Pix: Clr Side Markers, 15mm Spacers and Shiny Wheel Bolts

I think it really improves the look of the car. GHL mufflers go in on Tuesday!

Very Nice........

Looks great, but 15mm on the front seems a bit excessive. Did you do the 15MM in the rear as well? The shinny bolts look fantastic.

I agree, I think Porsche recommends 5mm up front.

please lower it...

Where did you purchase the shiny bolts ? and how much ?

Porsche rec a max of 6mm on the front, with the appropriate longer bolts, if you got them from ralph boothe, he should just swap you. You may have an oversteer/understeer problem during hard cornering, that much of a change really messes up the steering geometry creating at the very least bump steer.

Doesn't his sig say he has the M030? Must be the USM030 not RoW.

Its looks U.S. spec

I would love to see b/4 and after on that 1st pic.

Same here, as for the M030...I don't understand why they (Porsche) would sell the M030 kit in the US at the same height? Just doesn't make any sense other than $$$. Great article on PCA that I have a pdf of (if anybody wants it) that talks about the differences between the suspensions: US standard and sport (M030) being same height, RoW standard is same as US rear but 10mm lower in the front RoW sport (M030) is 10mm lower in front and 20mm lower in rear.

please lower it... More!

Oooh. Lots of replies It came with US M030. Can't lower it any more because of my driveway. Before pix can be seen at http://www.funcarsonline.com/gallery/Lee-Stuff PCA tech guys recommended 15mm all around. They said going narrower in the front would exacerbate the understeer. I drove it hard today and it handles fine. No more bump steer than it already had. The spacers and the shiny bolts are from Boothe.

PCA guys said 15??? Seriously? That is so wrong. Porsche rec'd 5MM all the way around. In fact, they sell a 5MM spacer (set of 4) and lugs set (tequipment).

From your website....this one shows it well. Wheels are not supposed to stick out past the fenders like that.

yup. anyway, I'm not going to track the car, and I like the way they look.

Well, that is what is important anyway. Enjoy.

Thanks Dell

Very welcome Lee. Cheers, Dell

I think it's time for some Dayton Wire wheels

The front looks... odd with the 15mm spacer...

I'm a fan of chrome and silver and yours look great. I would suggest finishing the job with the silver wheel crests and silver valve stem caps. I put 6mm spacers with 38mm bolts. What size bolts did you use with your 15mm conversion?

the bolts were 46mm I think. They were matched with the spacers by Boothe.

wow, i like the look of the chrome caps on the wheel bolts. I hate looking at mine every time im down on my knees polishing the rest of the rims!

Robert, I think theose are actually chrome wheel bolts not chrome caps on standard bolts.

yup. the bolts come like that from Boothe

New related question: The car has 285/30/18's in the rear and 225/40/18's in the front, and to me the rake angle looks a little negative. Anyone have an idea if 225/35/18's in the front would cause any problems?

Change your driveway (move if you have to), then lower it, a lot!

Side Blinker Mod

anyone have HELPFUL input? :-P

How do you do that? Never mind, just found the link, how long does it take?

Nice gif OE

Dell, question: Is the RoW M030 10mm lower in front than RoW Standard, for a total of 20mm lower than US?

The side marker blinker mod takes about a half an hour to do. It is very easy.

Oops, looks like fingers got moving faster than my brain. Here is the breakdown with US standard being the baseline: Front: US standard and US sport front are the same. RoW standard is 10MM lower and RoW sport is 20MM lower. Rear: US standard and US sport rear are the same. RoW standard is the same as well but RoW sport is 10MM lower. US Std (F 158MM R158MM) US Sport (F 158MM R158MM RoW Std (F 148MM R 158MM) RoW Sport (F 138MM 148MM) These are all in a PCA article that discusses the differences between them all. If anybody is interested in a copy of it just email me. CHeers, Dell

I would go with 5mm spacers up front. Along with the 15mm in rear, it gives the rear a more pronounced, wider look.

I did 5MM spacers all the way around (factory kit that has the 5 MM spacers (4) and the new bolts and locks). IMHO is perfect. I wouldn't want more in the rear. But, like tires, exhaust, etc, this is a personal preference.

Hey Lee... Love the look but...about 5 months ago I got pulled over up by Lewis and Clark Law school just going down Terwilliger into LO. The cop was real nice and really liked my car and reminded me that Oregon Vehicle Code 816.180b "reflectors" states: "forward side reflectors and intermediate side reflectors shall be amber". Being a rather argumentative law professor, I explained that the bulb was amber, thus complying with 816.190(2)(b), rendering the reflector amber in color with in the 'on' position meeting the intent of 816.180b. Like I said the cop was a nice guy, and told me he could cite me, so I could argue the case with the judge or I could just fix them back to amber. He also said that the cops know that side markers are being changed in all types of cars by their owners, so it is a pretty easy thing for them to spot... Anyway, love the look...nice car, man. Jim

Jim, is that an Oregon law? Funny that the law requires the lens to be amber. My other car (MB) side markers are clear with amber bulbs (factory installed not aftermarket nor an option). Obviously I am not in OR but I find it odd that they require the plastic to be amber. FYI....if they are calling them reflectors then they are incorrect becasue they are markers, reflectors "reflect" and I haven't see a car yet that reflects on it's side markers.

Did you fix them back to amber, or are you flouting the law? Occurs to me you could leave them on, but as I recall it's unlawful in OR to have your parking lights on during the day, too.

BTW, I'd be willing to go to court and advocate coverage under 816.190 as you suggested, making the case that it is a light, not a reflector. If I lost, I think they'd have to cite Sunset Imports under 816.030 then...(selling non-complying lighting equipment)

Hi Dell... Yes. Its Oregon law...Vehicle Code, ORS; Title 59; chapter 816 sections 180 thru and inclusive of 190. I don't believe there is any state in the union that is different as most vehicle codes are, in essence, very similar, though without knowing specifically each state's code, I cannot say for certain. It is my knowledge that when P/cars enter domestic US ports they are all equipped with reflectors which are amber in color so that no state is different. Further, the law (section 816.180(5) states that 'reflectors required to be mounted on the sides of the vehicle shall reflect the required color [amber] of light to the sides..." Theoretically, a police officer could site a P/car driver with not only an equipment violation of 816.180(1)(b), PO could also cite for violation of 816.180(5) if PO observed the lack of colored reflectance from the side marker. Here's a partial print out: ORS 816.180 816.180. Each of the following is a requirement for reflectors as indicated: (1) The following are the colors for the indicated type of reflector: (a) Rear reflectors and rearward side reflectors shall be red. (b) Forward side reflectors and intermediate side reflectors shall be amber. (2) The following types of reflectors shall be placed as indicated: (a) Rear reflectors shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle. If more than one rear reflector is required under ORS 816.320 and 816.330, there shall be at least one rear reflector on either side of the rear of the vehicle. On pole trailers, rear reflectors may be mounted on each side of the bolster or load. (b) Forward side reflectors shall be mounted on the side of the vehicle near the front of the vehicle. (c) Intermediate side reflectors shall be mounted on the side of the vehicle at or near the midpoint between the forward side reflectors and the rearward side reflectors. (d) Rearward side reflectors shall be mounted on the side of the vehicle near the rear of the vehicle. (3) Reflectors shall be mounted on a vehicle at a height not less than 15 inches and not more than 60 inches above the ground on which the vehicle stands. (4) Reflectors shall be of such size or characteristics and so mounted and maintained as to be readily visible at night within 500 feet to 50 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlights. (5) Reflectors required to be mounted on the sides of the vehicle shall reflect the required color of light to the sides and those mounted on the rear shall reflect the required color to the rear. Jim

Very interesting Jim, then it begs the question as to why MB is importing their cars with clear lenses and amber bulbs???

Now...would I ever flout the law? I admit nothing. I deny nothing. When I take a shower I don't even get wet. I used to be called Mr. Teflon, however, to answer your question directly the ambers are back. BTW, I don't know of any section of the VC that prohibits having your parking lights on during the day...but that doesn't mean that it isn't in the code...I could only find the following on parking lights... Maybe the next time you get stopped you could ask Officer Winky about it... Anyway... 816.130 Parking lights. Each of the following is a requirement for parking lights as indicated: (1) Parking lights shall be on the roadway side of the vehicle when a vehicle is parked or stopped upon a roadway or shoulder adjacent thereto. (2) Parking lights shall exhibit a white or amber light visible to the front of the vehicle and a red light visible to the rear of the vehicle. (3) Parking lights shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the front of the vehicle and from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of the vehicle. [1983 c.338 �458 (10); 1985 c.16 �240 (10); 1985 c.69 �1 (10); 1985 c.71 �4 (10); 1985 c.393 �13 (10); 1985 c.420 �6 (10)] Jim

Jim, I found this re the parking lights. "(2) Parking lights and lights other than clearance, identification and marker lights that are mounted on the front of a vehicle and are designed to be displayed primarily when the vehicle is parked shall not be lighted when a vehicle is driven upon a highway at times when limited visibility conditions exist except when: (a) The lights are being used as turn signals; or (b) The headlights are also lighted at the same time. (3) Any vehicle parked or stopped upon a roadway or shoulder adjacent thereto, whether attended or unattended, during times when limited visibility conditions exist must display parking lights." This says to me that you can't use parking lights in bad weather alone, you have to have headlights on or not at all....They have WAY too many traffic laws in this state IMHO.

Well, your arguement would have to rest on how a 'light' is defined and how 'reflector' is defined. But from a point of physics that should be child's play to define in the court's favor...but don't let me stop you... You raise an interesting point about Sunset, however. There is a specific section of the code titled: Providing Unlawful Equipment where, in a nutshell, it states that a person commits an offense if selling equipment that violates state equipment administrative rules (815.075). So, do you want to tell Jeff at Sunset or should I? LOL!!! Here ya go... PROVIDING UNLAWFUL EQUIPMENT 815.075 Selling vehicles or equipment that violates rules; exemptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of selling vehicles or equipment that violates state equipment administrative rules if the person sells or offers for sale any vehicle or sells or offers for sale for use upon a vehicle or uses on any vehicle any equipment if the vehicle or equipment: (a) Does not conform to standards established by the Department of Transportation by rule under ORS 815.030; and (b) Does not bear thereon proof of certification that it complies with the applicable standards. (2) Proof of certification required under this section may be made in any manner provided under ORS 815.030. (3) This section is subject to the following exemptions in addition to any exemptions under ORS 801.026: (a) Vehicles of special interest that are registered under ORS 805.020 are deemed to comply with this section if: (A) The vehicles are equipped with original manufacturer�s equipment and accessories, or their equivalent, and are maintained in safe operating order; or (B) The vehicles are street rods that conform to ORS 815.107. (b) Road machinery, road rollers, implements of husbandry, farm trailers and farm tractors are not subject to this section. (c) Antique vehicles are not subject to this section if the vehicles are maintained as collectors� items and used for exhibitions, parades, club activities and similar uses, but not used primarily for the transportation of persons or property. (4) The offense described under this section, selling vehicles or equipment that violates state equipment administrative rules, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 �450; 1985 c.16 �237; 1989 c.402 �6; 1995 c.79 �375; 1995 c.383 �23; 1997 c.402 �6]

I'd take that action..I just went down there with my Xenon flashlight. It is absolutely not a reflector, it is a lens. Go compare it to your reflector on the side of the taillight. The difference is clear. (no pun intended)...

Hi Dell... That is interesting. I'll be up a Rasmussen Mecedes in Portland on Friday...I'll check out the '05's and see what they come in with... You know, for all the hoopla about amber reflectors and amber lights, I think the cops have far better things to do then look for ridiculous minor issues like this. Thx... Jim

[QUOTE=leedav]Jim, I found this re the parking lights. "(2) Parking lights and lights other than clearance, identification and marker lights that are mounted on the front of a vehicle and are designed to be Kool Lee...what is the citation? I can't find it in the code. (see what you started)... Jim

811.515

Great pun Lee!! Well, you see, you just have to add this into the court mix. You simply stir the pot and let the paddle go. If the glove don't fit you must acquit!!! (my man Johnny!) Jim

LOL!

OK I see it... Thx Lee... I think what this means Lee is that when there is limited visibility you cant drive with JUST your parking lights. When you are parked along the roadside then parking lights would be OK A "reasonable person" would use headlights or a combination of headlights and parking lights when there is limited visibility such as when Mnt St. Helens blows her top, shortly after dusk or shortly before dawn. I don't read where it is unlawful to drive around with your parking lights on in any other condition such as daylight to perhaps dusk, or shortly aftter dawn because you could perhaps argue that visibility is greater than 'limited'. What about those stupid running lights? God I hated those things... Jim

Yup. I guess I misunderstood when I read the driver's manual when I arrived here in '97. I hate DRL's too. My company car has them. erk. I think you should look at the clear marker. It does not reflect at all. Put it back on and challenge the system (it won't make any points on your license, right?)! I am surprised they pulled you over just for that, too. Were there happy noises coming from the back of your car?

I was surprised too but I think why he pulled me over was because I went thru the round about twice. In other words going in circles. He was coming up Terwilliger from the LO side and saw me. He probably figured I was DUI. When I saw him look at me I decided I'd better exit the round about and head back down the hill. As far as I can tell I was breaking no code by staying in the round about and just going in circles when no one was waiting to enter. Just my luck that the person trying to get in was in a police car. When he approached the car he looked down at the front license plate and tags and then glanced at the side of my car and looked at the clear markers. Once he was certain I was "normal" and not wacked on booze or other substance he gave me a warning about the side reflector. Like I said earier...he was really pretty cool and wanted to know how the car handled in corners and stuff like that... Jim

Hey Dell... I was at the MB dealer downtown this afternoon. The side markers are amber on all the 2005 models that I was looking at. Are we speaking about the same thing...i.e., the little side reflector lites on the lower front fenders? Jim

Not sure. But, I will tell you this, I have absolutely nothing amber on my MB. I will snap a pic in the morning and post it so we can compare notes.

Maybe back in '00 there was no amber reflector requirement. That's the only thing I can think of.

Nope. I did a little checking to make sure I wasn't going crazy. Both mine and the newer ML's have the side reflector/turn signal in clear with an amber bulb as well as the front turn signal/reflector in clear with an amber bulb. Not a spec of amber plastic anywhere in the car. Very odd. Called my parents and their S500, SL500, and CLK 500 (all 2005 models) all have an amber side marke But their X5 (2005 model) has a clear side marker just like the ML. Maybe it is an SUV thing?

[QUOTE=LVDell]Nope. I did a little checking to make sure I wasn't going crazy. We were looking at the E320 sedan. Every car in the place plus in their lot were with amber reflectors. The SUV, if I recall correctly, did not have a stand alone side reflector. Rather it had an amber side lite in the one piece headlamp assembly. That is a nice piece of equipment... Maybe instead of an E320 I'll get my wife an Unimog with full trenching and drilling rig. I can see her now heading down I-5 in her best St. John's driving a Unimog...

That Unimog is one mean machine! FWIW, here is a pic of my ML front lights, they are clear with an amber bulb. That is the factory spec on all of them. Now I think I understand what you are getting at. My ML doesn't have a dedicated side marker. Just the turn signal on the fender and in the light housing both wiht amber bulbs.

Dell, The ML may not have a dedicated amber sidemarkers (little amber bubbles) but it does have sidemarkers -- they are integrated in the sideview mirrors. And those are clear with amber bulbs right? Or are the lights on the sideview mirrors just turn signals (i.e. they don't illuminate unless you have the turn indicator on). I think there are different regulations for sidemarkers vs. turn signals.

All this talk of Oregon state laws. My question is are these reflectors at all. I would consider them side marker lights. To me reflectors are passive and have no bulb but I'm sure someone will tell me that my perception is incorrect.

Only illuminate when a turn signal is "hot". Both the ones on the sides (fender/side mirror) and the one in the front headlight housing are like that (clear with an amber bulb). No amber plastic to found anywhere. Which begs the question......Is the ML not in compliance? And if it is, then why would it be unlawful to have clear side markers on the P-Car when others don't have anything to begin with?

maybe it varies by state.

I don't think that is the answer. Because then they would have to make diff equipped cars for diff states. I think it is a USDOT reg. Maybe it is (1) and SUV thing; or (2) only required IF you have a reflector installed. Still not sure I buy either of those rationales though, but somebody must have the answer.

I'm sticking with the "It's not a reflector" story until a judge tells me different. Worth a couple hundred bucks to me to argue it.

That's exactly what I would do. I mean, come on, it doesn't reflect a damn thing. It's just plastic (colored or clear) with a light behind it.

That's what I say. I would take the lens off and bring it to court.

All the new mb's have a reflector light/lens on lower front fender similar to the light/lens on the porsche.

Jim, but not the ML, just the cars. Which is what we have been trying to figure out.

I think you are right. All the ML's I have seen are somewhat like yours. The 'amber' light is a bulb in a snazzy one piece head light set.

Just another thought...and I don't know this for certain...but perhaps trucks don't fall within the regulation and I believe that the ML is classified as a truck...is that true? Jim

You are correct, classified as a light truck. Maybe that is the reason.

I knew 4 years of law school would come in handy some day. Do you think we beat this discussion to death? Should we thank Lee?

ROFLMAO. Lee, what was the original topic anyway

You're welcome. Consider me an amicus curae.

Illegitimis non carborundum!!

Soc et Tuem!

The reason for side markers is if the car's front turn signals aren't visible from the side. In the case of a Porsche, BMW, and others, you can only see the turn signal from the front. In the case of the ML, the turn signals can be seen from both the front and side since they're on the corner.

OK. I was wrr... I was wrrrr. .. I was WRONG. The 15mm spacers were too wide in the front. I lost a lot of steering travel. I have 6mm's on there now. PM me if you are interested in the (2) 15mm spacers and shiny bolts.