Are your headlight lenses getting cloudy?

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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

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

 

The Mercedes I saw was several years old and was developing a fog on the
lens. Perhaps it was water vapor inside, but definitely not as clear as
glass.
Some type of action is better than sitting on a stool on a Saturday
polishing your lenses with toothpaste so you or your partner can see at
night. Perhaps we should spread this link around to friends outside the
ng's. I suspect if enough complaints were received at the right places, they
would at least consider doing something. Who does NHTSA report to that we
can rattle?
Rick

snip...

Well...no. It is only very recently that Mercedes has used anything but
glass lenses. Don't think that glass-lens headlamps can't degrade, they
can. The degradation, though, is slower and less severe.
............

Good luck on that one. FMVSS 108 scarcely ever changes significantly.
The last time a change was made that could be considered major was
twenty-two years ago. And the last time a major change was made that
constituted a tougher, more stringent requirement for material
specifications and durability was exactly never ago.

What's more, the man who was in charge of FMVSS 108 for about a decade
retired a few months ago, nobody has replaced him, and the search for a
replacement is not being carried out with any urgency. And even when a
replacement is found, the position does not carry the authority to make
any changes to FMVSS 108 without proof that failure to make the change
can be directly and demonstrably linked to a large pile of dead bodies.
The
automakers have a great deal of veto power over auto safety regulations
in North America; all they have to do is say "You can't prove this
change
is necessary to save lives" and NHTSA is legally hamstrung. The system
is
broken; it will take a great deal more than a replacement 108-manager
to fix it. Congress would have to effectively dissolve NHTSA and
comprehensively rework the way auto safety regulations are devised and
written, and that's not going to happen.

Sealed beams were good. Their performance wasn't amazingly great, but
it was certainly adequate, and it was certainly better than that from a
great deal of the model-specific junk that has disgraced US-market cars
in the last
22 years. They were all one of four shapes/sizes, they were
inexpensively
available everywhere, they could be replaced and aimed with simple hand
tools, they were resistant to environmental factors, they were
resistant to idiots bearing blue and overwattage bulbs, and because
they were all standard-sized, old cars got constantly updated to the
newest headlamp
performance every time they replaced a burnout, and the sealed beams
could easily be replaced with European conversion lamps for those who
preferred (or were moving overseas).

DS

 

I am not particularly comfortable defending NHTSA, but don't you think that
the US fatality rate is difficult to compare to most of the countries that
have lower rates? Anybody that can rub two nickels together in the US has a
car, we have relatively lax inspection requirements, relatively lax driver
license requirements, and because of the lack of effective mass transit,
force almost everyone to drive whether they are competent drivers or not. I
suspect we lead the "rich" nations in the number of marginally competent
drivers on the roads. And while countries have probably surpassed us in
terms of safety requirements, I am old enough to remember imported cars
before NHTSA began implementing safety requirements. Before the 70's a few
imported cars were good (Volvo, Mercedes) and many were horrible (Fiat,
Austin, Honda). I think NHTSA got the ball rolling, so I do give them some
credit.

 

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/ .

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.

 

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

 

We lead the world in "drivers" on the road. I forget where I saw it but a
study
was done on vehicle ownership compared to income. In the US 75% of the
people making the median income own cars, in all countries in the rest of
the
world, only something like 50% of the people making the median income own
cars. As you might expect in all countries as income rises, a higher
percentage of
people own vehicles.

I think though that you are quite wrong on the issue of effective mass
transit.
In the city I live in, Portland OR back in the 60's the city literally
gutted and
destroyed Rose City Transit, which at that time was the bus system owner and
was a -private- company. Meaning they made a profit every year. The city
did this because it got overun by greenies who insisted that if the bus
system
was greatly expanded and lots and lots of more routes were put on line
(routes
that Rose City Transit refused to put online because they said nobody would
ride them and they would lose money) that people would rise up en-masse
and all give up their cars and ride the bus. Since that time PDX has dumped
literally hundreds of millions of taxpayer money into the public transit
system
and it's been 40 years now and all those additional routes are STILL running
at a loss. In fact the public transit system has totally restructured their
accounting
in such a way as to make it impossible to analyze their books and identify
the routes that waste the most taxpayer money. They can't hide the
ridership
though and you can get on any of the hundreds of lines and see virtually
empty
busses all day long. I could go on and on there's lots more that's even
worse of a waste, but suffice it to say that if you ever want to prove that
throwing money into a giant expansion of mass transit WON'T increase it's
use, come to Portland OR.

The reason the US has a lack of effective mass transit is that people DON'T
WANT IT. And I think it's obvious why that is. Use of mass transit simply
takes more time, simple as that. Whether your driving your car to a
park&ride
or waiting for a bus or being dropped off at the train station, it simply
takes
longer.

A relative of mine lives in Long Island and commutes to an office in
downtown
Manhattan every day. He drives. I've visited him and his home is a quarter
mile from a train station that goes to penn station and interconnects with
a subway that goes to a station that's 20 feet from the building door.
I've
taken that ride myself it practically carries you there, almost. Yet, even
-he- drives every day on the freeways which in NY are crowded. And the
NY mass transit system will knock ANY city in the US into a cocked hat.
If NY with the best damn mass transit system in the country has people
choosing crowded freeways instead of the mass transit system, you know
that mass transit is a failure as an automobile substitute in the US for
most
of the population. People don't like it, they don't want it, and most of
the
folks on the bus would take a private car like a shot if you gave them a
new one, and would never look back at the bus. It is simply a matter of
money - you are NEVER going to reduce auto ownership in the US
unless you make it so expensive that only the wealthy in the population
can afford it. People are not "forced" to drive, they WANT to drive.

OK so they got the ball rolling 30 years ago, but they have been
sitting on their ass since then. It would have been better if they had
never
got the ball rolling then maybe the death rate would have been so high
that an agency with real teeth might have come into being.

One of the big failures of the US society/civiliation/culture whatever you
want to call it, is that if the majority of people in the society want
something
that is bad for them, they will get it.

We have no problems with clamping down on bad things that minorities
want. For example smoking, when smokers became a minority the doctors
and health professionals were unchained and allowed to go do their work,
and every year have been making things nastier and nastier for smokers.
Eventually in another 50 years we will have it outlawed and the idiots
that want to kill themselves won't be able to do it with cigarettes anymore.

But when the majority wants something that is toxic, or more commonly
is propagandized into wanting something that is bad for the society,
there is nobody and no organization that will stand up and say NO.
You can point to item after item, from excessive alcohol consumption,
to excessive empty calorie consumption, to gambling, to lift kits on
trucks that jack them up into God's ass and make them completely
unstable, to blue bulbs in headlights, to 4 hours of television a night
that rots the brain - you name it. If the majority has been
propagandized into wanting something that's bad, they will get it.

Here is what the majority of people want in vehicle safety in the
US: Ass-covers. That's all. People want cars with interiors that
explode like the Stay Puff marshmallow man when they smack into
another car. But, they DO NOT want anything that will HELP TO
PREVENT smacking into that other car to begin with. They don't
want a cop at the corner writing tickets every day so people will
slow down, they don't want to be required to become more educated
drivers, they don't want a more rigorious driving test that might
cull out some morons from driving, they don't want to drive around with
their headlights on during the day, (although note that the majority has
had no problems forcing the minority of motorcycle riders to do this)
they don't want fewer cars on the road so there's less congestion, unless
of course you can give them an ironclad guarentee that THEY won't
be the ones taken off the road.

NHTSA has taken the easy way out. They have never gone on
record as being an agency that fights with the people they are regulating.
Look at just about any other regulatory body, the EPA fines people
all the time, the SEC fines people all the time, the RTC put a lot of
rich banks out of business, etc. And there's lots of people that don't
like that and have tried shutting down those agencies over the years.

But the NHTSA decided early on that they would go with the flow
and do exactly what the US population seems to want. Point to one
serious threat to the NHTSA's existence over the years. They have
never pissed off anyone important simply because they have never
tackled the difficult issues - like recalls such as the Wilderness AT
tires on the Ford Explorer, the NHTSA did not order that recall, Ford
did.

Ted

 

That's great logic.

So... if we all drive Volvo's, we've got a shot at being the best ranked in
fatalies per passenger mile?.

 

Where can I find that? Why? Because I dont believe it.

Only sites I can find that compare countries are in absolute numbers.


which - ahem- MEANS NOTHING!!!

 

Easy lad. Absolute numbers can be converted into rates. It's an extra
step. You need to find the number of people and do a simple long
division. You know, the math you learned as a 10 year old.

In fact, I'll bet a simple internet search using the magic word of
"rates" will get the math done for you. How's that? I'll do it for you
since you might not be that acquainted with inferential statistics or
actually here, not even inferential statistics, but simple usage of
numbers. Innumeracy, according to Paulos who writes a math column
nationally, is epidemic in the USA. Of course, now you'll write back
and tell me you do advanced calculus to amuse yourself in traffic jams.
If you do, I'm envious. I can't even remember how to do partial
differential equations.

Here you go:

TEN COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST ANNUAL MOTOR VEHICLE DEATH RATES,
MID-1990s
COUNTRY

DEATHS PER 100,000
(1) Portugal 24.9
(2) Greece 23.3
(3) Venezuela 22.3
(4) Russian Federation 22.3
(5) Slovenia 14.3
(6) Cuba 18.3
(7) Poland 18.3
(8) Mauritius 17.8
(9) Columbia 17.4
(10) Hungary 17.0


TEN COUNTRIES WITH THE LOWEST ANNUAL MOTOR VEHICLE DEATH RATES,
MID-1990s
COUNTRY
DEATHS PER 100,000
(1) Sweden 5.7
(2) Bahamas 6.1
(3) United Kingdom 6.2
(4) Norway 6.6
(5) Netherlands 7.7
(6) Finland 7.9
(7) Trinidad & Tobago 10.3
(8) Canada 10.4
(9) Israel 10.6
(10) Australia 10.6

Source: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

I'm amazed that Israel has a low death rate. That's a country under
lots of pressure from its neighbors for decades and they drive like
maniacs there. But it's interesting. Sweden has 1/5th the rate of
Portugal. Must be all those Volvos and the Swedes do a lot of brooding
and thinking. I'm making a joke here. There are serious factors
involved with Sweden such as a year in jail if you mess with an
autombile. Extremely serious penalties in Sweden.

 

What makes you draw that conclusion?

The Swedish traffic fatalities has come a long way. In the 70:s, when
I got my drivers license, there was around 1200 deaths in traffic
annually, on a population of less than 8 mil. Last year we had
slightly over 400 deaths on a pop of 9+ mil.

The Swedish DOT has made some serious attempts at getting the death
rates down, and it appears to be quite successful.

Contributing factors, from the top of my head:
---

Restrictive speed limits:
110(kph) on the motorways, 90 on good and wide country roads, 70 on
other country roads, 50 in cities, and 30 at schools.

This is being changed, and instead of 20 kph between limits, we will
have 10 kph intervals, with 120 kph on the best motorways.

Speed checks are quite lax though, although there is currently an
aggressive deployment of automatic speed cameras.


Restrictive alcohol limits:
We used to have two limits, 0.05%, which would make you loose your
license for a year, and 0.15%, which in addition sent you to jail for
a month.

This was changed to a single 0.02% limit, which sends you to jail for
a month or so and you'll loose your license for a year.

There is talk about mandating alco checks in all new vehicles from some
year, making the car unstartable if you're under influence. SAAB
presented an innovative and cheap idea where the alco check is built
into the starting key, and integrated with the now mandatory
immobilizer. You would have to blow into a mouth piece on the key to
have the cars immobilizer accept the key.


Daylight running light:
Yep, Sweden probably invented this, and we've had them since the early
70:s.


Rear facing baby seats:
Another Swedish idea AFAIK.


Mandatory seatbelts.
I don't understand how people can even think of driving without having
their belts fastened. It has become so natural that I don't even think
of it. I feel uncomfortable in a car (old cars not originally sold
with belts) that lacks belts.


Annual safety inspections:
New cars are safety and emissions tested semi-annually initially and
later annually.


Strict driver tests:
The license tests are very strict, and normally you would need
something like 20 one hour driving lessons before you even have a
chance of getting your license, at least here in Uppsala.

The driving license age is 18, but many years ago there was a change
so that you can begin practising with an approved teacher, like your
parents, from the age of 16. The reason was to increase the amount of
driving in ordinary traffic. A recent study has shown that little
benefit has been gained from this.


Fenced roads:
As Sweden is quite large, about the size of California, but with only
9 mil people, few roads are separate lane motorways. Starting a few
years ago many wide roads has been modified with wire fences between
the lanes, reducing the risk of head on crashes. Old two lane roads
were changed into three lane roads, where pieces are two lanes in one
direction and one lane in the other, and then altering this scheme
regularly. Although I personally hate these roads, they have provably
reduced the number of fatalities.


That said, I can only say that cars have also come a long way.

Last night my son totalled my 2001 Audi A6 in town. He was hit on the
rear right door in a crossing, with such force that the car spun around
180 degrees and hit a traffic light pole on the left side behind the
rear left door. It was a Volvo V40 that hit him, and the Volvo was a
bit flat in the nose, but otherwise OK. The side impact protection on
the rear right door on the Audi could easily be seen on the outside,
and it had not yielded anything, leaving the passenger compartment
completely intact. The side air bags on both front seats had
deployed. The rear end had totally collapsed from hitting the curbs
and the body was sitting on the ground, with botn rear wheels only
hanging to the body with the parking brake cables and brake lines.

My son told me that immediately after the impact all lights went out,
but they came back after just a moment, and the warning flasher was
then on, and he said that the car had enabled those by itself.

It must have been quite a crash as that smallish Volvo had flung the
two ton Audi around and the Audi was on top of the the traffic light
pole, which was laying flat on the ground. The tow truch had to pull
it off the pole, with the cars body sliding on the road, with no rear
wheels.

Both drivers were OK and although the fire brigade and ambulance came,
there was no need for anyone to go to the hospital. The firebrigade
swept the crossing from the broken glass of the rear window and rear
left window of the Audi.

I'm not so sure that my son would have been so lucky had he been
driving the 1993 Golf we also have.

Thomas (who will have to find a new car),
Uppsala,
Sweden

 

Amusing retort! Thanks for the internet and math lessons, I must'a
missed those concepts in my 25 years on-line, and 35 as an engineer.

But EHHHHHH! you're wrong! It's not deaths per capita that count,
either.

The reason I say absolute numbers mean nothing is because of sites like
this:
http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm
to wit:
United States - The death toll on our highways makes driving the number
one cause of death and injury for young people ages 5 to 27. Highway
crashes cause 94 percent of all transportation fatalities and 99 percent
of all transportation injuries, yet traffic safety programs receive only
one percent of the funding of the U.S. DOT budget. The staggering loss of
life and the incidence of life-threatening injuries occurring each year
is best described as a public health crisis.
- - - -- -
Implication: The highway death toll is rising and nearing crisis. Of
course they dont SAY that, because they know it's not true... so in the
spirit of all good liberal cause pushers' we will ignore the inconvenient
facts.
Never mind that the death toll on the highways seems to hold in the
45,000 range NOW compared to about 55,000 in the mid-twentieth century,
when there was about half the driving population, and, I wager, fewer
miles driven per driver per year, THEN compared to now.

Safer cars, Highways, DUI enforcement are of course the difference;
making up for more congestion. But in the spirit of THEIR argument I
might push the lower death rate per gal fuel used.

The TRUE indicator is not deaths per capita, or deaths per driver and
CERTAINLY not absolute numbers... it's deaths per occupant/mile

Well, not actually,,,it SHOULD be driver deaths per mile driven per annum
and passengers shouldnt count. That would be the only RELATIVELY (seat
belt and restraint usage being the odd card) true indicator of how safe
one country's drivers are compared to another's. But I bet you cant find
that broken out.

Check out the chart HERE:
http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/184/97-355.html

Which compares the UK, US and UAE (United Arab Emirates)

Note that per mile driven and per vehicle the US and UK are close in
rate, yet in per capita terms, the US is about 60% higher.

I would take that to mean that the number of drivers, per capita, in US
is 60% higher than in the UK.

Interesting note: Check out the occupancy in the three countries.

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

 

The car manufacturers apparently. 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I just checked some Swedish statistics, and from the following diagram:

http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____43109.asp
(unfortunately only available in Swedish)
it seems that we had 175 deaths per 100000 cars per year in
1950. 1967, when we switched from LHD to RHD the rate was down to 50,
and it seems we were down to around 20 in 2000.

Thomas

 

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

And it seems that in pretty much all *other* forms of gov't, when some
elite few decide that the people should have something that is bad for
them, they will get it. Flawed as it may seem, I'll take ours as long
as it doesn't evolve into the other.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')