This might be a silly question, but I'm curious if my 64' Dynamic 88 should have both the parking lights and head lights on when I have the switch pulled out for headlights. On most cars it adds the head lights to the already on parking light circuit, but I noticed my parking lights go out when my head lights turn on. Is this correct or do I have some investigating to do? If this is the way the car should be operating, how can I go about tying the circuits together so I have both sets of lights on at the same time?

 

I suspect you aren't old enough to have seen these cars when new.

The park lights weren't federally required to stay on with the headlights until the 1967 model year. Earlier cars turn them off. The headlight switches are different from 66 to 67 as a result.

 

Hmmmm, my 67 Cutlass parking lights go out with the headlights on...

 

Yes, you are correct. I should have said 1968 model year and up. I was too lazy to walk over and check my 1967 CSM...

 

Nailed it. I'm only 30 years old. I've owned a few other older vehicles, but this 64' has my last one beat by a couple of years. I wonder if a later switch will swap in?

 

The way I remember it is that the '68 m/y was also when side marker lights became mandatory. No side markers = no parking lights on at the same time as headlights, at least with the GM and FoMoCo cars I've owned, though I'm most familiar with GM's way of doing things.

I considered doing this modification to a '67 Ford I owned, but never got around to it. When I was considering it, I was told that the easiest and cleanest way to do it would be to jump the parking lamp wire to the tail light "running light" circuit, quick and easy. Never got around to doing it myself but pretty straightforward. Of course the turn signal wires would be left untouched.

 

You have to change the switch and connector and mod the harness.

 

Sounds like a good winter project. My last car was a 68' Ford which had some of the mandatory safety upgrades and I wasn't sure if this was the way my 64' was supposed to be. I drive the car enough that I want to be seen at night so this will be a good change to make.

 

My question would be, why bother? I actually like driving a car that's old enough for the park lights to be off when the headlights are on.

 

Same here, it's grown on me as a novelty.

For what it's worth, I think side markers would add a lot more to a car's visibility than the parking lamps right near the big bright headlights. Personally though, I haven't noticed any difference between driving cars with or without the full marker light/running lamp setup at night (and most of my driving is at night). This is part of why I wound up leaving my Ford alone.

For me, the best way to avoid accidents with airheads has been vigilant driving, can't count on them to even have their eyes on the road these days so extra lights don't seem to make a lick of difference. Especially if they're ruining their sensitivity by glancing down at a bright cell phone screen.

Your car, your choice, but if visibility is a concern I'd be way more focused on figuring out a way to add side markers to the car. On balance, it doesn't seem worth cutting up sheet metal or messing with the wiring harness since everything's working, but that's me.

Good luck with whatever you decide!

 

Amen! This used to be called "defensive driving" back when I learned to drive. Always anticipate the worst-possible move the other drivers will make, and plan an escape route. Too much emphasis today is placed on safety equipment to survive an accident, but it's much, MUCH better to avoid one in the first place.

Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do about the texting bonehead who rearends you in traffic. The one concession I've made on my 67 D88 is a CHMSL (third brake light). Much as I hate them, I figure any chance of preventing a rear-end collision in stop-and-go traffic here in NoVA is worth it, since I suspect any such accident will result in the car being totalled. I do plan for the D88 to be a daily driver.

 

I haven't pulled my switch apart yet, but it might be as easy as moving a pin on the car side connector at the switch. The 64' switch looks like it has the same body as this one for a 68-up chevelle. http://www.chevelles.com/forums/27-e...itch-info.html

 

Yes, it should work.

 

In looking at the 64 wiring diagram, this is correct. Simply remove the white wire that feeds the front park lights from the connector and splice it into the black wire that feeds the tail lights. Done.

 

Wait'll he tries to figure out the glovebox, underhood and trunk lamps if car is so equipped!

I don't see the value in changing the car over to later style. Parklamps on a 1964 Olds (and I feel qualified to comment, owning two of them) aren't big enough to make any difference in nighttime visibility. If some knucklehead can't see the car's headlamps, said knucklehead is certainly not going to see the parklamps. JMHO.

 

I agree, Glenn, which is pretty much what I said up above, but the OP seems determined to do this.

Kind of reminds me of the folks who cut the divider bar out of their 63 split window Vettes to make them look like newer models...