hmmm
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Camaro-IROC...pbnUgX&vxp=mtr

 

Missing the third brake light on the window, can't be 86.

 

its a 86 for sure .. just would like to know why they changed the hatch on a 6,000 mile car ..

 

Because the 86 CHMSL is effing hideous?

 

 

Doesn't it kinda look like an 86 glass with the light removed? I still remember the third brake lights coming out on all the new cars in 86, I disliked all of them. Might as well put a 3' tall traffic light on the roof as far as I was concerned. If I would have had the means to buy a new iroc back in high school, I'll bet I would have found a way to get rid of that light. A few years later I grew used to them & now actually appreciate them as part of what the cars were originally. I felt the same way able the daytime running lights that started to appear around 1996 on GM vehicles. I bought a 1995 silverado off the lot in October of 95 because I didn't like the idea of my headlights being on all the time on the 1996 model. I soon grew used to that too.....

Any idea why the light went back to the glass in the last years of the 3rd gens? DOT requirement? Always wondered that.
was it so they could go without rear spoilers?

 

 

I completely missed that. Aren't those buttons or grommets in the top of the glass for the light? Did the 86 get its brake light power from the contacts at the latch too, or was it a harness at the hinge side? I have owned an 85 & several 87's, but never looked that close at an 86 light.

 

 

If you could show that the CHMSL was removed as a deliberate modification and not an accident repair and everything else was original, it would increase the value of the car to me.

 

The issue with the spoiler 3rd brake light is that it required the entire spoiler to be replaced. The spoiler with the light is slightly deeper than the non lighted spoiler.

 

Can we agree it's 86 Glass with an 87 up spoiler? It would HAVE to have been done on purpose. Well....very likely anyhow. I wouldn't have been hard to find an 86 spoiler if that had been damaged, and as Scott mentioned, it would require all 3 parts, which would've complicated the matter unless it was done on purpose. ....looks pretty sharp, and I always hated the 86 CHMSL....I had one. Hated it. Nice documentation, but for that price, I'd have to know what the deal was.

 

 

Could have been a preference thing I suppose. Only the 2nd year of the TPI emblem & aside from the HO there were no call outs on the Z28 bumpers in previous years. Maybe the owner pulled it off for personal preference? Personally If I had the car I would have brought it all back to stock. Yes, even the high stop light. Its just what the car was & too low of miles to have any mods whatsoever imo. But, I am one of those guys that would like to "see" original air in the tires in cars like this too, so I am very biased when it comes to low mile originals. Unless they weren't on the spid decal, I wonder more about the floor mats to be honest

Should have the front license plate bracket too, but there are no holes in the grill, so that's probably been changed unless the bracket came with the car uninstalled & the dealer left it off? I find it curious that they know its only been washed 3 times in its life, but no mention of all the other details that are more notable.

 

Yeah, I'd put my money on owner disliking the ugly tacked on looking 86 3rd brake light and adding newer spoiler.

 

Remember after 86 when all the auto parts departments were selling add on third brake light kits & people were installing them on their rear package trays? Thats one part I can say I never bought

 

 

Its in Arizona now, But I was assuming based on VK3 on the build sheet & that it was ordered by a Dealer in California.

 

 

 

Looks like it has the rear TPI emblem in those picts.

So whats the deal with that? Do you think the car was sold through this CL add & then immediately listed on ebay for a flip, or the same seller?

 

My first Camaro was an '86, so I got used to that light really fast. I don't mind them at all. But, if I DID actually take the time to remove it, I sure as heck wouldn't put a different spoiler on the car just to get a stop light back. I also wouldn't go fooling around with a very low mile car. There's a flaw in the slaw, imho.

 

No flaw at all. The law states that vehicles manufactured for the 1986 model year were required to start using the 3rd brake light. You can actually be ticketed for not having the light. I had an '88 Sport Coupe with the small spoiler. I replaced it with the Z28 spoiler, but I was only able to locate one without the 3rd brake light. The body shop doing the work for me required me to sign a waiver for them stating that they weren't responsible for installing the wrong spoiler on the car. I never got in trouble for not having the 3rd brake light, but legally I could have.

The purpose of the 3rd brake light was to be mounted high enough on a car so that it could be seen by drivers in cars 2 or 3 back. They changed it to state that you only needed a center light, but didn't specify the height. The other reason for it was so that if a brake light burned out, other drivers would know you're braking. The problem with that is too many people don't maintain their cars and you'll find the 3rd brake light is out more than the regular tail lights. Or, like here in Florida, the 3rd brake is burned out and so is at least one side taillight, so you still only have one working light!!

 

 

This car was delivered to the buyer on 11/10/1985 (a early 1986 model) - so I guess that rules out a late 1986 with a 1987 rear spoiler......
I asked the seller about it but no reply yet.....

 

I was under the impression that the 145 mph speedo didn't start until after 1/1/86 production, when federal law allowed it.