials on this planet that let light through is one direction but not another? Explain to me please why in my pictures the tail light turns from black to red when i turn on the headlights.

[GT_IE]

 

Now knock off the name calling both of you! :P

 

SIDE NOTE: I'm really digging the blacked-out grille.

fine by me. I had already done a response. U can delete it mod

 

I like the grill so much i am considering taking the plasti dip off and doing it proper with paint