Are your headlight lenses getting cloudy?

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, C. E. White wrote:

> http://www.3m.com/us/auto_marine_aer...ir/index.jhtml
>
> I can't find any mention on the 3M website of a UV protectant film suitable
> for headlights.

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 .

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.3m.com/us/auto_marine_aer...ir/index.jhtml
>>
>>I can't find any mention on the 3M website of a UV protectant film suitable
>>for headlights.
>
>
> 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&pid=332). 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')

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.3m.com/us/auto_marine_aer...ir/index.jhtml
>>
>>I can't find any mention on the 3M website of a UV protectant film suitable
>>for headlights.
>
>
> 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 .

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')

You can find Meguia's Plastx (as well as their other products), 3M's plastic
cleaners & Mother's at AutoGeek.net
http://www.autogeek.net/vicotopmapr.html

I never tried Meguia's, is it better then Crest?

> 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.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, C. E. White wrote:
>
>> http://www.3m.com/us/auto_marine_aer...ir/index.jhtml
>>
>> I can't find any mention on the 3M website of a UV protectant film
>> suitable
>> for headlights.
>
> 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).
>

They used too. That is why I mentioned they had something. I was looking at
the solar window tint for houses, and looked at some of the auto stuff they
had there and I don't remember were the link was but it was for a computer
die-cut coating for headlights after re-finishing. And a customer could not
order it or buy it. It had to be installed by professionals that did window
tint and some other 3M stuff. there was a search function on the 3M site to
find authorized installers and there were only two in all of Arizona were I
lived.

I searched 3M today also and haven't found it. Probably got rid of it.
> 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 .
>
>

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Bill Putney wrote:

> > 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

Well, sure, but why not just go to the originating source?

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Bill Putney wrote:

> 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.

Correct on all counts. Applying the XPel is a great deal more hassle than
applying the Stongard junk, but worth the extra effort.

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

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Bill Putney wrote:

> 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.

Correct on all counts. Applying the XPel is a great deal more hassle than
applying the Stongard junk, but worth the extra effort.

"Rick" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

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

For some reason, the link, when seen on Google groups tacked my signature
"Rick" at the end of the link URL. Probably Google's way to save space. It
should end with /ivoq as in:
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/ .

> wrote in message
oups.com...
Rick wrote:
> 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.