 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / December 2005Inferior windshield glass
What's the deal with the crappy glass now being supplied for front windshield glass? I've got maybe 30-40K miles on a new windshield and it's already so pitted from random road debri that it requires replacment. I remember owning 20 year old US made tuna-boats that had a couple hundred thousand miles on them before the front windshield was so badly pitted it needed replacement. Remember LOF (Libby-Owens-Ford) tempered glass? Is that the problem? Not using tempered glass? My tempered motorcycle glasses are not all pitted and I've had them for years. This really pisses me off. Four to six hundred bucks every three or four years for soft glass that is easily pitted. Is this some sort of self perpetuating glass scam by the windshield replacement industry? I'm beginning to think it is. Is there any after market glass suppliers out there marketing quality tempered glass or is eveyone in on it? nb > What's the deal with the crappy glass now being supplied for front > windshield glass? Blame the governments for caving in to the selfish demands of the enviro-nuts. Ditto for the cheap quality paints. It's not just Honda; it's most, if not all, manufacturers. > Blame the governments for caving in to the selfish demands of the > enviro-nuts. Ditto for the cheap quality paints. No, you blame them. I'll not buy into alleged conspiracies what can be much more attributable to simple greed. nb >> Blame the governments for caving in to the selfish demands of the >> enviro-nuts. Ditto for the cheap quality paints. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > nb I've heard a lot about cheap paint and glass on newer Hondas, Toyotas, Mazdas, Crapslers, Fords, VW's, you name it. These new cheap quality glass and paints are more environmentally friendly than what they used to make. Unfortunately, the increase in environmental friendliness tends to come at the expense of quality. Similarly, the increase in the use of hard interior plastics (which tends to cause squeaks and rattles in some cars regardless of make) is also in large part the result of environmental and safety regulations. Because it costs a lot of money to implement all these modern safety regulations (ABS, VSC, air bags all over the place), hard plastics are a means of offsetting the extra cost so that the customer doesn't have to pay a whole lot more. Not to mention that the hard plastics being used are allegedly more environmentally friendly than the old softer plastics of the past. So again I say, blame the governments for caving in to the enviro-nuts' demands. It's not a conspiracy theory at all. > I've heard a lot about cheap paint and glass on newer Hondas, Toyotas, > Mazdas, Crapslers, Fords, VW's, you name it. These new cheap quality > glass and paints are more environmentally friendly than what they used to > make. Unfortunately, the increase in environmental friendliness tends to > come at the expense of quality. Uh-huh. Our roads, woods, lakes, oceans, etc, are flooded with the largest armada of environmentally hostile machinery to be seen in half a century and you would have us believe manufacturers are at the mercy of environmentalist? Good one! What parallel universe are you living in? A 10mpg Ford Incursion with half an acre of dead animal skin seats and electric Kleenex warmers is the victim and the only way it can justify that $45-60K price tag is to give the customer paint that won't make it to the end of the week. You funny! :D nb <snip> > So again I say, blame the governments for caving in to the enviro-nuts' > demands. It's not a conspiracy theory at all. Would you undo all the regs back to '67 levels, or regress a little further and lose seat belts as well? I recall vividly the Car & Driver review of the Ford Pantera circa 1970 describing its interior as "safety by Gillette", i.e., raw sheet metal covered by foam rubber & cloth. US federal regs had kicked in a couple of years earlier, but Pantera was a low volume producer and exempt from them IIRC. Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? Yes the glass is very soft and the paint not very sturdy - have to quit tailgating on roads covered with crap or get pitted glass and dings in your paint. >>What's the deal with the crappy glass now being supplied for front >>windshield glass? > > Blame the governments for caving in to the selfish demands of the > enviro-nuts. Ditto for the cheap quality paints. enviro-nuts? cheap paint? government cave-in? eh? dude, it's tempered vs. laminated - end of story! if you think trying to break tempered glass with a soft blunt object [your head] in the event of a crash is a good idea, go ahead and retrofit your car with tempered - all i need is your personal details so i can nominate you for a darwin award after you, er, qualify. > It's not just Honda; it's most, if not all, manufacturers. > dude, it's tempered vs. laminated - end of story! if you think trying > to break tempered glass with a soft blunt object [your head] in the > event of a crash is a good idea..... Dude ...please tell us why tempered glass can't be laminated. My machinist safety glasses are tempered and will not shatter into little fly-into-your-eye pieces. Care to explain? nb >>dude, it's tempered vs. laminated - end of story! if you think trying >>to break tempered glass with a soft blunt object [your head] in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > nb it could, but it's not safe to do so. tempered glass is very strong - it batters brains because it doesn't break unless point stress exceeds a certain level. heads are too soft and too big to raise point stress before severe injury is done. the glass elements in laminated are weak in comparison so the result doesn't batter brains - it breaks before the skull usually does. and the laminated portion keeps the shards stuck together to reduce laceration of what the impact doesn't damage. > it could, but it's not safe to do so. tempered glass is very strong - > it batters brains because it doesn't break unless point stress exceeds a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > skull usually does. and the laminated portion keeps the shards stuck > together to reduce laceration of what the impact doesn't damage. It was my impression that was the point behind seat belts, air bags, safety cages, crush zones, etc, etc. Silly me. nb >>it could, but it's not safe to do so. tempered glass is very strong - >>it batters brains because it doesn't break unless point stress exceeds a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > nb Ah but you Americans don't always wear your safety belts, and then you might sue Honda for increased injury from the nasty HARD gless you bash your head on. So it's soft glass for all. >>>it could, but it's not safe to do so. tempered glass is very strong - >>>it batters brains because it doesn't break unless point stress exceeds a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >might sue Honda for increased injury from the nasty HARD gless you bash >your head on. So it's soft glass for all. I thought with all new cars and certainly Hondas they had automatic seat belts. (At least for the front seat passengers.) So there isn't much need for laminated glass. Now the rear passengers are a different matter, but a passenger that gets thrown from the rear of the car through the front window isn't likely to survive regardless of if the front window is laminated or tempered. > I thought with all new cars and certainly Hondas they had automatic > seat belts. (At least for the front seat passengers.) So there isn't > much need for laminated glass. Now the rear passengers are a different > matter, but a passenger that gets thrown from the rear of the car > through the front window isn't likely to survive regardless of if the > front window is laminated or tempered. I haven't seen automatic seatbelts in a number of years. Reminders yes, auto-belts, no. >>What's the deal with the crappy glass now being supplied for front >>windshield glass? > > Blame the governments for caving in to the selfish demands of the > enviro-nuts. Could you elaborate on this please (not challenging you, BTW, just curious). > Could you elaborate on this please (not challenging you, BTW, just curious). I was too, but passed on asking for details figuring the author one of those right wing zealots who blames liberals for everything from high tides to male pattern baldness. nb >> Blame the governments for caving in to the selfish demands of the >> enviro-nuts. > > Could you elaborate on this please (not challenging you, BTW, just curious). Firstly, I stood corrected as it pertained to inferior glass in many cars today (see other posts in this thread). However, stricter emissions regulations, crappy paints, and hard interior plastics can be attributed to environmental nuts getting their wishes granted by the governments. As for you and "notbob" suggesting that I am an extreme right winger who blames the left for everything wrong, that is not the case. Unlike many folks who choose to have a political leader do their thinking for them, I don't take political sides; I think for myself. However, one of the few things that I do agree with the right wingers about is the environment; IMO, the concept of global warming has been blown way out of proportion. > As for you and "notbob" suggesting that I am an extreme right winger... > IMO, the concept of global warming has been blown way out of proportion. Yeah, but you managed to work it in there, didn't you! ;) nb > IMO, the concept of global warming has been blown way out of proportion. i dont think so, especially judging from last hurricane season. time will tell if this indicates a trend, or is just a fluke. regardless- i read somewhere that it would take a 50% reduction in the crap we are spewing into the atmosphere just to make a difference. and that aint gonna happen. no way, no how. india and china are doing lots of heavy manufacturing and polluting, and theres no stopping em, even if we stopped. so basically, were just going to see what happens, and deal with it. so in a way i agree with you... maybe our govt *should* ease up a bit, since we arent really "steering the ship" anyway. banning 2-stroke engines in the USA seems kinda harsh. >> IMO, the concept of global warming has been blown way out of >> proportion. > > i dont think so, especially judging from last hurricane season. time > will tell if this indicates a trend, or is just a fluke. My theory is that it is merely the result of long-term weather patterns. The U.S. had seen many hurricanes of Katrina magnitude prior to this year, but not since the 1960s if not before. Where I live, the only unusual, catastrophic weather event we have seen in the last 30 years was a 3-day ice storm (freezing rain) in early 1998. Prior to this, the last time had been in the 1940s. >>>IMO, the concept of global warming has been blown way out of >>>proportion. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ice storm (freezing rain) in early 1998. Prior to this, the last time had > been in the 1940s. Katrina, freezing rain in '88, etc., are just anecdotal evidence and have nothing to do with the science of long term weather patterns. >> My theory is that it is merely the result of long-term weather patterns. >> The U.S. had seen many hurricanes of Katrina magnitude prior to this year, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Katrina, freezing rain in '88, etc., are just anecdotal evidence and > have nothing to do with the science of long term weather patterns. And there is no solid evidence that global warming caused them either. > >> IMO, the concept of global warming has been blown way out of > >> proportion. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ice storm (freezing rain) in early 1998. Prior to this, the last time had > been in the 1940s. The previous (recorded) busiest hurricane season was 1933. Considering that no satellite and other modern detection means existed then, there is a good possibility that several short-lived storms went undetected. Also, the means of measurement for intensity were far more primitive as compared to today's equipment. Certainly, no one can deny that this was not a good year weatherwise, but it is far too early to associated the phenomenon with any single given cause. BTW, all modern glass in modern cars is far inferior to what it was only forty years ago. Gone are the (nearly) 1/4 inch glass that was standard back in those days... JT > > IMO, the concept of global warming has been blown way out of proportion. > > i dont think so, especially judging from last hurricane season. time > will tell if this indicates a trend, or is just a fluke. Most climatoligists don't agree and feel that the recent increase in hurricane activity is simply cyclical. You have to be careful to differentiate between hysteria, bad science and reality. > regardless- i read somewhere that it would take a 50% reduction in the > crap we are spewing into the atmosphere just to make a difference. and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > since we arent really "steering the ship" anyway. banning 2-stroke > engines in the USA seems kinda harsh. Again, global warming and cooling have been cyclical well before any sort of recorded history. Preventative measures such as those proposed by Kyoto etc. will do little if anything to prevent the coming cycle. You're right in stating that we just simply have to plan to deal with it. JT (Once burned by bad science and never again!) >>>Blame the governments for caving in to the selfish demands of the >>>enviro-nuts. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > folks who choose to have a political leader do their thinking for them, I > don't take political sides; I think for myself. Of course you do, HTM, sure, babe, yup, right ... Where you buying your windshield glass? I had mine replaced at my convenience at home for $221 a month or so ago. Safelite. Others here have posted recently they have got new glass for under $200. > Four to six hundred bucks every three or > four years for soft glass that is easily pitted. Is this some sort of > self perpetuating glass scam by the windshield replacement industry? > Where you buying your windshield glass? > > I had mine replaced at my convenience at home for $221 a > month or so ago. Safelite. Others here have posted recently > they have got new glass for under $200. SHHH! His local auto glass suppliers have a good thing going, Elle. ;) > What's the deal with the crappy glass now being supplied for front > windshield glass? I've got maybe 30-40K miles on a new windshield and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > suppliers out there marketing quality tempered glass or is eveyone in > on it? I think they are shooting for cheaper glass along with the benefits of lighter weight. I still see cars from the '50s and '60s that have original glass that looks very nice. I did notice that Ford and GM went to thin glass first, when my Dodge truck still have pretty thick glass. Not sure if DC has yet gone to using the thin glass like Ford and GM have. I think a lot of it has to do with how the projectiles hit the glass and just dumb luck. Northern roads are a pain in the winter with all the gravel, etc. that they put down on the pavement to improve traction. My Honda has suffered a small rock chip after traveling those northern roads for two years, whereas my wife's trailblazer got 2 nice rock chips in the windshield in the first month she was here (and her windshield sits up a lot higher than mine). I also hit a turkey at 75mph, but he hit right where the windshield meets the roofline, and no damage was done to the Honda. One thing I tried on my Dakota's windshield (after 160k miles, it's glass was starting to get a little scratchy) was using Mother's Mag & Aluminum polish (get it at auto stores like PepBoys, Carquest, etc.). I'd rub it on the glass (toothpaste might work in lieu of polish), along with copious amounts of water, then wet-sand it with 1500-grit sandpaper. It really made the glass sparkle and left it clear enough that you could hardly tell it was there... -- '02 Accord LX Coupe >>What's the deal with the crappy glass now being supplied for front >>windshield glass? I've got maybe 30-40K miles on a new windshield and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > the glass sparkle and left it clear enough that you could hardly tell it was > there... So you're one of those pinko-commie-fag-types who'd rather *do* something about it than just vent in Usenet? What a freak! <vbg> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.