![]() |
Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 1,133
|
Re: Blinker issue new painless wiring
I thought the rear was a 1156
__________________
1972 SWB Medium Olive South Houston Instagram: Antbish84 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Hand Crafted C-10
![]() Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Burien, WA
Posts: 5,180
|
Re: Blinker issue new painless wiring
Stock is 1157 and 2057 is a tad less bright but runs cooler.
Same base and totally OK no matter which you choose. Both will work but because my lenses are stock and quite old, I use 2057. For sure, use the 1157 on a trailer because they are brighter. Does anyone know anything about 2357 bulbs? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Hand Crafted C-10
![]() Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Burien, WA
Posts: 5,180
|
Re: Blinker issue new painless wiring
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: maple valley wa
Posts: 46
|
Re: Blinker issue new painless wiring
If my memory serves me correct a 1157 2057 2357 are all the basic same double filament bulbs. A 1156 bulb is single filament and is used in the backup lights. Front should also be double filament
Jim Ellis |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
![]() Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Colfax-California
Posts: 8,732
|
Re: Blinker issue new painless wiring
Are they the same brightness? Crossed wires on the one side?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: maple valley wa
Posts: 46
|
Re: Blinker issue new painless wiring
the 1157 2057 and 2357 all are 8.26 watts on the low side, and the 1157 and 2057 are 26.88 watts on the high side(brake,turn signal). The 2357 is the same watt on the low side, but is28.54 on the high side. hope this helps. I am using 2357 bulbs in both front and rear on my 69 as they show up better on the brake,turn signal side.
jim ellis |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|