Ever notice all the older Neons, minivans, Intrepids and some Fords on the
road suffering from opaque lenses? I even spotted an older Mercedes
developing the problem. It is unacceptable that we have to constantly buff
or replace cloudy, yellow polycarbonate plastic headlight lenses because
Chrysler and Ford were too cheap to specify a few cents worth of UV
protection in the plastic mix. Headlight performance on these cars was
mediocre when new. It is a downright hazard when cateracts set in.
If you are as mad as hell about this problem as I am, and want to tell
someone about it, click on the link below and let the NHTSA know that you
have trouble seeing road hazards and pedestrians while driving at night.
Demand a recall, an enforced new standard, and a permanent fix. Glass was
good.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq /
Rick
Your link does not work. Did you try it before you posted or is it only
good during daylight hours when headlights are not needed? Oh well,
time to buff my headlights. I think I'll start using very abrasive
toothpaste since most auto stores don't care the plastic stuff like
Meguiar's PlastX.
The link works fine.
And plain ordinary unsanded ceramic tile grout (mixed as a paste) also
works fine to polish the lenses.. and it's a helluva lot cheaper.
Of course, every time you polish or buff these lenses, what you're
doing is stripping away more and ever more of the anti-UV hardcoat,
which means the lenses then degrade faster and ever faster. :-(
3M has a plastic sheet laminate that is supposed to be placed on headlamps
after they have been polished by glass shops that sell 3M window tint. Not
all do, It is another product they can sell to customers that need headlight
polishing. And the clear plastic laminate(sticker) is cut to fit the model
of car. The laminate is supposed to be UV resistant, and has a two year
warranty.
If 3M is still even making that, they go out of their way to make it
difficult to find information on it or even a source for purchasing - at
least that is what I saw 3 years ago when I sought it out and actually
purchased it. Several months ago, I searched the www for adiitional
consumer info. and source for purchase, and found it even more
scare/difficult to locate - gave up.
Here's what I've come up with under a non-3M brand name:
http://www.autosportcatalog.com/index.cfm?fa=p&pid32
I wouldn't be surprised if the material is actually made by 3M, but I
have concluded that 3M is not interested in marketing such a product
under their own label.
My opinion is, rather than polish up a hazed headlight assy., replace
with new, and then install the X-Pels to extend the useable life of the
new headlights beyond the life of the vehicle. Worst case, the X-Pels
themselves may need replacing every coupla years due to UV damage, but I
don't know that to be true - but even if so, a lot cheaper to replace
them than the complete headlight assy.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
http://www.3m.com/us/auto_marine_aero/aad/solutions/lens-repair/index.jhtml
I can't find any mention on the 3M website of a UV protectant film suitable
for headlights. They specifically state that the paint protectant films are
not suitable for headlights. http://www.clearmask.com/headlight_v2.htm
claims they use a 3M film designed for the aerospace industry to make their
headlight protectors. I can't really find any info on this particualr film
on the 3M web site.
Ed
Because they don't make any such a film, though a lot of people *think*
they do because of a product called "StonGard" (with a cutesy umlaut over
the "a" to appeal to the toffs who think only the Germans make good
stuff).
3M supplied only the adhesive and the crack-n-peel backing paper for that
stuff. The adhesive and backing paper are fine. But the headlamp
"protection" film itself is garbage. It steals about 15% of the light
right out of the bag, and contrary to claims of lasting optical clarity,
it clouds up and turns yellow. But, 3M gets the blame because their name
is on the backing paper. 3M 3M 3M 3M 3M, in green ink all over the back of
the stuf.
If you feel a headlamp protection film is worth trying, use the stuff from
www.xpel.com .
The link that I gave in an earlier post in this thread was a source for
the X-Pels (here it is again:
http://www.autosportcatalog.com/index.cfm?fa=p&pid32 ). You're
supposed to read everything that I ever post, including looking at all
links! 8^)
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
I bought a set of the StonGards (hmmm - sounds like an athletic cup)
when I first got my Concorde 3-1/2 years ago. There was a choice of two
thicknesses. I bought the thicker ones thinking thicker is better. I
never put them on because they were so stiff, I didn't think the
adhesive would hold up (StonGards were flat, headlights were
contoured). I have a set of X-Pels - haven't put them on yet either -
but they are much thinner and pliable - I think an improved product over
the StonGard. Thinner also of course means less light blockage, both
initially and as they age.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
We shouldn't have to apply anything, period. I may be wrong, but I dont see
other makes of old cars, like Toyota, with this problem, only Ford and
Chrysler. Even GM seems to be immune. Why is that? Is it as preventable as I
suspected?
Rick
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Bill Putney wrote:
Correct on all counts. Applying the XPel is a great deal more hassle than
applying the Stongard junk, but worth the extra effort.
You must not be looking very hard. I see Toyota with yellow lens all the
time. SO's old Camry was terrible. I have a '92 F150 with some really nasty
looking headlights, but my other recent Fords seem to have held up just
fine. And even my '86 Sable had good looking headlight lens after 10 years
(traded it then), but the stupid light bar looked pretty bad. I have a
friend with an older Buick LeSabre ('91 I think) and it has some pretty
nasty looking lens as well.
I suspect some vehicles suffer more than others because of where and how
they are driven (because the outer coating is abraded off by grit). For
instance my F150 has spent a lot of time on dirt roads and dusty fields. I
assume that all this exposure to dust must have eroded the lens' surface -
I know the bumper looks like it was sand blasted in some areas (painted
steel bumper).
Ed
I guess the cloudy ones that really stand out are the Neons, must be because
they are positioned towards the sky more than other cars.
Rick
You must not be looking very hard. I see Toyota with yellow lens all the
time. SO's old Camry was terrible. I have a '92 F150 with some really nasty
looking headlights, but my other recent Fords seem to have held up just
fine. And even my '86 Sable had good looking headlight lens after 10 years
(traded it then), but the stupid light bar looked pretty bad. I have a
friend with an older Buick LeSabre ('91 I think) and it has some pretty
nasty looking lens as well.
I suspect some vehicles suffer more than others because of where and how
they are driven (because the outer coating is abraded off by grit). For
instance my F150 has spent a lot of time on dirt roads and dusty fields. I
assume that all this exposure to dust must have eroded the lens' surface -
I know the bumper looks like it was sand blasted in some areas (painted
steel bumper).
Ed
nasty
My wife's '89 Mitsu Galant has no yellowing or cloudy lenses at all. Why?
Because they use GLASS lenses. Nothing substitutes for glass when it come to
longevity.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION • FILM SCANNING • DVD MASTERING • AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
Unless a rock of just the right size hits it - you might get a tiny nick
in the plastic, the glass will break requiring replacement. 8^) I'm
guessing that glass would hold up slightly better against sand blasting,
but not sure about that.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
The facts are that the lights on the older Mitsu work MUCH better than those
on the newer Ford. That car has 300K miles on it, lots of which is highway
driving, but I keep a good distance between me and the next car in line, so
I didn't get to test the flying rock theory.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
Until a road rock comes along. *Krunch!* (Or lots and lots of little
pieces of road grit, which pit and "sandblast" the lens until it disperses
the light just as badly as a clouded-up plastic lens).
Hardened/toughened glass is where it's at...
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.