'54 Conestoga Tail Lights

[Pat Dilling]

Are the tail lights assemblies and lenses for the Conestoga unique to the Conestoga or are they the same as sedans? As I have looked on EBay and elsewhere, all the lenses that say they are for a '54 Sedan have one screw at the top and two screws at the bottom, one in each corner. My Conestoga has a screw at the top and one in the center the bottom. I am attaching a picture to show what the Conestoga lens looks like. This is not my car by the way, just a picture I have that shows what I am talking about. I have a picture of a '56 Pelham wagon that looks similar but can't tell if it is the same. Thanks for any help.

[woodysrods]

Hi Pat
Contact Allan Barth "Oltrknt" he is your man!
Good Roads
Brian

[clonelark]

My 55 Conestoga also has the screw in the lower center. I always thought they were the same as 54 Sedans. They are the same physical size. New one on me Pat. If they are different then Conestoga lenses are super rare NOS.

[Noxnabaker]

I've gotta -55 sedan & it has one in the center at the top & two at either side at the bottom.

[RadioRoy]

The parts books tell the story:

The 54 station wagons have the same tail light lenses and housings as the 54 sedans.

the 55 station wagon uses the 54 sedan/wagon tail light lenses and housings.

The 55 sedans have different lenses and housings than the 55 station wagons and 54 sedans/wagons.

The 56 wagon uses different lenses and different housings than the 56 sedans or 55 or 54.

The station wagon and sedan housings are different from side to side, but the same lenses fit both sides.

In other words, you can look at it this way:
54 sedans/wagons and 55 wagons are one type
55 sedans are a second type
56 wagons are a third type
56 sedans are a fourth type
53 sedans are different than any of the above, and there were no wagons in 53

this has nothing to do with C/K types

A great number of eBay sellers subscribe to the "don't know Jack, and don't know that they don't know Jack" club. So don't trust them to tell you what is correct.

SO in general I say, we should stop being such stubborn CASOs! Go out and buy the friggin' parts books!!

One mistake in the parts acquisition process can far outweigh the cost of the books in both time and money.

And, we might learn something in the process.

[Pat Dilling]

Thank you very much for the info Roy. This forum is a great source of information.

[studeclunker]

Thank you very much for the info Roy. This forum is a great source of information.

Boy, you can say that again Pat!!

[RadioRoy]

Thank you very much for the info Roy. This forum is a great source of information.

So... while I rail on everyone to get the parts books and educate themselves, I end up dissuading them by providing the information for them, right? In other words, by giving them a fish, they continue to not learn how to fish. Ugh!

[unclemiltie]

I have a fairly complete set of parts manuals from the 1920 through the end. I use them quite often to determine what a part fits. Not only can you tell what a part fits, but you can also use them to determine how something goes back together due to your memory failing to remember how you took it apart. I like the paper ones rather than the CD versions as I can lay them there side by side.

The parts number in the back is probably 95% correct---thus just cause a part is not in the back does not mean it is not in the book.

[RadioRoy]

I use them quite often to determine what a part fits. Not only can you tell what a part fits, but you can also use them to determine how something goes back together due to your memory failing to remember how you took it apart.

My point exactly. Thank you.