YODAONE

The third stop lamp on our 1995+ LS400 uses two T-5 incandescent bulbs. (Not sure if earlier LS400 use smaller T 3-1/4)

After 20 + years the bulbs are tired....inside the glass envelope is somewhat black suggesting proactive maintenance.

Toyota used excellent quality Oshino or Toshiba brand incandescent bulbs.

Dealer replacement bulbs are manufactured in Slovakia...

An aside...

30 years ago Intermatic was looking for a way to color the T-5 incandescent bulbs on their Malibu lamps, so I offered them a solution; An array of colored high temperature military grade silicone rubber boots which slipped over the bulb.

A lot of back and forth with the rubber formula to achieve 575 - 600 F temperature rating and best translucency...

Of course everything is LED now, but it was a big thing then.

Fast forward....

So for the third stop lamp I observed hot spots in the lense when the brake lights are activated...

So by capping the bulbs with red siliconeT-5 sized boots, the bulbs ibacklight the lense with uniformity, and in true red.

It now appears someone cared....

The added benefit of silicone caps is they dampen and heat sink the bulbs therby increasing bulb life 5%.

Old school but effective and inexpensive.

Toyota replacement bulb P.N.'s and Silikrome P.N.'s: information depicted below:




Silikrome filter on bulb....some trimming with scissors required to accommodate socket....
Ordering info from Mouser Electronics...no minimum order...

Will perform a seperate posting on the right and left taillamp lenses for the T 3-1/4 lamps and correcting hot spots there....

YODAONE

Additional.images of third brake lamp assembly relamping process and application of T-5 sized red Silikrome color filters to promote diffusion and eliminate filament induced hot spots.
Original OEM T-5 incandescent LT921 bulbs are manufactured in China...
The blackened glass envelope reduces light output 70-80%

After applying red T-5 Silikrome lamp filters, inserting new bulbs into third brake lamp assembly.
Third brake light assembly with red color filters presents uniform red luminosity as with LED's

Located this very helpful posting containing how-to for removal of third brake light assembly with images.

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/ls-1st-and-2nd-gen-1990-2000/511347-third-brake-light-ls400-3rd-gen-light-bulb-fix.html

All rear facing incandescent bulbs on our high mileage 20+ year old LS400's are probably in similar blackened condition....for safety's sake be proactive and replace all.

timmy0tool

iTrader: (7)

wouldn't applying a coating, or in this case a silicone cap, over the bulb decrease its life not increase it?
you did mentioned that it acted has a heat sink which is certainly a good thing, but wouldn't the filament become insulated thus containing the heat to the inside as well?

this is from my limited knowledge of materials and heat transfer, but the difference looks great. uniformity is definitely important!

as for that made in china bulb, that must have been an aftermarket replacement. most bulbs I removed always had japan stamped (with said black envelope coating).

YODAONE

Both bulbs were blackened and Chinese made....and so appear original.

If someone has an image of same T-5 bulb made in Japan, then please post it because what Lexus sells now is made in Slovakia.

Tooling for incandescent bulb production is incredibly expensive, so Toyota or their supplier might have sourced elsewhere, here China.

The color filter manufacturer is APM-Hexseal, and they performed extensive testing to validate the 5% claim for increased life expectancy...silicone rubber is a dampening material...and all cars vibrate at various frequencies.

Our door illuminaries , and trunk mounted license plate bulbs would be excellent candidates...lots of shock to the bulb filaments when the trunk or doors are slammed shut.

Again, Lexus did use various silicon filter caps in other parts of the car. .such as dash cluster, so trust all can agree they did so not in an effort to degrade life expectancy of the bulbs..

valex

Most of the bulbs on my '99LS lasted over 15 years, some are still original.

Losiracer2

Every bulb i've removed from my Lexus has either had Toshiba, Koito or Stanley stamped on it. I doubt Lexus ever used Chinese parts on their cars. Back then, these cars were hand built in Japan. You'd never find anything Chinese put into this vehicle.

YODAONE

Anyone able to determine Country of origin or brand of original 3rd brake light T-5 bulbs?

YODAONE

In the name of "safety" red light cameras have become all of the rage...but in reality they are employed to increase city revenues

So with a fast yellow/ impending red light, a motorist is more likely to attempt to stop in an unsafe distance to avoid a ticket.

The issue is whether the car tailing can stop in time...

Incandescents turn on time is
about .2 - .3 second longer than LED...or more if voltage drop...

Attached is informative article on topic which discusses how LED's prevent accidents.

Will work LEDs into the third brake light assembly in tandem with T-5 incandescent bulbs...

Following is article text:

LED Stop Lamps Help Reduce
the Number and Severity of
Automobile Accidents

Note 1155-3
Summary
Another benefit of LED rear brake
lamps is their significantly faster
turn-on time than conventional
incandescent signal lamps. This
faster turn-on time provides a
safety benefit to the vehicle
following the vehicle using faster
brake lights in situations requiring
fast braking responses. The
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s (NHTSA) 1996
Traffic Safety Facts estimates
that 28% of all accidents are
caused by one vehicle rear-ending
another vehicle. This is the
second largest cause of accidents
(the largest cause being angled
collisions between two vehicles at
36%). A recent article in Ward’s
NOTE:
Light Emitting Diodes
(LEDs) illuminate 200
milliseconds faster than
incandescent bulbs –
For an automobile this
means a faster braking
distance response time,
about a full car length
of extra stopping
distance at 65 MPH.
Auto World quotes Robert
Schumacher, Delphi’s director of
advanced engineering, as follows:
“Our research shows that
between 37% and 74% of rear-end
collisions are preventable by early
warning systems.... Just 0.5
seconds [500 ms] in early warning
would reduce rear-end collisions
by 60%.” Two UMTRI studies
conclude that LED signals provide
a braking response time
advantage between 170 and 200
ms under favorable lighting
conditions and up to 300 ms
under adverse lighting conditions
(e.g., viewing at a distance with
high-intensity illumination on the
lamp surface). Note that a 200 ms
improvement in braking response
time is equivalent to a 19.1 feet
reduction in stopping distance at
a speed of 65 MPH.
In addition, the turn-on time for
incandescent bulbs is adversely
affected by reduced voltage at the
signal light. A study by NHTSA of
546 large trucks showed that
some trucks have such large
voltage drops in the wiring that
the voltage across the signal lamp
is reduced to voltages in the range
of 5.5 to 8.8 V. A study by UMTRI
shows that at these reduced
voltages, the turn-on times of
incandescent bulbs can increase
by as much as a factor of two.
This means that braking response
time of the following driver would
be adversely affected by the
response time of the truck’s stop
lamp. In addition, the light output
of the signal light can be reduced
to 5% of the nominal value, which
could cause the following driver
to confuse the tail and stop signal
functions. Thus, the use of LED
brake lights for heavy trucks
would provide an even larger
safety benefit than for passenger
vehicles.
In addition to the benefits caused
by the faster response time of
LED brake lamps, another safety
benefit is that emergency flashers
using LED signal lights reduce the
electrical current drain on the car
battery. The expected electrical
current required for LED signal
lights is covered in detail in
Application Note 1155-2,
“Electrical Power Consumption
Savings for LED Signal Lights.”
Reduced electrical current usage
increases the operating time of
the flashers as well as reduces the
likelihood of a dead battery.
Studies by NHTSA indicate that
the braking response time
improvement for the use of
incandescent bulb Center High
Mount Stop Lamps (CHMSL) is in
the range of 90 ms for light trucks
and 110 ms for passenger
vehicles. NHTSA has evaluated
the long-term effectiveness of
CHMSL for reducing accidents
and concluded that they reduce
the incidence of rear-end
collisions by 4.33 per cent. At the
time the study was done, almost
all of the CHMSL on the road used
incandescent bulb technology.
The report concludes that if every
car and light truck had a CHMSL
that they would reduce property
damage associated with motor
vehicle crashes by $655 million
per year. Another NHTSA report
concluded that property damage
only accounts for 35% to 24% of
the complete economic costs due
to motor vehicle crashes. Thus,
the total economic cost saved by
the use of incandescent bulb
CHMSL is in the range of $1.87
billion to $2.73 billion per year.
Considering that there are
192,213,000 registered vehicles
during the year of the study, then
the total economic cost saving for
the use of incandescent bulb
CHMSL is in the range of $9.73 to
$14.19 per vehicle per year. If the
average life of a motor vehicle is
10 years, then the total economic
savings for the use of an
incandescent bulb CHMSL is in
the range of $97 to $141.
The braking response time due to
the use of LED signals is in the
order of 200 to 300 ms for
passenger vehicles, and even
more for large trucks. NHTSA
concluded that the braking
response time for the use of
incandescent bulb CHMSL is in
the range of 90 to 110 ms.
Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that the economic cost
savings of LED rear brake lights
and CHMSLs should be
significantly larger in reducing the
number and severity of motor
vehicle crashes than the
economic cost savings of
incandescent bulb CHMSLs alone.
Detail
It is generally well known that
LED technology has a
significantly faster turn-on time
than incandescent bulbs. Typical
incandescent bulbs used for
automotive signal lighting have
turn-on times in the range of 100
to 300 ms.[1] In general, the turn-
on of LED lamps is less than 100
ns. Further, LED lamps don’t
exhibit a high in-rush current,
which might further delay the
turn-on time. This faster turn-on
time provides a safety benefit to
the vehicle following the vehicle
using faster brake lights in
situations requiring fast braking
responses. For example, at a
speed of 65 miles per hour, a 200
ms faster braking response time
from the driver in the following
vehicle would reduce the
minimum braking distance by:
A number of incandescent bulbs
were characterized to determine
the turn-on time when driven with
a fast rise time circuit. The basic
circuit used a high current power
supply (>17 A) supplying current
to the bulb and power MOSFET
switch. The power supply was set
to 12.8 V. The power MOSFET
had an on resistance of 0.1 ohm
and switching speed of 50 ns. The
bulb was mounted at the end of a
#16 gauge 10 foot wire harness
(20 feet supply and return) to
simulate the effect of wire
inductance that would be
experienced in an automotive
application. Typical results for
one of the bulbs and an LED
CHMSL array are shown in Figure
1. The summary of results is
shown in Table 1.
Over the years a number of
studies have been made on the
braking response times of drivers
to LED and incandescent
technology automotive stop
lamps. One of the first studies
was done by the University of
Michigan Transportation Institute
(UMTRI) and published in their
paper 87-13 titled “Evaluation of
an LED High-Mounted Signal
Lamp.” The study compared the
braking response times for 20
subjects with ten trials per lamp
Bulb type Application Design V Design I Approximate 0 to 90%
(V) (A) candlepower response
(mscd) time (ms)
912 CHMSL 12.8 1.0 12 131
921 CHMSL 12.8 1.4 21 155
922 CHMSL 12.8 0.98 15 118
1141 CHMSL 12.8 1.44 21 164
1156 Rear Stop 12.8 2.1 32 225
1157 Rear Stop 12.8 2.1 32 219
2057 Rear Stop 12.8 2.1 32 218
3057 Rear Stop 12.8 2.1 32 245
3157 Rear Stop 12.8 2.1 32 246
Table 1. Turn-on time of commonly used automotive signal bulbs.
0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
RESPONSE TIME (ms)
NORMALIZED LIGHT OUTPUT
#1141 BULB
LED
Figure 1. Typical turn-on times of #1141 incandescent filament bulb and
LED signal light at 12.8 V.
in response to an LED stop lamp
and an incandescent bulb stop
lamp. For their tests, they
reported a 60 ns (10% to 90%) turn
on time for the LED stop lamp
(100 ns, 0 to 90% turn on time)
and a 140 ms (10% to 90%) turn on
time for the bulb stop lamp (250
ms, 0 to 90% turn on time).[2] The
measured braking response times
had a mean braking response time
of 430 ms for the LED stop lamp
and 690 ms for the bulb stop
lamp.[3] The following is a quote
from their paper:
The results of this
investigation provide evidence
that the LED HHSL has a
significant advantage over the
conventional incandescent
HMSL in terms of the response
time of following drivers. The
rise-time characteristics of the
two types of lamps led to an
expected response time
difference of about 0.14
second. Under this test that were most
favorable for viewing light
signals, the LED units provided
a response time advantage
slightly greater than expected,
about 0.20 second. Under less
favorable conditions (e.g.,
viewing at a distance, high-
intensity illumination on the
lamp surface) the attention-
getting properties of the LED
units appear to be less affected
than those of the incandescent
units, and the response time
advantage increased to about
0.30 second.
The fact that the response time
advantage enjoyed by LED
signal lamps is greater than
would be predicted based on
their rise-time characteristics
suggests that they may have
greater conspicuity than
incandescent sources of the
same intensity. This greater
conspicuity may be
attributable to the LED’s brief
rise-time. That is, a lamp that
quickly reaches maximum
output may have better
attention-getting
characteristics than one that
takes a longer time to reach
maximum output.[4]
UMTRI published a second paper,
93-37, titled “Reaction times to
Neon, LED, and Fast Incandescent
Brake Lamps.” The study
compared the braking response
times for 16 subjects with eight
trials per lamp. Each of the “fast”
signal lamps was compared to the
braking response of a #1157 bulb.
The fast incandescent lamp was
created by driving the standard
#1157 bulb with a special circuit
that kept the filament warm prior
to the turn-on of the bulb and
generated a brief over voltage at
the time of turn-on. The measured
braking response time had a mean
braking response time of 503 ms
for the LED stop lamp and 662 ms
for the standard #1157 stop
lamp.[5] In addition, the paper
examined the distribution of the
reaction times and found that the
distributions were positively
skewed (i.e., there were more
long reaction times than expected
with a normal distribution). The
subjects had 8.4% of their braking
response times in excess of one
second with the standard
incandescent bulb stop lamp, and
3.4% of their responses greater
than one second for the LED stop
lamp.[6] Thus, in addition to
improving the average braking
response times, the use of LED
stop lamps can be expected to
reduce the cases of a missed
braking signal. The following is a
quote from their paper:
The main finding of this study
is that there are several viable
alternatives to the standard
incandescent brake lamps, all
leading to substantially shorter
reaction times. The neon, LED,
and fast incandescent bulbs all
yielded shorter reaction times
than did the standard
incandescent lamps. The
fastest reaction times were
obtained from both the neon
and the LED lamps, followed
by the fast incandescent lamp.
Averaged over both levels of
luminous intensity, the
difference between the neon
and LED lamps, on the one
hand, and the standard
incandescent lamp, on the
other hand, averaged 166 ms.[7]
A nonparametric analysis of
very long reaction times
confirmed the advantage of the
neon, LED, and fast
incandescent lamps.
Specifically, there were
substantially fewer reaction
times that were longer than
one second for the neon, LED,
and fast incandescent lamps
than for the standard
incandescent lamp.[8]
During the Society of Automotive
Engineers International
Exposition trade show for 1991
through 1993, Hewlett-Packard
had a demonstration unit that
allowed a show attendee to
compare his braking response
times due to an LED CHMSL
versus an incandescent CHMSL.
Over the three-year period, 790
people participated in the study.
The demo consisted of a car
“buck” based on a Ford Taurus
front seat, dashboard, steering
wheel, and brake and gas pedals.
Mounted in front of the car “buck”
were four CHMSLs that were
turned on pseudo randomly by a
microprocessor controller. The
LED CHMSLs used an array of
HPWA-MH00 LED lamps. The
bulb CHMSL used several #1141
bulbs. The microprocessor
controller measured the delay
time from the instant that power
was applied to the signal until the
time that the brake pedal was
depressed. Each participant
underwent six trials, consisting of
three each LED and bulb signals.
As the demo was designed for
entertainment and not for
scientific research, the trials were
not as well controlled as either of
the UMTRI studies cited earlier.
The average results are shown in
Figure 2. This graph shows the
mean braking response times with
all data points greater than 1.2
seconds removed from the data
set. Note that the braking
response times improved for each
successive trial. However,
comparing the LED to
incandescent average braking
response times at each trial
results in an average braking
response time reduction of 130
ms.
Besides their generally slower
turn-on times, bulbs have the
further disadvantage that their
turn-on times are further
increased when they are driven at
lower voltages. This can be
especially a problem due to the
voltage drop in the wiring
harness. By comparison, the turn-
on time of LED lamps is relatively
insensitive to drive current. The
U.S. Department of
Transportation studied 546 large
trucks (Copenhaver, Guirrier, and
Table 2. Voltage at brake lamps for a sample of 546 large trucks
(adapted from Copenhaver et al., 1990)[10]
Vehicle Type Min. (V) Max. (V) Mean (V) Standard
Deviation (V)
Dump trucks 10.3 13.1 12.2 0.8
Vans 8.8 13.8 11.6 1.0
Tankers 7.5 13.4 11.5 1.2
Flat-beds 6.5 13.2 11.4 1.2
Double Trailers 6.0 12.4 9.8 1.5
Triple Trailers 5.5 11.1 8.4 1.6
Ching, 1990).[9] At idle speed the
voltages measured at the signal
lights were substantially less than
the nominal ignition voltage as
shown in Table 2. The following
table is summarized from their
paper.
UMTRI has published another
paper, 93-28, titled “Effects of
Voltage Drop on Rise Time and
Light Output of Incandescent
Brake Lamps on Trucks.” This
study measured the turn-on time
and luminous intensity (through a
red filter) for an #1157 bulb at
voltages lower than its 12.8 V
design voltage. The results are
summarized in Table 3.
Reaction time to the onset of
light stimuli increases with
either an increase in the rise
time of the stimulus
(Flannagan and Sivak, 1989),
or a decrease in the intensity
of the stimulus (Teichner and
Krebs, 1972). Consequently,
the obtained changes in rise
time and light output of
incandescent lamps as a
function of voltage are of
practical importance. Reduced
voltage can be expected to
cause an increase in reaction
times of following drivers to
brake signals. Furthermore,
the reduced light output will
likely result in an increase
in the frequency of missed
brake signals.[12]
Thus the use of an LED signal
lamp provides an improved
braking response time on the
order of 200 ms as compared to a
conventional incandescent signal
lamp. In addition, the faster rise
time of the LED signal lamp is
more attention getting than the
slower rise time of a conventional
incandescent signal lamp. The
difficulty is in equating these
benefits for LED signal lamps into
cost savings either for the car
manufacturer or car owner.
NTHSA has evaluated the
different causes of accidents.
Their technical report, DOT HS
808 649, titled “Traffic Safety
Facts 1996”, estimates that 28% of
all accidents are caused by one
vehicle rear-ending another
vehicle. This is the second largest
cause of accidents. The largest
cause of accidents at 36% is one
vehicle colliding with a second
vehicle in an angled collision.
These types of collisions are
much more frequent than single
car collisions with a fixed object
(i.e., post, ditch, tree, guard rail,
embankment, etc.) at 15% or
collisions with an unfixed object
(i.e. parked car, animal,
pedestrian, bicycle, train, etc.) at
12%.[13]
A recent article in Ward’s Auto
World quotes Robert Schumacher,
Delphi’s director of advanced
engineering, as follows: “Our
research shows that between 37%
and 74% of rear-end collisions are
preventable by early warning
systems.” Mr. Schumacher tells a
group of journalists during a
future technology seminar at
Delphi headquarters in Troy, MI.
“Just 0.5 seconds [500 ms] in early
warning would reduce rear-end
collisions by 60%.”[14]
Several years ago, the National
Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)
mandated the use of center high-
mounted stop lamps (CHMSL) on
passenger cars and light trucks.
Their initial studies showed a
reduction in accidents due to the
faster braking response time of
following cars and improved
conspicuity of the signal lamp.
Following the promulgation of the
CHMSL, NHTSA has further
Table 3. Turn-on time and normalized luminous intensity of
#1157 bulb at reduced voltages.[11]
Voltage 0 to 90% Normalized
turn-on time (ms) Luminous Intensity
12.8 259 1.00
12 282 0.79
11 294 0.59
10 320 0.42
9 372 0.28
8 410 0.18
7 487 0.10
6 575 0.05
evaluated the cost effectiveness
of the CHMSL in reducing
accidents.
In 1998, NHTSA published a
technical report, DOT HS 808 696,
titled “The Long-term
Effectiveness of Center High
Mounted Stop Lamps in
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.”
This report compares the accident
statistics of cars and light trucks
equipped with CHMSLs versus
similar vehicles without them. At
the time the study was done,
almost all vehicles on the road
used incandescent bulb
technology CHMSLs. The report
determined that “the most
important finding of the
evaluation is that, in the long
term, passenger car CHMSLs
reduce rear impacts by 4.3 per
cent (confidence bounds: 2.9 to
5.8 per cent).”[15]
Quoting from the NHTSA report,
cited earlier:
In 1988, NHTSA conducted
extensive tests of the reaction
times of volunteers to
simulated light trucks with
CHMSL or with conventional
brake lights. The reaction time
for drivers following a truck
with CHMSL was 0.09 seconds
shorter than for drivers
following a truck without
CHMSL. That is just a slightly
lower benefit than in
passenger cars, where the
reduction in reaction time with
CHMSL was 0.11 seconds.[16]
The NHTSA report gives several
hypotheses why CHMSL might
stimulate a quicker reaction time
than conventional stop lamps.
These hypotheses include:
1. Central raised location being in
the central field of view of the
driver.
2. Lack of ambiguity in the
meaning of the signal.
3. High mounting location is
generally visible through the
windows of a following vehicle
allowing a third vehicle in a
chain to react to the braking of
the first car.
4. Interpretation of the signal as a
warning, causing following
drivers to follow at a safer
distance.
Based on an average rear collision
accident reduction rate of 4.33
per cent, the NHTSA report
concluded that:
When all cars and light trucks
have CHMSL, the lamps will
prevent an estimated 92,000 -
137,000 police-reported
crashes per year, and
approximately 102,000
unreported crashes. CHMSL
will reduce property damage
and its associated societal
costs by approximately
$655,000,000 per year (in 1994
dollars) in reported and
unreported crashes. The lamps
will prevent 58,000 - 70,000
injuries per year. [17]
The NHTSA report, DOT HS 808
649 titled “Traffic Safety Facts
1996”, estimates that in 1994 there
were 192,213,000 registered
vehicles and 2,358 billion miles
traveled.[18] Thus, the
incandescent bulb CHMSL can be
expected to reduce property
damage by ($655,000,000 /
192,213,000) or $3.40 per vehicle
per year or ($655,000,000 / 2,358
billion miles) or $0.278 per 1000
miles driven per year. If the
average life of a vehicle is 10
years, the use of incandescent
bulb CHMSLs can be expected to
reduce property damage by $34.
Property damage is only one of
the many economic costs of motor
vehicle crashes. The NHTSA
report, DOT HS 808 425, titled
“The Economic Cost of Motor
Vehicle Crashes”, evaluated the
total economic costs. These costs
include property damage costs,
productivity losses, medical costs,
rehabilitation costs, travel delay
costs, legal and court costs,
emergency service costs,
insurance and administration
costs, funeral costs, and costs to
employers. On average for all
types of motor vehicle crashes,
property damage costs only
account for 35% of the total
economic costs.[19] For motor
vehicle crashes with non-fatal
injuries only, property damage
accounts for only 24% of the total
economic costs.[20] Accounting
for these other economic costs
and assuming that the average car
has a 10 year life, then the total
economic cost savings of the
incandescent bulb CHMSL is
about $135.
The braking response time
reduction for LED signal lights is
on the order of 200 to 300 ms for
passenger vehicles and even more
for heavy trucks. The NHTSA
report concluded that the braking
response time of incandescent
bulb CHMSL is in the range of 90
to 110 ms. Thus, it is reasonable
to assume that the economic cost
savings of LED rear brake lights
and CHMSLs in reducing the
number and severity of motor
vehicle crashes should be
significantly larger than the
economic cost savings of
incandescent bulb CHMSLs alone.
References
1. GE Lighting, Miniature and
Sealed Beam Lamp Catalog,
(Cleveland, OH: GE Lighting,
9/97) 23.
2. Paul L. Olson, Evaluation of
an LED High-Mounted Signal
Lamp, University of Michigan
Transportation Research
Institute Report No. UMTRI
87-13 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMTRI,
1987) 1.
3. Olson 16.
4. Olson 23.
5. Michael Sivak, Michael J.
Flannagan, Takashi Sato, Eric
C. Traube, and Masami Aoki,
Reaction Times to Neon, LED,
and Fast Incandescent Brake
Lamps, University of Michigan
Transportation Research
Institute Report No. UMTRI
93-37 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMTRI,
1993) 8
6. Sivak Reaction 11.
7. Sivak Reaction 12.
8. Sivak Reaction 13.
9. M. M. Copenhaver, J. Guerrier,
and H. Ching, Photometric and
Electrical Performance
Characteristics of Rear
Lighting equipment On In
Service Truck Trailers,
Department of Transportation
Report No. DOT HS 807 545
(Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Transportation,
1990) 11.
10. Michael Sivak, Takashi Sato,
and Michael J. Flannagan,
Effects of Voltage Drop on
Rise Time and Light Output
of Incandescent Brake Lamps
on Trucks, University of
Michigan Transportation
Research Institute Report No.
UMTRI 93-28 (Ann Arbor, MI:
UMTRI, 1993) 1.
11. Sivak Effects 4.
12. Sivak Effects 5.
13. Traffic Safety Facts 1996,
Department of Transportation
Report No. DOT HS 808 649
(Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Transportation,
1997) 54.
14. “Delphi Sees Collision
Avoidance Technology
Catching on First Oversees,”
Ward’s Auto World, April 1998:
43.
15. Charles J. Kahane and Ellen
Hertz, The Long-Term
Effectiveness of Center High
Mounted Stop Lamps in
Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks, Department of
Transportation Report No.
DOT HS 808 696 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1998) vi.
16. Kahane 5.
17. Kahane 71.
18. DOT Facts 15.
19. Lawence J. Blincoe, The
Economic Cost of Motor
Vehicle Crashes, 1994,
Department of Transportation
Report No. DOT HS 808 425
(Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Transportation,
1994) 1.
20. Blincoe 12.

paulo57509

Sorry to dig up an old thread. I came across this thread looking for info on removing the center stop lamp for lamp replacement.

A question was asked here regarding original lamps. I'm certain that the lamps removed are original to the car. Both lamps are Koito, Made in Japan.


Koito - Made in Japan.


Koito - Made in Japan. Blistered glass.


Replacement bulbs, Made in Slovakia. Osram/Sylvania isn't necessarily represent the brand Toyota now uses as replacements. Just that the bulbs came from a bulb factory in Slovakia.