Trim between taillights - chrome or aluminum?

Isn't lighter better?

Yes, in general, but a bit more weight in the rear to compensate for the lump I have in the front that produces about an additional 75 HP doesn't seem like a bad idea to me (as if another 10 oz or so has any effect)!

But, biggest reason is that I just like the continuum of the chrome from edge to edge in the rear (and, like others, I think the change to Al was only to add a few more Deutsche Marks to the profit margin for BMW which had been struggling financially).

Gary-
 
Last edited:
But, biggest reason is that I just like the continuum of the chrome from edge to edge in the rear (and, like others, I think the change to Al was only to add a few more Deutsche Marks to the profit margin for BMW which had been struggling financially).
I am certain that the designers and the people responsible for creating the beautiful lines of our coupes wanted that material to be the same from the top of the driver's tail light to the tip of the passenger's side. No doubt it was a cost decision to switch the piece and result in a non-matching surface. True, it is a little bit lighter, but that was not the reason here. As for the weight difference, I can make that up by eating one less doughnut... :D
 
the thing to consider is the aluminum is more prone to denting that the chrome plated brass.
 
Ah Stephen - is it really worth eating ONE LESS doughnut??? That is a terribly high price to pay. I, like President GHW Bush, have given up eating broccoli instead! Lack of broccoli in the diet has not been proven to reduce your life expectancy.

Gary
 
Ah Stephen - is it really worth eating ONE LESS doughnut??? That is a terribly high price to pay.
I guess it depends on the doughnut and the day. :D Funny in that I just put my little tupperware of lunch away which is a container of mostly broccoli. I love the stuff! In hind sight I should have abstained today in honor of our 41st president.
 
I'm also wondering about it and I was expecting aluminum is never or replacement part.

It is true chromed brass suits the car and it is also true aluminum can be chromed.

In the end tail lights are not from bras but from zamac (Al+Zn+Si) as they are die-casted.

I have two ("Al" and "Cr"), both have the opening for a fog light (facelift). Does it mean the change was later, after integrated fog light introduction?
 
My late father sold decorative hardware to the furniture industry, and you are correct brass was either stamped, or sand cast...What we always called zinc die cast (what you call zamac) was, of course, less expensive. And much more brittle. The company he represented, made their big money on emblems, etc, in zamac for the auto industry in Detroit, etc., furniture hardware was their "cottage industry", with hand finishing, buffing, etc.

I always thought that the change Cr to Al on the panel, was in the transition from 2800cs to 3.0cs, with some leftovers maybe going on 3.0 cars. Same thing happened on the back pillar roundel backing piece, but not sure of the time frame there with any exactitude...
 
Here are both to show the difference. Aluminum is the top one I replaced it with a re-chromed brass which to me is a better aesthetic with the tail lights & bumper.

IMG_4660.jpeg
 
So the question seems to be still open - what was the difference? Which models were equipped with an aluminum and which with a brass parts as also facelift E9s panels were available in two variants?
 
Thanks @HB Chris . I thought someone can tell the model year. Parts have no markings except weight. I will try to figure out.
 
BMW catalog is helping only partially (telling by weight)... parts 11 and 13

1616619479967.png


1616619661840.png


To confirm that remark...

The brass part I have is coming from French and aluminum from German market E9.

Maybe it is because of the lack of fog light but I would not take too much attention to the drawings.
 
@HB Chris look on the weight of the parts which I have marked red. I not sure opening can take 400 grams out of part.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top