Windshield dings

Depending on where you live, and if you have comprehensive insurance, inurance companies will replace the windshield at no cost to you.

Jeff

Up here, in Alberta, in makes no financial sense to have your glass insurance cover the windshielf for flying objects. One would have to claim a new windshield about every 14 months to make it pay. Do that too often, and either your premiums would go sky high or your coverage would be cancelled. Best deal here is to have Comprehensive insurance with a high deductible, say $500, and an endorsement not covering the windshield for flying objects. Since insurance is a provincial or state matter, your own situation will differ, maybe greatly.

and

something

In news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, John being of bellicose mind posted:

The 'problem' is the flying debris in your driving area. How in the heck can you hold Toyota responsible for road debris? Nearly all auto glass comes from one source in America and it's all soft and cracks easily.

--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM

Consider yourself lucky. I have a 97 and I'm on my third. Each time, it was a little rock strike, near an edge. Leaving a tiny chip, but later growing into a monster crack. The 2 replacement shields were both of different manufacturers, but each seems easily chipped. Unlike any other car I've ever owned. I think it's the low rake of the front hood, and the way it bounces asteroids up and into the shield. Oh, and quit tailgating too. Big difference.

mb

--------------

John wrote:

Pilkington-Libby-Owens-Ford supplies autoglass to every car manufacturer in America.

PPG ... another OEM supplier of autoglass to every maufacturer in America.

Doesn't matter who you get glass from ... same (soft, cheap) stuff.

GOOD point you made about tailgating rock tossing trucks. Don't do it!

--

- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM

In news: snipped-for-privacy@sonic.net, MB being of bellicose mind posted:

I should have said the old Ford Glass brand was Carlite, not Safelite.......

Safelite is yet another windshield manufacturer. See

. A better page for Carlite is .

Ed

"C. E. White" wrote:

Thanks for all the info!

In case I'm planning to replace the whole windshield, which manufacturer/brand should I look for?

John

Safelite.......

was

Anything to do with FORD and you pop right up out of the abyss.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com, C. E. White being of bellicose mind posted:

It's all the same soft, optically inferior crap. Just get a recognizable name.

--

- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM

In news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, John being of bellicose mind posted:

I just knew that at one time Ford was one of the largest producers of glass in the US (if not the largest). I figured your list of windshield manufacturers was not complete without them (or Visteon, since Ford spun off that buisness a few years ago). There was a time when Ford was the most integrated auto comapny in the world - right down to having a fleet of ore boats to deliver the ore to their blast furnaces.

When you say all of today's windshield glass is soft, optically inferior crap - what are you comparing today's windshields to? As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think that today's glass is any softer than glass made 10 years ago or 1000 years ago. What am I missing? The optical quality would seem to be more a function of the forming process and I would guess this was influenced by the required shape. I believe these is more of a "pitting" problem with vehicles with an aerodynamic front end compared to a blont front end design. Other than that, I can't figure out why today's windshields would be any more vulnerable to damage than ones from the 60's, 70's, or 80's.

Ed

I feel perhaps we are forgetting the increase in traffic on the roads today hence greater chance of being hit by flying debris.

Count the number of 18 wheelers you see in a mile stretch of freeway and think back to say just 15 years ago. Thats a lot of stone and junk flying from those 53' speedwagons.

And add to this factor cars today last much longer than years ago. 200,000 miles on the family dumpster was unheard of back then. Rare was the case when they lasted that long.

Perhaps the glass manufacturers have not kept up with progress if we wish to call it that.

Just another thought Mike

In news: snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com, C. E. White being of bellicose mind posted:

Then you are genuinely ignorant (sorry, but that's the word and not meaning it in a provocative manner) of what autoglass has become since the late 1970's. Case in point, my 'new' 2003 Corolla ALREADY has more sand damage in 36k miles to its surface than my ol '72 Chrysler did in 150k miles. You should have seen my ol Prizm's windshield at 285k miles / 13 yrs. That thing facing into an afternoon sun was approaching opaque.

Next time you're in traffic, pull up alongside any late model car and look through their windshield from your low angle. See all the ripples and distortions in the scenery beyond? Mercedes or Hyundai ... considerable optical distortions Now find an older car ... early 70's and older. No where near the distortion and in those days, windshields often had more compound curvatures too.

--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM

In news:Wxs_b.120543$ snipped-for-privacy@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com , Artfulcodger being of bellicose mind posted:

You're taking coincidences and attempting to rationalize and answer. Why not include more pitted windshields with drivers who eat carrots or burritos?

Autoglass that is light, shatters a certain way on impact, is easily shaped (soft), and cheaper is what replaced the harder, thicker, more curvaceous glasses of 30+ years ago. "Progess" starts with producing for less cost, better profit.

--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM

But why do you think today's glass is softer. Maybe I am ignorant, but you must have a reason for this belief. The composition of glass is a complicated combination of ingredients that are balanced to achieve a certain combination of hardness, transmissibility, cost, weight, strength, etc. The cost of the raw materials used to make glass is trivial compared to the cost of the finished product. So I am wondering why glass would now be made "softer" than in the past - I doubt it is to save money on ingredients, at least not directly - maybe it is a function of other changes that save cost. I am pretty sure today's glass is thinner (to save weight), but I am not sure this would automatically require it to be softer. I do have two examples of "old" glass that is very pitted (1972 Dodge truck, 1957 Chevrolet truck) and one new vehicle with a windshield that is not pitted at all (2003 Saturn with about

10,000 miles). I have owned two Expedition recently, and both had windshields that pitted relatively quickly. On the other hand the Mustang I just traded off had very few pits after 40,000 miles. Likewise my Father's Ranger has very few pits after 5 years and 50,000 miles. My Mother Grand Marquis is also virtually it free. For that matter so is my Sisters 7 year old Civic and my SO's Grand Voyager with 130,000 miles. I really don't think the composition of glass varies so much among these vehicles. I do think the geometry of the vehicle and the resultant air flow over the vehicles is significantly different. I have to believe this plays some part in the difference. It might also be the driving conditions. The Expedition then to spend a lot of time under two conditions that might increase pitting - high speed driving on the open road (65+ mph for hours at a time) and lower speed driving on gravel roads and dusty fields.

Well nothing is worse than my 1972 Dodge truck as far as distortion is concerned. I'll try looking at a Mercedes the next time I have a chance. The windshields on my current three vehicles all seem pretty good as far as distortion is concerned. I am unhappy with the pitting of the Expedition's windshield.

Ed

everyone drives crazy running up behind dump trucks with gravel frying off the rear. when i see one of these things i back off get away from it. things happen but the way you drive has alot to do with it. try driving 70 in a 65 zone and people fly passed u like you are standing still. where is everyone going n such a hurry. am retired now but good god they are crazy. any coments?

For starters, keep to the right, unless you are going faster than ALL other traffic on the road.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net, Dave Ddd being of bellicose mind posted:

Retiree here. People with kids to feed, rent, and a long way to go with a short time to get there ... drive fast. It's fun to drive fast too. Have you noticed? I hope you park in the outter most lane. As we say in the trucking business: "If ya can't run with the big dogs, stay out of the hammer lane!"

--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM