I'm getting tired of seeing the bright orange front side markers on my black coupe. They just look out of place to me. I really want to purchase the clear side markers but I just can't make myself pay the $100. Has anyone painted their markers to match the car? I've seen this done on a few Range Rovers and it looked very clean. What do you guys think?

 

blc,

If you absolutely hate the side markers, a better idea might be to remove them all together, cover the opening with a mesh grille and plumb some ducting to serve as either a CAI or brake cooling.

Kevin

 

Hmmm, IMO... a small side mesh grill covering the side marker lights would look like crap and unless there is some kind of scoop to capture the air, forget about forced air for any kind of cooling.

 

i did this on my M3. but it was just a yellow reflector (not a light bulb behind it).

it should work on the crossfire... but you will have a dash light on if you remove the bulb.

m3b.jpg

 

Is is legal to cover up the side markers?

 

Probably not, but who's going to bust ya?

 

If your car is registered in PA or some other state that has yearly inspections... then expect a "gotcha" or find a good 'ole boy shop and slide them a few extra $$$ (...and yes Virginia, there are still shops like that around, at least in Western PA).

Andrew, nice job of hiding yours.

 

Maybe you could cover them with some dark tint since your Crossfire is black. That should make them blend almost out of sight.

 

Mine are Completely shaved off; Front and Rear bumper...IMO...it looks much cleaner and stretches the car a little...with them there...your eye is stopped by them...w/o them it flows better!

 

Any pictures and how you did it? I photo-chopped mine...

 

Actually the rear tail lights wrap around enough that the rear side marker lights are probably not needed to pass the Fed. Regs.
Since side marker lights have been around since 1968, (on American cars) I guess I've grown so used to them that they really don't bother me that much on the Crossfire.
Now if Chrysler had placed them on the fender between the wheel well and the door (like BMW does) that would really cheese me off.
To bad Chrysler couldn't have gone "retro" and reproduced the little round marker lights like they used on the '68 Dodge and Plymouths. (Those were the best ones ever IMO) But the Feds would have probably said no way.

 

For the cost of these alternatives (time, labor, $$) you might just be better off to spend the $100. Plus, the clear corners are swappable back to stock for legal/resale reasons. C'mon, its a nice sports car, $100 isn't that bad, pass up on Starbucks for a couple months.

 

Yeah, I probably should just pay the $100 and be done with it. A friend of mine who customizes Range Rovers has a new black paint for side markers that looks solid black when not lit, but when the bulb is lit, it shines through. It looks very nice. I may try this first before buying the clear ones.

 

I don't think the side marker lights are a US requirement, but there are US requirements regarding reflective markers front and rear on each side.

 

Eikon, You may be correct about the Federal Laws concerning what is and what's not required by the U.S. when it comes to marker lights. But if the American auto makers could comply with the regulations by simply attaching a set of stick-on KMART reflectors, I would have to think that they wouldn't go to all the trouble of running extra wiring, installing light fixtures, bulbs and lenses to the millions of U.S. bound cars if they weren't required to do so.
If they can save $.02 on every vehicle they build, they will do it. That's one of the reasons the new Camaro will be built in Canada, because Canadian auto workers were willing to give up 2 minutes (per shift) of "paid break time" giving G.M. an extra 120 cars produced a month because of that single concession.

 

You are right, but since you have to make the car for many countries, some that do require the lighted side markers, you put side markers on all the cars, because to do some with and some without would be too costly.