There’s been a lot of activity at all the local Taillight Community gathering spots, the bars, workshops, bath houses, abattoirs, gyms, studios and other taillight culture staples, and not all of it has been good. Rumors of DOT raids cracking down on allegedly illegal taillight lumen output and color temperature have put everyone on edge, and even what would normally be considered normal taillight-related discussion has taken on ominous tones. There’s just something in the air.
That’s the only way I can explain why a discussion of a change in taillight design of the legendary Toyota Land Cruiser 70, specifically the fourth major facelifted version, released in late 2023. This machine has been out for quite a while now, and I’m not clear why it’s only now I’m encountering people so invested in its taillight decisions, but holy crap, I’m encountering them.
A whole group took over the banquet room at the Crimson Candela just to discuss these taillights, which were being said to be an example of “taillight erasure,” which struck me as odd, because the Land Cruiser 70 still has taillights. So what is everyone on about?
Just so we are all on the same page, here’s what the taillights on these Land Cruisers look like:
Okay, so at first glance, we just seem to be working with a pair of likely parts-bin, simple rectangular tri-color taillights, inset into the bumper. They’re not particularly inspired, but they get the job done, and remain visible even if the doors are open and aren’t obscured by the large externally-mounted spare tire. They’re a bit vulnerable to impacts, being on the bumper, but they’re also likely fairly inexpensive. Look – here’s one for just $10!
But wait; something’s not right here. What’s going on that corner? Specifically, here:
See that strange corner panel with the weird louvers? Why does that look so familiar, yet strange? Wait – could it be? No! But it seems to be – look, look at this:
Holy crap. So, for reasons I’m deeply unclear about, the older setup, which included taillights mounted at the corners, have now been replaced with those odd body-colored corner caps? With weird, superfluous louvers, even, to, what, vent out all of that former taillight bulb-area air?
What was the thinking here? The old Land Cruiser 70 had bumper-mounted lights as well, incorporating what I suspect are redundant stop/tail/and turn signals, I suppose because the corner units may be obscured if the doors are open? The reverse lamp isn’t required to be visible at all times, so it’s fine only existing on the corner lamp. But maybe it’s to improve taillight visibility in situations like this:
Was this just cost-cutting on Toyota’s part? Why bother with redundant bumper lamp units when you could really just only have the bumper-mounted taillights? I mean, I suppose that makes a sort of cold, rational sense, but the act of replacing a substantial taillight unit – one that once carried, it seems, all functions (though I can’t quite discern if there is an amber turn signal area)–with a blanking panel feels, I don’t know, wrong somehow.
Let’s look at two similar pictures of the Land Cruiser 70 with the corner-mounted taillights and without. First with:
…and now without:
I mean, you can see why the word “erasure” is being thrown around. It’s weird.
I was trying to think of other examples of this – where a car had its existing, integrated taillights blanked out with some sort of body-colored cover and replaced with more tacked-on-looking units, and all I could think of immediately was how old Volkswagen Type 2 Microbuses were adapted to railroad work:
See what I mean there? The actual lights are blanked out. But on a mainstream production car? I can’t think of an example. I mean, a number of Euro-spec cars have blanked out side marker lamps in some silly ways, like these:
…but a full taillight blanked out? I’m drawing a, you know, blank.
Maybe I’m not thinking of something here, and if so, I’m hoping you’ll school me in the comments.
Until then, I think we may be looking at something strange and unique in taillight history; a taillight forcibly removed and relocated to a bumper, with its original dwelling place covered, guiltily, with a body-colored panel.
It’s sort of unsettling. No wonder everyone is acting so weird.
(Thanks for the tip, Dmanww!)
Maybe there can be a campaign to let them return as an option?
*REAR QUARTER 70 SERIES IMAGES FLASH, FORLORN VOICE NARRATES*
“Right now, newborn taillights across the world are being forced from their homes, left orphaned on parts shelves as cruel austerity measures transform the places they once shone brightly into barren, slashed-open voids… merely for the sake of marginal profits. For just pennies a day…”
Somewhat related: the rear lights on the US-spec BMW Isetta were relocated and the original position taken by the upper ends of tubular bumpers.
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/03/take-a-trip-back-in-time-with-this-cute-1959-bmw-isetta/
Oh buddy, I covered this the first month we were alive! https://www.theautopian.com/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-bmw-isetta-taillights-and-wipers-to-join-the-exclusive-taillight-community/
I’m surprised you haven’t heard of this prank before. Usually when any new person comes into Butt Light (A local Toronto taillight bar that only serves non-alcoholic beer) for the first time, someone will sneak out the back with a screwdriver and these panels and blank out their taillights.
If they realize this has happened and complain, they just get teased for having bought the base model of their vehicle without the taillight package.
The new Lexus GX has something similar designed right in. I don’t understand it, I spend way too much time asking “why” when I see it.
https://www.topgear.com/sites/default/files/2024/03/2Lexus-GX-US-review-2024.jpg
The louvers almost make it more unsettling. They still draw your eye to the cover as if there’s going to be a light there, but no! Just body-color steel!
Thanks for ruining my day, Torch.
It’ll be all right. Have a Mazda.
I bet these photos are mostly from Australia. Australia uses something called ADR to govern vehicle lighting. One of the ADR requirements is that the taillights must be visible from 45 degrees off axis.
With the lights mounted in the quarter panels and the tailgate-mounted spare tire, the lights can no longer be seen off-axis. So manufacturers were essentially forced to put the taillights in the bumper. Some manufacturers left the existing taillights in place, but that was more expensive than designing blanking covers.
Seems to me the cheapest solution would be to not offer an external spare tire mount in that one market.
In some markets the 70-series had kind of a hybrid tail light where only portions were blocked off.
https://www.thedrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/70-Series-Land-Cruiser-cabrio-rear-quarter.jpeg
What the hell is that. Reminds me Easter is around the corner.
Bumper mounted tail lamps should be outlawed. They always sit way too low and can be difficult to see in certain situations. Plus, if you get into a fender bender, you’re now replacing a light assembly in addition to your bumper.
ITS A CONSPIRACY: TAILLAMP CANCEL CULTURE!
It’s affecting the left and the right!
But the center is above the fray.
En-light-ened centrists, if you will.
The Daihatsu Fourtrack/Sportrack did the same thing in the 90’s. May have been something to do with lighting regs in europe
Not taillight, but front signal lights on Canadian Minis were relocated because they would have been obscured by the larger, higher Canadian-spec bumper. Can kind of see it in this picture, but they just tack-welded a blanking plate over the hole in the fender under the headlight.
https://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/1977_austin_mini-1000_1000068036-49077.jpg?fit=956%2C943
Where the signal light moved to varied from year to year.
…look, I’ve seen plenty of Corvette taillight rollpans, but this feels like the lazy, mass-produced version of that. I guess it makes sense with this being for emerging markets and being a really, really old design with a specific level of durability and repairability (especially important!) required. It’s cheaper to make blanking plates than new stampings, or molds for taillights.
This doesn’t make it any less unsettling. Even to someone outside the taillight community like me.
A less extreme example, but on certain versions of the Holden VE Commodore, the original triangular tail lights are replaced with lower-mounted half pill-shaped lights, with the space left over filled in with a body-colored panel.
Saved them $50/truck. Probably some law changed somewhere that was requiring both. But the taillights being obscured when the doors are open is surely why the bumper lights were required.
I agree the blanking plates look terrible.